text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/615

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4089

by contract, to contribute 50 percent of the cost for such study during the period of such study. Not more than one-half of such nonFederal contribution may be made by the provision of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind services necessary to prepare the feasibility report. (2) This subsection shall not apply to any water resources study primarily designed for the purposes of navigational improvements in the nature of dams, locks, and channels on the Nation's system of inland waterways. (b) PLANNING AND ENGINEERING.—The Secretary shall not initiate Contracts, any planning or engineering authorized by this Act for a water resources project until appropriate non-Federal interests agree, by contract, to contribute 50 percent of the cost of the planning and engineering during the period of the planning and engineering. (c) DESIGN.—Costs of design of a water resources project shall be shared in the same percentage as the purposes of such project. SEC. 106. RATE OF INTEREST.

Whenever a non-Federal interest is required or elects to repay an amount under this Act over a period of time, the amount to be repaid shall include interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the average market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with remaining periods to maturity comparable to the reimbursement period, during the month preceding the fiscal year in which costs for the construction of the project are first incurred (or in the case of recalculation the fiscal year in which the recalculation is made), plus a premium of one-eighth of one percentage point for transaction costs; except that such rates for hydroelectric power shall be in accordance with existing law. SEC. 107. LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN REPORTS.

33 USC 2216.

jiss^a-: •>>.

33 USC 2217.

If any provision in any report designated by this Act recommends that a State contribute in cash 5 percent of the construction costs allocated to non-vendible project purposes and 10 percent of the construction costs allocated to vendible project purposes, such provision shall not apply to the project recommended in such report. SEC. 108. GENERAL APPLICABILITY OF COST SHARING.

33 USC 2218.

Unless otherwise specified, the cost sharing provisions of this title shall apply to all projects in this Act. The Federal share of any cost of a project authorized by this Act for which cost a Federal share is not established in this title, shall be the share of such cost otherwise provided by law. SEC. 109. DEFINITIONS.

33 USC 2219.

For purposes of this title, terms shall have the meanings given by section 214 of this Act. TITLE II—HARBOR DEVELOPMENT SEC. 201. DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR PROJECTS.

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION —The following projects for harbors are authorized to be prosecuted by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions

Harbor Development and Navigation Improvement Act of 1986.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/616

 100 STAT. 4090

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

recommended in the respective reports designated in this subsection, except as otherwise provided in this subsection: MOBILE HARBOR, ALABAMA

.330./->j£^

The project for navigation. Mobile Harbor, Alabama: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 18, 1981, at a total cost of $451,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $255,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $196,000,000; except that if non-Federal interests construct a bulk material transshipment facility in lower Mobile Bay, the Secretary, upon request of such non-Federal interests, may limit construction of such project from the Gulf of Mexico to such facility and except that, for reasons of environmental quality, dredged material from such project shall be disposed of in open water in the Gulf of Mexico in accordance with all provisions of Federal law. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no dredged or fill material shall be disposed of in the Brookley disposal area, referred to in such report of the Chief of Engineers, , MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, GULF TO BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA

16 USC 668aa.

The project for navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 9, 1983, at a total cost of $471,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $178,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $293,000,000. Nothing in this paragraph and such report shall be construed to affect the requirements of Public Law 89-669, as amended. TEXAS CITY CHANNEL, TEXAS

,TISS ^>81T

The project for navigation, Galveston Bay Area, Texas City Channel, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 11, 1986, at a total cost of $200,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $130,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $70,000,000. NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA

Fish and fishing. Wildlife.

Mil>: ';>aij

aDClS

The project for navigation, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 20, 1981, at a total cost of $551,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $256,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $295,000,000, including such modifications as the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate for mitigation of any damage to fish and wildlife resources resulting from construction, operation, and maintenance of each segment of the proposed project. The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, shall study the effects that construction, operation, and maintenance of each segment of the proposed project will have on fish and wildlife resources and the need for mitigation of any damage to such resources resulting from such construction, operation, and maintenance. (b)

AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO FAVORABLE

REPORT.—The following projects are authorized to be prosecuted by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the respective reports cited, with such modifications as are recommended by the Chief of Enginee and approved by the Secretary, and with such other modifications s

�

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/617

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4091

are recommended by the Secretary. If no report is cited for a project, the project 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 ^ c r e t a r y, and no construction on such project may be initiated until such a report is issued and approved by the Secretary.

>w

LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH HARBORS, SAN PEDRO BAY, CAUFORNIA

The project for deepening of the entry channel to the harbor of Los Angeles, California, to a depth of 70 feet and for deepening of the entry channel to the harbor of Long Beach, California, to a depth of 76 feet, including the creation of 800 acres of land with the dredged material from the project, as Phase I of the San Pedro Bay development, at a total cost of $620,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $310,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $310,000,000. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

The project for deepening of the Ambrose Channel feature of the navigation project. New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, to a depth of 55 feet and widening such channel to 770 feet, and for deepening of the Anchorage channel feature of such navigation project to a depth of 55 feet and widening such channel to 660 feet, at a total cost of $326,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $156,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $170,000,000. Disposal of beach quality sand from construction, operation, and maintenance of such features of such project shall take place at the ocean front on Staten Island, New York, and Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach, New Jersey, at full Federal expense. No disposal of dredged material from construction, operation, and maintenance of such features of such project shall take place at Bowery Bay, Flushing Bay, Powell's Cove, Little Bay, or Little Neck Bay, Queens, New York. SEC. 202. GENERAL CARGO AND SHALLOW HARBOR PROJECTS.

Reports.

(a) AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSTRUCTION.—The following projects for

harbors are authorized to be prosecuted by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the respective reports designated in this subsection, except as otherwise provided in this subsection: KODIAK HARBOR, ALASKA • ' • '..

The project for navigation, Kodiak Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 7, 1976, at a total cost of $15,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $13,400,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,600,000. ST. PAUL ISLAND, ALASKA

The project for navigation, St. Paul Island Harbor, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 10, 1983, at a total cost of $24,800,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $11,800,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $13,000,000.

t

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/618

 100 STAT. 4092

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986 OAKLAND OUTER HARBOR, CALIFORNIA

Fish and fishing. The project for navigation, Oakland Outer Harbor, California: Wildlife. Reports of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 7, 1980, and July 1, 1983, at a total cost of $45,900,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $30,100,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $15,800,000. The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, shall study alternative dredged material disposal plans, including but not limited to plans which include marsh formation. The Secretary is authorized to undertake and monitor the effects of such dredged material disposal mesisures, including but not limited to such measures as will result in fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, as the Secretary determines are necessary and appropriate. The cost of any measures required for construction of the project to protect the Bay Area Rapid Transit facilities shall be undertaken by non-Federal interests and shall be credited toward the 10 percent pa3mtient required for such project under section 101(a)(2). '^^f\\r

t*?-;

OAKLAND INNER HARBOR, CALIFORNIA

The project for navigation, Oakland Inner Harbor, California, Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 21, 1986, at a total cost of $28,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $17,100,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $11,000,000. The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, shall study the existence of, and possible adverse effects of project dredging on, any underground freshwater aquifer in the project area. RICHMOND HARBOR, CAUFORNIA

The project for navigation, Richmond Harbor, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 8, 1982, at a total cost of $43,800,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $26,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $17,300,000.

SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CAUFORNIA

The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 20, 1981, at a total cost of $125,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $76,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $49,000,000. jqs NEW HAVEN HARBOR, CONNECTICUT

Fish and fishing.

The project for navigation. New Haven Harbor, Connecticut: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 26, 1982, with such modifications as the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to mitigate adverse effects of construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project on oyster beds and the production of oysters in New Haven Harbor, at a total cost of $26,500,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $19,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,500,000. The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, shall study the effects that construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project will have on oyster beds and the production of oysters in New Haven Harbor. Not later than one year

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/619

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4093

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of such study. PALM BEACH HARBOR, FLORIOA

The project for navigation. Palm Beach Harbor, Florida: Report of the Chief of Enqgineers, dated December 10, 1985, to assume maintenance, at an annual cost of $86,000. md:>

MANATEE HARBOR, FLORIDA

The project for navigation. Manatee Harbor, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated M ^ 12, 1980, at a total cost of $16,400,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $9,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $6,900,000, including such modi- ^: sfi »fiv nfei;;! shiMiW fications as the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to mitigate the adverse effects of construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on the benthic environment of the area to be dredged. The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, shall study the eifects that construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed proiect will have on the benthic environment of the area to be dredged. Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Worfo of the Senate a report on the results of such study. The Secretary shall monitor the effects of construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on the benthic environment of the dredged area. TAMPA HARBOR, EAST BAY CHANNEL, FLORIDA

The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, East Bay Channel, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 25, 1979, at an average annual cost of $471,000. The Secretary shall monitor the effects of construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on water quality and the environment. aeiD

SAVANNAH HARBOR, GEORGIA

The project for navigation. Savannah Harbor Widening, Geoi^a: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 19, 1978, at a total cost of $14,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $7,100,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,600,000. HILO HARBOR, HAWAII

The project for navigation, Hilo Harbor, Hawaii: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 4, 1984, at a total cost of $4,880,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $3,380,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,500,000. GRAND HAVEN HARBOR, MICHIGAN

The project for navigation, modifications to Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated October 9, 1979, at

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/620

 100 STAT. 4094

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

a total cost of $17,600,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $10,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,300,000. MONROE HARBOR, MICHIGAN

The project for navigation, Monroe Harbor, Michigan: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 25, 1981, at a total cost of $142,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $55,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $86,500,000, including, for reasons of environmental quality, the formation of a 700 acre marsh in Plum Creek Bay, as described in the report of the District Engineer, Detroit District, dated February 1980, as revised December 15, 1980. DULUTH-SUPERIOR, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN

Fish and fishing. (1) The project for navigation, Duluth-Superior, Minnesota and Wildlife. Wisconsin: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 16, 1984, at a total cost of $12,500,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $6,710,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,790,000, including such modifications as the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to mitigate losses of fish and wildlife habitat and productivity. The Secretary shall study, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, the need for measures to mitigate losses of fish and wildlife habitat and productivity. Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of such study. (2) The Secretary shall also study, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and taking into consideration existing plans, studies, and reports, whether it would be more cost-effective and environmentally sound to control future sedimentation than to conduct periodic maintenance dredging of such project. Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of such study, along with recommendations for implementing measures to control sedimentation if such measures prove to be more cost-effective and environmentally sound. PASCAGOULA HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI t

The project for navigation, Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 14, 1986, at a total cost of $59,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $35,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $23,600,000. ^

GULFPORT HARBOR, MISSISSIPPI

The project for navigation, Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi: Report of the Chief of Engineers, House Document Numbered 96-18, at a total cost of $81,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $61,100,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $20,600,000; except that, for reasons of environmental quality, dredged material from such project shall be disposed of in open water in the Gulf of

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/621

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4095

Mexico in accordance with all provisions of Federal law. For the purpose of economic evaluation of this project the benefits from such open water disposal shall be deemed to be at least equal to the costs of such disposal. ^

PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE

^

The project for navigation, Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, New Hampshire: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 25, 1985, at a total cost of $22,200,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $16,700,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,500,000, including such modifications as the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to assure that adequate disposal sites are available for construction, operation, and maintenance of such project. The Secretary, in consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies, shall study the adequacy of potential disposal sites necessary for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of such study. •*

GOWANUS CREEK CHANNEL, NEW YORK

-^ The project for navigation, Gowanus Creek Channel, New York: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 14, 1982, at a total cost of $3,310,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $1,540,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,770,000. Notwithstanding section 101 of this Act, the non-Federal share of the cost of such project shall be determined in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers. KILL VAN KULL, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

' The project for navigation, Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels, New York and New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 14, 1981, at a total cost of $325,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $167,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $158,000,000. WILMINGTON HARBOR-NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER, NORTH CAROUNA

The project for navigation, Wilmington Harbor-Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 16, 1980, at a total cost of $10,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $8,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,700,000. CLEVELAND HARBOR, OHIO

The project for harbor modification, Cleveland Harbor, Ohio, including bulkheading and other necessary repairs at pier 34 and approach channels and necessary protective structures for mooring basins for transient vessels in the area south of pier 34. The existing dredged material containment site known as site 14 may be used for the containment of excavated material from construction of the project, at a total cost of not to exceed $36,000,000, with an esti-

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/622

 100 STAT. 4096

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

mated first Federal cost of $27,000,000 and an estimated first nonFederal cost of $9,000,000. LORAIN HARBOR, OHIO

,;;•

'

^^

The project for navigation, Lorain Harbor, Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 5, 1985, at a total cost of $5,690,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $3,740,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,950,000. CHARLESTON HARBOR, SOUTH CAROLINA

The project for navigation, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 27, 1981, including construction of an extension of the harbor navigation channel in the Wando River to the State port authority's Wando River terminal. Report of the Chief of Engineers, at a total cost of $88,500,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $58,200,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $30,300,000. -i-^

BRAZOS ISLAND HARBOR, TEXAS—BROWNSVILLE CHANNEL

The project for navigation, Brazos Island Harbor, Texas—Brownsville Channel: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 20, 1979, at a total cost of $31,900,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $22,700,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $9,200,000. The Secretary shall study, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, the need for additional measures to mitigate losses of estuarine habitat and productivity associated with the project. The Secretary is authorized to undertake measures which the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to mitigate such losses. BLAIR AND SITCUM WATERWAYS, TACOMA HARBOR, WASHINGTON

The project for navigation, Blair and Sitcum Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Wsishington: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 8, 1977, House Document Numbered 96-26, at a total cost of $38,200,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $26,200,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $12,000,000; except that a permanent bypass road for the Blair Waterway may be constructed in lieu of construction of the East 11th Street bridge replacement recommended in such report if (1) the Secretary determines that construction of the bypass road is economically and environmentally feasible, (2) construction of the b3T)ass road is approved by the Governor of the State of Washington, and (3) the b3rpass road is approved through adoption of resolutions by both the Tacoma City Council and the Tacoma Port Commission. If the bypass road is constructed in lieu of the bridge replacement project, the Federal share of the cost of construction of the bypass road shall not exceed an amount equal to the amount which would have been the Federal share of the cost of the bridge replacement project if the bridge replacement project had been carried out in accordance with such report. GRAYS HARBOR, WASHINGTON

The project for navigation. Grays Harbor, Washington: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 4, 1985, at a total cost of

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/623

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4097

$95,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $63,100,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $32,600,000. EAST, WEST, AND DUWAMISH WATERWAYS, WASHINGTON

The project for navigation. East, West, and Duwamish Waterways, Navigation Improvement Study, Seattle Harbor, Washington: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 31, 1985, at a total cost of $60,200,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $30,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $29,900,000. SAIPAN HARBOR, COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

The project for navigation and harbor modification, Saipan Harbor, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Report of the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to Public Law 96-597, pre- 48 USC 1662 pared by the Army Corps of Engineers dated July 22, 1981, at a total "ote. cost of $14,000,000. SAN JUAN HARBOR, PUERTO RICO

The project for navigation, San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 23, 1982, at a total cost of $72,300,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $52,700,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $19,600,000, including the acquisition of 22 acres of land for mitigation of the loss of algal beds associated with the project, as recommended in the report of the District Engineer, Jacksonville, Florida, entitled "Phase I: General Design Memorandum on San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico". CROWN BAY CHANNEL—ST. THOMAS HARBOR, VIRGIN ISLANDS

The project for navigation. Crown Bay Channel—St. Thomas Harbor, Virgin Islands: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 9, 1982, at a total cost of $8,290,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $2,920,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,370,000. The Secretary shall monitor the turbidity associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the project and establish a program to maintain, to the extent feasible, such turbidity at a level which will not damage adjacent ecosystems. In selecting a configuration for the disposal area for dredged material from the project, the Secretary shall consider configurations which will minimize, to the extent feasible, the loss of shallow water habitat. (b)

AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO FAVORABLE

REPORT.—The following projects are authorized to be prosecuted by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the respective reports cited, with such modifications as are recommended by the Chief of Engineers and approved by the Secretary, and with such other modifications as are recommended by the Secretary. If no report is cited for a project, the project 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, and no construction on such project may be initiated until such a report is issued and approved by the Secretary.

^'C'UU)aiJ:i

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/624

 100 STAT. 4098

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

miB

'!'j'if\j'^ii.

FRESH KILLS IN CARTERET, NEW JERSEY

The project for navigation. Fresh Kills in Carteret, New Jersey, which project consists of extending the Arthur Kill Channel at a depth of 40 feet to the Fresh Kills in Carteret, New Jersey, and easing of such bends as the Secretary determines are necessary to enhance navigation, at a total cost of $26,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $19,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $6,500,000. ARTHUR KILL, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

>ai

The project for navigation, Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey, Report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, dated March 31, 1986, at a total cost of $42,600,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $27,500,000 and an estimated first nonFederal cost of $15,100,000. At such time as construction may be initiated in accordance with the terms of this subsection, the project shall be included in and joined with the Kill van KuU and Newark Bay Channel, New York and New Jersey project under subsection (a) of this section. NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

The project for (1) an access channel 45 feet deep below mean low water and generally 450 feet wide with suitable bends and turning areas to extend from deep water in the Anchorage Channel, New York Harbor, westward approximately 12,000 feet along the southern boundary of the Port Jersey peninsula to the head of navigation in Jersey City, New Jersey, at a total cost of $29,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $21,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $8,700,000; and (2) for a channel 42 feet deep below mean low water and generally 300 feet wide with suitable bends and turning areas to extend from deep water in the Anchorage Channel westward approximately 11,000 feet to the head of navigation in Claremont Terminal Channel, at a total cost of $16,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $11,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $4,700,000. No disposal of dredged material from construction, operation, and maintenance of such project shall take place at Bowery Bay, Flushing Bay, Powell's Cove, Little Bay, or Little Neck Bay, Queens, New York. (c) PRE-CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary

is au-

thorized to carry out planning, engineering, and design for the following project for a harbor: • •<

«ai

LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

The project for deepening of the project for navigation. Lake Charles, Louisiana, to a depth of 45 feet, at a total cost of $1,070,000. 33 USC 2231.

SEC. 203. STUDIES OF PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.

(a) SUBMISSION TO SECRETARY.—A non-Federal interest may on its

own undertake a feasibility study of a proposed harbor or inland harbor project and submit it to the Secretary. To assist non-Federal interests, the Secretary shall, as soon as practicable, promulgate guidelines for studies of harbors or inland harbors to provide sufficient information for the formulation of studies.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/625

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4099

(b) REVIEW BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall review each study submitted under subsection (a) for the purpose of determining whether or not such study and the process under which such study was developed comply with Federal laws and regulations applicable to feasibility studies of navigation projects for harbors or inland harbors. (c) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days after receiving any study submitted under subsection (a), the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress, in writing, the results of such review and any recommendations the Secretary may have concerning the project described in such plan and design. (d) CREDIT AND REIMBURSEMENT.—If a project for which a study has been submitted under subsection (a) is authorized by any provision of Federal law enacted after the date of such submission, the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of such project an amount equal to the portion of the cost of developing such study that would be the responsibility of the United States if such study were developed by the Secretary. SEC. 204. CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.

(a) AUTHORITY.—In addition to projects undertaken pursuant to sections 201 and 202 of this title, any non-Federal interest is authorized to undertake navigational improvements in harbors or inland harbors of the United States, subject to obtaining any permits required pursuant to Federal and State laws in advance of the actual construction of such improvements. (b) STUDIES AND ENGINEERING.—When requested by an appropriate non-Federal interest the Secretary is authorized to undertake all necessary studies and engineering for any construction to be undertaken under the terms of subsection (a) of this section, and provide technical assistance in obtaining all necessary permits, if the non-Federal interest contracts with the Secretary to furnish the United States funds for such studies and engineering during the period that they are conducted. (c) COMPLETION OF STUDIES.—The Secretary is authorized to complete and transmit to the appropriate non-Federal interest any study for improvements to harbors or inland harbors of the United States which were initiated prior to the date of enactment of this Act, or, upon the request of such non-Federal interest, to terminate such study and transmit such partially completed study to the nonFederal interest. Studies under this subsection shall be completed without regard to the requirements of subsection (b) of this section. (d) AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT IMPROVEMENT.—Any non-Federal interest which has requested and received from the Secretary pursuant to subsection Qy) or (c) of this section, the completed study and engineering for an improvement to a harbor or an inland harbor, or separable element thereof, for the purpose of constructing such improvement and for which improvement a final environmental impact statement has been filed, shall be authorized to carry out the terms of the plan for such improvement. Any plan of improvement proposed to be implemented in accordance with this subsection shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements for obtaining the appropriate permits required under the Secretary's authority and such permits shall be granted subject to the non-Federal interest's acceptance of the terms and conditions of such permits: Provided, That the Secretary determines that the applicable regulatory criteria and procedures have been satisfied. The Secretary shall monitor any project

^ ri,•;: 33 USC 2232.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/626

 100 STAT. 4100

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

for which permits are granted under this subsection in order to ensure that such project is constructed (and, in those cases where such activities will not be the responsibility of the Secretary, operated and maintained) in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permits,

Contracts.

f:''?feiJi'

(e) REIMBURSEMENT.— (1) GENERAL RULE.—Subject to the e n a c t m e n t of appropriation Acts, the Secretary is authorized to r e i m b u r s e any non-Federal interest a n a m o u n t equal to the estimate of Federal share, without interest, of the cost of any authorized h a r b o r or inland h a r b o r improvement, or separable element thereof, constructed ,^ under the term s of this section if— ,, (A) after authorization of the project and before initiation , of construction of the project or separable element— (i) the Secretary approves the plans of construction of < V r such project by such non-Federal interest, and ..-;, (ii) such non-Federal interest enter s into a n agreem e n t to pay the non-Federal share, if any, of the cost of operation and m a i n t e n a n c e of such project; and

. -> (B) lY^Q Secretary finds before approval of the plans of 0 '•'. _ *;. construction of the project that the project, or separable element, is economically justified and environmentally acceptable. (2) MATTERS TO B E CONSIDERED IN REVIEWING PLANS.—In

•

reviewing such plans, the Secretary shall consider budgetary and programmatic priorities, potential impacts on the cost of dredging projects nationwide, and other factors that the Secretary deems appropriate. (3) MONITORING.—The Secretary shall regularly monitor and audit any project for a harbor or inland harbor constructed under this subsection by a non-Federal interest in order to ensure that such construction is in compliance with the plans approved by the Secretary, and that costs are reasonable. No reimbursement shall be made unless and until the Secretary - has certified that the work for which reimbursement is requested has been performed in accordance with applicable permits and the approved plans. (e) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Whenever a non-Federal interest constructs improvements to any harbor or inland harbor, the Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance in accordance with section 101(b) if— (1) the Secretary determines, before construction, that the improvements, or separable elements thereof, are economically - justified, environmentally acceptable, and consistent with the ,, purposes of this title; >/ (2) the Secretary certifies that the project is constructed in accordance with applicable permits and the appropriate engineering and design standards; and (3) the Secretary does not find that the project, or separable - • %: element thereof, is no longer economically justified or environmentally acceptable. (f) DEMONSTRATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS ACTING AS AGENT

OF SECRETARY.—For the purpose of demonstrating the potential advantages and efficiencies of non-Federal management of projects, the Secretary may approve as many as two proposals pursuant to which the non-Federal interests will undertake part or all of a harbor project authorized by Congress as the agent of the Secretary

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/627

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4101

by utilizing its own personnel or by procuring outside services, so long as the cost of doing so will not exceed the cost of the Secretary undertaking the project. SEC. 205. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ACTIONS.

33 USC 2233.

(a) NOTICE OF INTENT.—The Secretary, on request from an appropriate non-Federal interest in the form of a written notice of intent to construct a navigation project for a harbor or inland harbor under section 204 or this section, shall initiate procedures to establish a schedule for consolidating Federal, State, and local agency environmental assessments, project reviews, and issuance of all permits for the construction of the project, including associated access channels, berthing areas, and onshore port-related facilities, before the initiation of construction. The non-Federal interest shall submit, with the notice of intent, studies and documentation, including environmental reviews, that may be required by Federal law for decisionmaking on the proposed project. A State shall not be required to participate in carrying out this section. Ob) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.—Within 15 days after receipt of Federal notice under subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish such notice Register, in the Federal Register. The Secretary also shall provide written Publication. notification of the receipt of a notice under subsection (a) to all State and local agencies that may be required to issue permits for the construction of the project or related activities. The Secretary shall solicit the cooperation of those agencies and request their entry into a memorandum of agreement described in subsection (c). Within 30 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register, State . ,-,..., and local agencies that intend to enter into the memorandum of agreement shall notify the Secretary of their intent in writing. (c) ScHEDuuNG AGREEMENT.—Within 90 days after receipt of notice under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and any State or local agencies that have noti.dSSi' fied the Secretary under subsection (b) shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary establishing a schedule of decisionmaking for approval of the project and permits associated with it and with related activities. Such schedule may not exceed two and one-half years from the date of the agreement. (d) CONTENTS OF AGREEMENT.—The agreement entered into under subsection (c), to the extent practicable, shall consolidate hearing and comment periods, procedures for data collection and report preparation, and the environmental review and permitting processes associated with the project and related activities. The agreement shall detail, to the extent possible, the non-Federal interest's responsibilities for data development and information that may be necessary to process each permit, including a schedule when the information and data will be provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency. (e) PREUMINARY DECISION.—The agreement shall include a date by which the Secretary, taking into consideration the views of all affected Federal agencies, shall provide to the non-Federal interest in writing a preliminary determination whether the project and Federal permits associated with it are reasonably likely to receive approval. (f) REVISION OF AGREEMENT.—The Secretary may revise the agreement once to extend the schedule to allow the non-Federal interest

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/628

 100 STAT. 4102

i: ' A

33 USC 2234.

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

the minimum amount of additional time necessary to revise its original application to meet the objections of a Federal, State, or local agency which is a party to the agreement. (g) PROGRESS REPORTS.—Six months before the final date of the schedule, the Secretary shall provide to Congress a written progress report for each navigation project for a harbor or inland harbor subject to this section. The Secretary shall transmit the report to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. The report shall summarize all work completed under the agreement and shall include a detailed work program that will assure completion of all remaining work under the agreement. (h) FINAL DECISION.—Not later than the final day of the schedule, the Secretary shall notify the non-Federal interest of the final decision on the project and whether the permit or permits have been issued. (i) REPORT ON TIMESAVINGS METHODS.—Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report estimating the time required for the issuance of all Federal, State, and local permits for the construction of navigation projects for harbors or inland harbors and associated activities. The Secretary shall include in that report recommendations for further reducing the amount of time required for the issuance of those permits, including any proposed changes in existing law.

SEC. 206. NONAPPLICABILITY TO SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY. Sections 203, 204, and 205 do not apply to any harbor or inland harbor project for that portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway administered by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. 33 USC 2235. SEC. 207. CONSTRUCTION IN USABLE INCREMENTS. "' ^. Any navigation project for a harbor or inland harbor authorized by this title or any other provision of law enacted before, on, or after the date of enactment of this title may be constructed in usable increments. 33 USC 2236. SEC. 208. PORT OR HARBOR DUES. Maritime affairs. (a) CONSENT OF CONGRESS.—Subject to the following conditions, a £°™™®'^'^® ^^^ non-Federal interest may levy port or harbor dues (in the form of trade. '' tonnage duties or fees) on a vessel engaged in trade entering or departing from a harbor and on cargo loaded on or unloaded from that vessel under clauses 2 and 3 of section 10, and under clause 3 of section 8, of Article 1 of the Constitution: (1) PURPOSES.—Port or harbor dues may be levied only in ^. ^ conjunction with a harbor navigation project whose construction is complete (including a usable increment of the project) and for the following purposes and in amounts not to exceed those necessary to carry out those purposes: (A)(i) to finance the non-Federal share of construction and operation and maintenance costs of a navigation •^ ic, V project for a harbor under the requirements of section 101 ^vMf-If'i of this Act; or „,,;,,,^„ •^,»,^..Mi,.« -..,.....i,ivj.>A^...-•.•. ^u.-,.,.-.i^t.^

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/629

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986 ~* »: ". <>? jsiiy

100 STAT. 4103

(ii) to finance the cost of construction and operation and maintenance of a navigation project for a harbor under section 204 or 205 of this Act; and (B) provide emergency response services in the harbor, including contingency planning, necessary personnel training, and the procurement of equipment and facilities.

(2) LIMITATION ON PORT OR HARBOR DUES FOR EMERGENCY

SERVICE.—Port or harbor dues may not be levied for the purposes described in paragraph (I)(B) of this subsection after the dues cease to be levied for the purposes described in paragraph (I)(A) of this subsection. (3) GENERAL LIMITATIONS.—(A) Port or harbor dues may not be levied under this section in conjunction with a deepening feature of a navigation improvement project on any vessel if that vessel, based on its design draft, could have utilized the project at mean low water before construction. In the case of project features which solely— (i) widen channels or harbors, (ii) create or enlarge bend easings, turning basins or anchorage areas, or provide protected areas, or (iii) remove obstructions to navigation, only vessels at least comparable in size to those used to justify these features may be charged under this section. (B) In developing port or harbor dues that may be charged under this section on vessels for project features constructed under this title, the non-Federal interest may consider such criteria as: elapsed time of passage, safety of passage, vessel economy of scale, under keel clearance, vessel draft, vessel squat, vessel speed, sinkage, and trim. (C) Port or harbor dues authorized by this section shall not be imposed on— (i) vessels owned and operated by the United States Government, a foreign country, a State, or a political sub"l> division of a country or State, unless engaged in commercial services; (ii) towing vessels, vessels engaged in dredging activities, or vessels engaged in intraport movements; or ,„ (iii) vessels with design drafts of 20 feet or less when '••'• utilizing general cargo and deep-draft navigation projects.

^^ s «« • •

--

(4) FORMULATION OF PORT OR HARBOR DUES.—Port or harbor

dues may be levied only on a vessel entering or departing from a harbor and its cargo on a fair and equitable basis. In formulating port and harbor dues, the non-Federal interest shall consider— (A) the direct and indirect cost of construction, operations, and maintenance, and providing the facilities and - ' services under paragraph (1) of this subsection; (B) the value of those facilities and services to the vessel and cargo; (C) the public policy or interest served; and (D) any other pertinent factors. rt'.'.= (5) NOTICE AND HEARING.—(A) Before the initial levy of or subsequent modification to port or harbor dues under this section, a non-Federal interest shall transmit to the Secretary— (i) the text of the proposed law, regulation, or ordinance that would establish the port or harbor dues, including

riH

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/630

 100 STAT. 4104

Federal Register, publication.

Public information.

Records.

Reports.

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

provisions for their administration, collection, and enforcement; (ii) the name, address, and telephone number of an offiTOC '•"' cial to whom comments on and requests for further information on the proposal are to be directed; (iii) the date by which comments on the proposal are due and a date for a public hearing on the proposal at which any interested party may present a statement; however, the non-Federal interest may not set a hearing date earlier than 45 days after the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register required by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph or set a deadline for receipt of comments earlier than 60 days after the date of publication; and (iv) a written statement signed by an appropriate official that the non-Federal interest agrees to be governed by the provisions of this section. (B) On receiving from a non-Federal interest the information required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Secretary shall transmit the material required by clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to the Federal Register for publication. (C) Port or harbor dues may be imposed by a non-Federal interest only after meeting the conditions of this paragraph. (6) REQUIREMENTS ON NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—A non-Federal interest shall— (A) file a schedule of any port or harbor dues levied under this subsection with the Secretary and the Federal Maritime Commission, which the Commission shall make available for public inspection; (B) provide to the Comptroller General of the United States on request of the Comptroller General any records or other evidence that the Comptroller General considers to be necessary and appropriate to enable the Comptroller General to carry out the audit required under subsection (b) of this section; (C) designate an officer or authorized representative, including the Secretary of the Treasury acting on a costreimbursable basis, to receive tonnage certificates and cargo manifests from vessels which may be subject to the levy of port or harbor dues, export declarations from shippers, consignors, and terminal operators, and such other documents as the non-Federal interest may by law, regulation, or ordinance require for the imposition, computation, and collection of port or harbor dues; and .' (D) consent expressly to the exclusive exercise of Federal jurisdiction under subsection (c) of this section. O> AUDITS.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall— t) (1) carry out periodic audits of the operations of non-Federal interests that elect to levy port or harbor dues under this section to determine if the conditions of subsection (a) of this section are being complied with; (2) submit to each House of the Congress a written report containing the findings resulting from each audit; and (3) make any recommendations that the Comptroller General considers appropriate regarding the compliance of those nonv- Federal interests with the requirements of this section.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/631

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4105

(c) JURISDICTION.—(1) The district court of the United States for the district in which is located a non-Federal interest that levies port or harbor dues under this section has original and exclusive jurisdiction over any matter arising out of or concerning, the imposition, computation, collection, and enforcement of port or harbor dues by a non-Federal interest under this section. (2) Any person who suffers legal wrong or is adversely affected or aggrieved by the imposition by a non-Federal interest of a proposed scheme or schedule of port or harbor dues under this section may, not later than 180 days after the date of hearing under subsection (a)(5)(A)(iii) of this section, commence an action to seek judicial review of that proposed scheme or schedule in the appropriate district court under paragraph (1). (3) On petition of the Attorney General or any other party, that district court may— (A) grant appropriate injunctive relief to restrain an action by that non-Federal interest violating the conditions of consent in subsection (a) of this section; (B) order the refund of any port or harbor dues not lawfully collected; and (C) grant other appropriate relief or remedy. (d) COLLECTION OF DUTIES.— (1) DEUVERY OF CERTIFICATE AND MANIFEST — (A) UPON ARRIVAL OF VESSEL.—Upon the

Courts, U.S.

"'" '"^

- ••'•'' rr: 2 •: U

xs arrival of a

hfm iL> '

vessel in a harbor in which the vessel may be subject to the levy of port or harbor dues under this section, the master of that vessel shall, within forty-eight hours after arrival and . -. before any cargo is unloaded from that vessel, deliver to the appropriate authorized representative appointed under subsection (a)(6)(C) of this section a tonnage certificate for .:r the vessel and a manifest of the cargo aboard that vessel or, if the vessel is in ballast, a declaration to that effect. (B) BEFORE DEPARTURE OF VESSEL.—The shipper, con' '' signor, or terminal operator having custody of any cargo to be loaded on board a vessel while the vessel is in a harbor in of;n; which the vessel may be subject to the levy of port or \; n harbor dues under this section shall, within forty-eight hours before departure of that vessel, deliver to the appropriate authorized representative appointed under subsection (a)(6)(C) of this section an export declaration specifying the cargo to be loaded on board that vessel. (e) ENFORCEMENT.—At the request of an authorized representative referred to in subsection (a)(6)(C) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury may: (1) withhold the clearance required by section 4197 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (46 U.S.C. App. 91) for a vessel if the master, owner, or operator of a vessel subject to port or harbor dues under this section fails to comply with the provisions of this section including any non-Federal law, regulation or ordinance issued hereunder; and (2) assess a penalty or initiate a forfeiture of the cargo in the same manner and under the same procedures as are applicable for failure to pay customs duties under the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 App. U.S.C. 1202 et seq.) if the shipper, consignor, consignee, or terminal operator having title to or custody of cargo subject to port or harbor dues under this section fails to comply with the

'

.«eii /

. !

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/632

 100 STAT. 4106

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

provisions of this section including any non-Federal law, regulation, or ordinance issued hereunder, (f) MARITIME LIEN.—Port or harbor dues levied under this section against a vessel constitute a maritime lien against the vessel and port or harbor dues levied against cargo constitute a lien against the cargo that may be recovered in an action in the district court of the United States for the district in which the vessel or cargo is found. 33 USC 2237.

SEC. 209. INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.

Any non-Federal interest shall provide the United States the information necessary for military readiness planning and harbor, inland harbor, and national security, including information necessary to obtain national security clearances for individuals employed in critical harbor and inland harbor positions. 33 USC 2238.

26 USC 9505.

New Jersey. 33 USC 2239.

33 USC 1401 note.

Effective date.

SEC. 210. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) TRUST FUND.—There are authorized to be appropriated out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, established by section 9505 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to pay— (1) 100 percent of the eligible operations and maintenance costs of those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation for such fiscal year; and (2) not more than 40 percent of the eligible operations and maintenance costs assigned to commercial navigation of all harbors and inland harbors within the United States. (b) GENERAL FUND.—There are authorized to be appropriated out of the general fund of the Treasury of the United States for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to pay the balance of all eligible operations and maintenance costs not provided by payments from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under this section. SEC. 211. ALTERNATIVES TO MUD DUMP FOR DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

(a) DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATIVE SITES.—Not later than three years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall designate one or more sites in accordance with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 for the disposal of dredged material which, without such designation, would be disposed of at the Mud Dump (as defined in subsection (g)). The designated site or sites shall be located not less than 20 miles from the shoreline. The Administrator, in determining sites for possible designation under this subsection, shall consult with the Secretary and appropriate Federal, State, interstate, and local agencies. Qi) UsE OF NEWLY DESIGNATED SiTE.—Beginning on the 30th day following the date on which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency makes the designation required by subsection (a), any ocean disposal of dredged material (other than acceptable dredged material) by any person or governmental entity authorized pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to dispose of dredged material at the Mud Dump on or before the date of such designation shall take place at the newly designated ocean disposal site or sites under subsection (a) in lieu of the Mud Dump.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/633

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4107

(c) INTERIM AVAILABILITY OF LAWFUL SITES.—Until the 30th day following the date on which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency makes the designation required by subsection (a), there shall be available a lawful site for the ocean disposal of dredged material by any person or governmental entity authorized pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to dispose of dredged material at the Mud Dump on or before 33 USC 1401 the date of such designation. note. (d) STATUS REPORTS.—Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter until the designation of one or more sites under subsection (a), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall submit a report to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of "'^'' "'^^' ' Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate describing the status of such designation. (e) FUTURE USE OF MUD DUMP RESTRICTED TO ACCEPTABLE DREDGED MATERIAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

including any regulation, the Secretary shall ensure that, not later than the 30th day following the date on which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency makes the designation required by subsection (a), all existing and future Department of the Army permits and authorizations for disposal of dredged material at the Mud Dump shall be modified, revoked, and issued (as appropriate) to ensure that only acceptable dredged material will be disposed of at such site and that all other dredged material determined to be suitable for ocean disposal will be disposed of at the site or sites designated pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. (f) DEFINITION OF ACCEPTABLE DREDGED MATERIAL.—For purposes

of this section, the term "acceptable dredged material" means rock, beach quality sand, material excluded from testing under the ocean dumping regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and any other dredged material (including that from new work) determined by the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, to be substantially free of pollutants. (g) DEFINITION OF MUD DUMP.—For purposes of this section, the term "Mud Dump" means the area located approximately 5% miles east of Sandy Hook, New Jersey, with boundary coordinates of 40 degrees 23 minutes 48 seconds N, 73 degrees 51 minutes 28 seconds W; 40 degrees 21 minutes 48 seconds N, 73 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds W; 40 degrees 21 minutes 48 second N, 73 degrees 51 minutes 28 seconds W; and 40 degrees 23 minutes 48 seconds N, 73 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds W. SEC. 212. EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES.

33 USC 2240.

(a) GRANTS.—The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any State and local non-Federal interest operating a project for a harbor for provision of governments. emergency response services in such harbor (including contingency planning, necessary personnel training, and the procurement of equipment and facilities either by the non-Federal interest, by a local agency or municipality, or by a combination of local agencies or municipalities on a cost-reimbursable basis, either by a cooperative agreement, mutual aid plan, or mutual assistance plan entered into between one or more non-Federal interests, public agencies, or local municipalities).

�


text: Category:1313 works

title: Category:1313 works


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/634

 100 STAT. 4108

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986, and ending before October 1, 1992, $5,000,000. SEC. 213. HARBOR OFFICE AT MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA.

Mt. v)^

33 USC 2241.

For reasons of navigation safety, subject to section 903(a) of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to make a grant to the non-Federal interest operating Morro Bay Harbor, California, for construction of a new harbor office at such harbor, at a total cost of $500,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $375,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $125,000. SEC. 214. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title— (1) DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR.—The term "deep-draft harbor" means a harbor which is authorized to be constructed to a depth of more than 45 feet (other than a project which is authorized by section 202 of this title). (2) ELIGIBLE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.—(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term "eligible operations and maintenance" means all operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation, including maintenance dredging reasonably necessary to maintain the width and nominal depth of any harbor or inland harbor. (B) As applied to the Saint Lawrence Seaway, the term "eligible operations and maintenance" means all operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation, including maintenance dredging reasonably necessary to keep such Seaway or navigation improvements operated or maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation in operation and reasonable state of repair. (C) The term "eligible operations and maintenance" does not include providing any lands, easements, rights-of-way, or dredged material disposal areas, or performing relocations required for project operations and maintenance. (3) GENERAL CARGO HARBOR.—The term "general cargo harbor" means a harbor for which a project is authorized by section 202 of this title and any other harbor which is authorized to be constructed to a depth of more than 20 feet but not more than 45 feet; (4) HARBOR.—The term "harbor" means any channel or harbor, or element thereof, in the United States, capable of being utilized in the transportation of commercial cargo in domestic or foreign waterborne commerce by commercial vesr, o -..,,,. sels. The term does not include— (A) an inland harbor; Y,--'- ^ (B) the Saint Lawrence Seaway; ' ' ' "^'«'~' ' f * * -^'^ * «^ ^^ '^^-'' (C) local access or berthing channels; (D) channels or harbors constructed or maintained by nonpublic interests; and (E) any portion of the Columbia River other than the channels on the downstream side of Bonneville lock and dam. (5) INLAND HARBOR.—The term "inland harbor" means a navigation project which is used principally for the accommodation of commercial vessels and the receipt and shipment of

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/635

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4109

waterborne cargoes on inland waters. The term does not include— (A) projects on the Great Lakes; 1 (B) projects that are subject to tidal influence; (C) projects with authorized depths of greater than 20 feet; (D) local access or berthing channels; and (E) projects constructed or maintained by nonpublic interests. '^'-^ (6) NOMINAL DEPTH.—The term "nominal depth" means, in relation to the stated depth for any navigation improvement project, such depth, including any greater depths which must be .abit" maintained for any harbor or inland harbor or element thereof included within such project in order to ensure the safe passage at mean low tide of any vessel requiring the stated depth. (7) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The term "non-Federal interest" has the meaning such term has under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 and includes any interstate agency and port 42 USC authority established under a compact entered into between two 1962d-5b. or more States with the consent of Congress under section 10 of Article I of the Constitution. (8) UNITED STATES.—The term "United States" means all areas included within the territorial boundaries of the United States, including the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the xy-f.-.:<.£ Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession over which the United States exercises jurisdiction. SEC. 215. SHORT TITLE.

33 USC 2201

This title may be cited as the "Harbor Development and Navigation Improvement Act of 1986". TITLE III—INLAND WATERWAY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SEC. 301. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS.

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION.—The following works of improvement for the benefit of navigation are authorized to be prosecuted by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the respective reports designated in this subsection, except as otherwise provided in this subsection: OUVER LOCK AND DAM, BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE RIVER, ALABAMA

Construction of a lock and dam to replace the William Bacon Oliver Lock and Dam, Black Warrior-Tombigbee River, Alabama: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 26, 1984, at a total cost of $150,000,000, with a first Federal cost of $150,000,000. LOCKS AND DAMS 5 THROUGH 14, KENTUCKY RIVER, KENTUCKY

Disposition of Kentucky River, Kentucky, Locks and Dams 5 through 14, Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 2, 1984, for disposition purposes without any construction cost.

" '-, '.fi

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/636

 100 STAT. 4110

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986 GALUPOUS LOCKS AND DAM REPLACEMENT, OHIO RIVER, OHIO AND WEST VIRGINIA

The project for navigation, Gallipolis Locks and Dam Replacement, Ohio River, Ohio and West Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 8, 1982, and Supplemental Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 13, 1983, at a total cost of $285,000,000, with a first Federal cost of $285,000,000. BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OREGON AND WASHINGTON- -COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, WASHINGTON Birds.

The project for navigation, Bonneville Lock and Dam, Oregon and Washington—Columbia River and Tributaries, Interim Report: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 14, 1980, and the Supplement thereto, dated February 10, 1981, at a total cost of $191,000,000, with a first Federal cost of $191,000,000. Dredged material from the project shall be disposed of at such sites considered by the Secretary to be appropriate to the extent necessary to prevent damage to the Blue Heron rookery on Pierce and Ives Islands. No construction shall take place on Pierce and Ives Islands during the heron nesting period. LOCK AND DAM 7 REPLACEMENT, MONONGAHELA RIVER, ^ R PENNSYLVANIA

Fish and fishing. Wildlife.

The project for navigation. Lock and Dam 7 Replacement, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 24, 1984, with such modifications (including acquisition of lands for fish and wildlife mitigation) as the Secretary determines are advisable, at a total cost of $123,000,000, with a first Federal cost of $123,000,000. _^.

Fish and fishing. Wildlife.

LOCK AND DAM 8 REPLACEMENT, MONONGAHELA RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA

The project for navigation. Lock and Dam 8 Replacement, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 24, 1984, with such modifications (including acquisition of lands for fish and wildlife mitigation) as the Secretary determines are advisable, at a total cost of $82,900,000, with a first Federal cost of $82,900,000. (b)

AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO FAVORABLE

REPORT.—The following project 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, and no construction on such project may be initiated until such a report is issued and approved by the Secretary. WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM, KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Fish and fishing. Wildlife.

Construction of improvements to, and an additional lock in the vicinity of, the Winfield Locks and Dam, Kanawha River, West Virginia, and acquisition of lands for fish and wildlife mitigation in such vicinity, at a total cost of $153,000,000, with a first Federal cost of $153,000,000. _:__. „.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/637

.

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4111

SEC. 302. INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD.

^3 USC 2251.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF USERS BOARD.—There is hereby established an Inland Waterway Users Board (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Users Board") composed of the eleven members selected by the Secretary, one of whom shall be designated by the Secretary as Chairman. The members shall be selected so as to represent various regions of the country and a spectrum of the primary users and shippers utilizing the inland and intracoastal waterways for commercial purposes. Due consideration shall be given to assure a balance among the members based on the ton-mile shipments of the various categories of commodities shipped on inland waterways. The Secretary of the Army shall designate, and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Transportation, and Commerce may each designate, a representative to act as an observer of the Users Board. (b) DUTIES.—The Users Board shall meet at least semi-annually to develop and make recommendations to the Secretary regarding construction and rehabilitation priorities and spending levels on the commercial navigational features and components of the inland waterways and inland harbors of the United States for the following fiscal years. Any advice or recommendation made by the Users Board to the Secretary shall reflect the independent judgment of the Users Board. The Users Board shall, by December 31, 1987, and annually thereafter file such recommendations with the Secretary and with the Congress. (c) ADMINISTRATION.—The Users Board shall be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (83 Stat. 770; 5 U.S.C. App.), other than section 14, and, with the consent of the appropriate agency head, the Users Board may use the facilities and services of any Federal agency. Non-Federal members of the Users Board while engaged in the performance of their duties away from their homes or regular places of business, may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code. TITLE IV—FLOOD CONTROL SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS.

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION.—The following works of improvement for the control of destructive floodwaters are adopted and authorized to be prosecuted by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the respective reports designated in this subsection, except as otherwise provided in this subsection: VILLAGE CREEK, ALABAMA

The project for flood control. Village Creek, Jefferson County, Alabama: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 23, 1982, at a total cost of $31,600,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $23,600,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $8,000,000. THREEMILE CREEK, ALABAMA

The project for flood control, Threemile Creek, Mobile, Alabama: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 20, 1984, at a total cost

Reports.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/638

 100 STAT. 4112 XTfV

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

of $19,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $13,400,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,700,000. UTTLE COLORADO RIVER, ARIZONA

"

The project for flood control. Little Colorado River at Holbrook, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 23, 1981, at a total cost of $11,900,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $8,940,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,960,000. EIGHT MILE CREEK, PARAGOULD, ARKANSAS

The project for flood control. Eight Mile Creek, Paragould, Arkansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 10, 1979, at a total cost of $16,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $11,200,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $4,900,000. FOURCHE BAYOU BASIN, ARKANSAS

The project for flood control, Fourche Bayou Basin, Little Rock, Arkansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 4, 1981, at a total cost of $33,400,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $25,100,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $8,300,000. HELENA AND VICINITY, ARKANSAS

The project for flood control, Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 22, 1983, at a total cost of $15,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $11,200,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $3,800,000. WEST MEMPHIS AND VICINITY, ARKANSAS

The project for flood control. West Memphis and Vicinity, Arkansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 7, 1984, at a total cost of $21,900,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $15,400,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $6,500,000. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CAUFORNIA

«-"' oq»

rpjjg project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 27, 1981, a t a total cost of $28,500,000, w i than estimated first Federal cost of $19,000,000 and a n estimated first non-Federal cost of $9,500,000, except that, in

lieu of constructing the recommended bypass channel, the Secretary shall accomplish the purposes of the project by removing the rock formation at the outlet channel and widening and deepening the channel in accordance with alternative 8 as described in the Feasibility Study of the District Engineer dated August 1979. The Secretary shall act in coordination with the State of California to assure that such project poses no danger to any component of its State park system. REDBANK AND FANCHER CREEKS, CALIFORNIA

The project for flood control, Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 7, 1981, at a total cost of $84,600,000, with an estimated first Federal cost oi $64,900,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $19,700,000.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/639

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4113

The project shall include measures determined appropriate by the Secretary to minimize adverse effects on groundwater and to maximize benefits to groundwater, including ground water recharge.

^.^^ a-Mbii^

SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CAUFORNIA

" The project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, includ- Dams, ing Santiago Creek, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 15, 1982, at a total cost of $1,090,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $809,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $281,000,000, except that in lieu of the Mentone Dam feature of the project and subject to the provisions of section 903(b) of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct a flood control storage dam on the upper Santa Ana River. Any relocation of the Talbert Valley Channel undertaken in connection with the project shall be constructed with a channel capacity sufficient to accommodate a 100-year flood. If a non-Federal sponsor agrees to pay at least 50 percent of the cost of such investigation, the Secretary is authorized to investigate the feasibility of including water supply and conservation storage at Prado Dam. The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary, shall carry out ' ^^^ *^^ such studies and analyses as he deems necessary to determine (1) the effects of water supply and conservation at Prado Dam on existing oil and gas leasehold interests owned by Prado Petroleum Company, and (2) the feasibility of exchanging the leasehold interests owned by Prado Petroleum Company for property of substantially equivalent value under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. Such studies and analyses shall be completed within one year of the date of enactment of this Act. Pursuant to the Water Supply Act of 1958, any additional water supply and conservation 43 USC 390b. storage at Prado Dam as may be recommended by the Secretary based on the investigation under this paragraph is authorized upon the exchange of leasehold interests in accordance with the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior's studies. Nothing in this paragraph affects the Secretary's and the Secretary of the Interior's existing authority to operate Prado Dam for water supply and conservation. FOUNTAIN CREEK, COLORADO

The project for flood control. Fountain Creek, Pueblo, Colorado phase I GDM: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 23, 1981, at a total cost of $8,600,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $6,320,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,280,000. METROPOLITAN DENVER, COLORADO

The project for flood control. Metropolitan Denver and South Platte River and Tributaries, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska: Reports of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 23, 1981, and July 14, 1983, House Document Numbered 98-265, at a total cost of $10,800,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $8,100,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,700,000. In applying section 104 to such project, the Secretary shall consider work carried out by non-Federal interests after January 1, 1978, and before the date of the enactment of this Act that otherwise meets the requirements of such section.

-sHibllW

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/640

 100 STAT. 4114

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986 GATES CREEK, GEORGIA

adT The project for flood control, Gates Creek, Georgia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 23, 1981, at a total cost of $13,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $9,600,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $4,100,000. Such project shall include (1) measures determined by the Secretary to be necessary and appropriate to minimize pollution of shallow ground and surface waters which may result from construction of the project, and (2) planting of vegetation along the channel for purposes of enhancing wildlife habitat. ics.:?

Wildlife.

J:;9!

ALENAIO STREAM, HAWAII

The project for flood control, Alenaio Stream, Hawaii: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 15, 1983, at a total cost of $7,860,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $5,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,360,000. UTTLE WOOD RIVER, IDAHO Fish and fishing.

The project for flood control. Little Wood River, vicinity of Gooding and Shoshone, Idaho: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 2, 1977, Senate Document Numbered 96-9, at a total cost of $4,530,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $3,400,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,130,000. After completion of the project, the Secretary shall evaluate and monitor the extent of any fish losses that are attributable to the project and undertake such additional mitigation measures as he determines appropriate.

O^J

ROCK RIVER, ILUNOIS

The project for fiood control. Rock River, Rockford and Vicinity, Illinois (Loves Park Interim): Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 15, 1980, at a total cost of $31,300,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $23,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,800,000. The project shall include flood protection measures along Small Unnamed Creek, as described in the Interim Report of the District Engineer, Rock Island, dated February 1979. Before the acquisition of land for, or the actual construction of, the project the Secretary shall study the probable effects of the project on existing recreational resources in the project area and, as part of the project, shall undertake such measures as he determines necessary and appropriate to mitigate any adverse effects on such recreation resources. ^,„.

Wildlife.

SOUTH QUINCY DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, ILLINOIS

The project for flood control, South Quincy Drainage and Levee District, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 24, 1984, at a total cost of $11,900,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $8,900,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $3,000,000. The Secretary shall, to the extent feasible, obtain borrow material from sites in the main channel of the Mississippi River and place fill material on the landward side of the existing levee in order to protect wildlife habitat.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/641

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4115

NORTH BRANCH OF CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS

The project for flood protection for the North Branch of the Chicago River, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated October 29, 1984, at a total cost of $22,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $15,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $7,700,000. In recognition of the flood damage prevention benefits provided in the North Branch of the Chicago River, Illinois Basin, by the Techny Reservoirs constructed by non-Federal interests on the West Fork of the North Branch of the Chicago River and by the Mid Fork Reservoir and the Mid Fork Pumping Station constructed by non-Federal interests on the Middle Fork of the North Branch of the Chicago River, the Secretary shall, subject to such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, reimburse nonFederal interests for an amount equal to 50 percent of the costs of planning and construction of such reservoirs and pumping station. . ' O ' H A R E S Y S T E M O F THE C H I C A G O L A N D U N D E R F L O W P L A N, ILLINOIS

The project for flood control, O'Hare System of the Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 3, 1985, at a total cost of $18,400,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $14,800,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $3,600,000, except that the capacity of the flood control reservoir shall be at least 1,050 acre-feet in order to provide optimum storage capacity for flood control purposes. UTTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA

>The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana: In accordance with plan 3A contained in the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 2, 1984, provided that all of the features of the plan 3A as recommended by and described in the report of the District Engineer are included, at a total cost of $87,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $65,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $21,800,000. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER BASIN (CADY MARSH DITCH), INDIANA

The project for flood control. Little Calumet River Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana, designated as Plan D as described in the Final Feasibility Report of the District Engineer, dated April 1984, at a total cost of $11,200,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $6,600,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $4,600,000. GREEN BAY LEVEE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT NUMBER 2, IOWA

The project for flood control, Mississippi River, Coon Rapids Dam to Ohio River, Green Bay Levee and Drainage District Number 2, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated October 21, 1981, except that borrow material for the project shall be obtained from the island source as recommended by the District Engineer, Rock Island District, in his report dated November 1978, and revised November 1979, at a total cost of $6,850,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $5,140,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,710,000.

�


text: Category:1310s works

title: Category:1310s works


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/642

 100 STAT. 4116

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986 PERRY CREEK, IOWA

The project for flood control. Perry Creek, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 4, 1982, House Document Numbered 98-179, at a total cost of $44,600,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $31,200,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $13,400,000. a;

DES MOINES RIVER BASIN, IOWA AND MINNESOTA

The project for flood control, Des Moines River Basin, Iowa and Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 1977, at a total cost of $15,200,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $10,900,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $4,300,000. The Secretary shall, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, study the feasibility of minimizing increased flood stages along Jordon Creek in the vicinity of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Bridge and the implementation of nonstructural and structural flood plain management techniques along the reach of Walnut Creek, including the improvement of channel capacity in the vicinity of Grand Avenue. In addition, the Secretary shall, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, review the location of river access points and boat ramps. HALSTEAD, KANSAS

Fish and fishing. The project for flood control, Halstead, Kansas: Report of the Wildlife. Chief of Engineers, dated May 8, 1979, at a total cost of $7,200,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $5,400,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,800,000, including the acquisition of such additional lands and access points as the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to mitigate the adverse effects of the project on fish and wildlife habitat. The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, shall study the need for additional lands for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses caused by the project and the need for additional access points to the Little Arkansas River. Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report of such study. UPPER LITTLE ARKANSAS RIVER, KANSAS

The project for flood control. Upper Little Arkansas River Watershed, Kansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 18, 1983, at a total cost of $12,400,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $9,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $3,100,000. ARKANSAS CITY, KANSAS mi-

The project for flood control, Arkansas City, Kansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 9, 1985, at a total cost of $14,500,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $10,880,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $3,620,000.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/643

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4117

BUSHLEY BAYOU, LOUISIANA

The project for flood control, Bushley Bayou, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief of Engineers, dated April 30, 1980, and August 12, 1982, at a total cost of $45,700,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $32,800,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $12,900,000. LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY LEVEE

The project for flood control, Louisiana State Penitentiary Levee, Fish and fishing. Mississippi River, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated Wildlife. December 10, 1982, at a total cost of $23,400,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $17,600,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,800,000. No acquisition of land for or actual construction of the project may be commenced until appropriate non-Federal interests shall agree to undertake measures to minimize the loss of fish and wildlife habitat lands in the project area. "

QUINCY COASTAL STREAMS, MASSACHUSETTS

The project for flood control, Quincy Coastal Streams, Massachusetts (Town Brook Interim): Reports of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 14, 1981 and December 13, 1984, at a total cost of $27,400,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $20,600,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $6,800,000. In applying section 104 to such project, the Secretary shall consider work carried out by non-Federal interests after January 1, 1978, and before the date of the enactment of this Act that otherwise meets the requirements of such section. ROUGHANS POINT, MASSACHUSETTS

' The project for flood control, Roughans Point, Revere, Massachusetts: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 4, 1985, at a total cost of $9,200,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $6,400,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,800,000. -j REDWOOD RIVER, MINNESOTA

The project for flood control. Redwood River at Marshall, Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 16, 1981, at a total cost of $4,370,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $3,100,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,270,000. b ROOT RIVER BASIN, MINNESOTA

The project for flood control. Root River Basin, Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 13, 1977, House Document Numbered 96-17, at a total cost of $8,360,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $6,270,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,090,000. SOUTH FORK ZUMBRO RIVER, MINNESOTA

The project for flood control. South Fork Zumbro River Watershed at Rochester, Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 23, 1979, at a total cost of $61,500,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $46,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $15,500,000.

''"' "tj -^?w

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/644

 100 STAT. 4118

PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986 MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

The project for flood control, Mississippi River at St. Paul, Minnesota: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 16, 1983, at a total cost of $8,610,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $6,460,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $2,150,000. SOWASHEE CREEK, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI

xjrii^ i bnE it i The project for flood control, Sowashee Creek, Meridian, Mis/»' sissippi: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated February 25, 1985, at a total cost of $17,500,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $12,300,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,200,000. MAUNE CREEK, MISSOURI

The project for flood control, Maline Creek, Missouri: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 2, 1982, at a total cost of $62,900,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $43,700,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $19,200,000. ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MISSOURI Fish and fishing. Wildlife.

The project for flood control, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 4, 1983, at a total cost of $112,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $78,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $33,500,000, except that the land for mitigation of damages to fish and wildlife shall be acquired as soon as possible from available funds, including the Environmental Protection and Mitigation Fund established by section 908 of this Act, and except that lands acquired by the State of Missouri after January 1, 1982, for mitigation of damage to fish and wildlife within the Ten Mile Pond mitigation area shall be counted as part of the total quantity of mitigation lands required for the project and shall be maintained by such State for such purpose. STE. GENEVIEVE, MISSOURI

The project for flood control, Ste. Genevieve, Missouri: Report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, dated April 16, 1985, at a total cost of $34,400,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $25,800,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $8,600,000. Congress finds that, in view of the historic preservation benefits resulting from the project, the overall benefits of the project exceed the costs of the project. BRUSH CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, MISSOURI AND KANSAS

The project for flood control. Brush Creek and Tributaries, Missouri and Kansas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 3, 1983, at a total cost of $16,100,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $12,100,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $4,000,000. CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI

The project for flood control. Cape Girardeau, Jackson Metropolitan Area, Missouri: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 8, 1984, at a total cost of $25,100,000, with an estimated first

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 100 Part 5.djvu/645

 PUBLIC LAW 99-662—NOV. 17, 1986

100 STAT. 4119

Federal cost of $18,700,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $6,400,000, except that the project shall include the nonstructural measures recommended in the Report of the Division Engineer, dated January 3, 1983. PAPPILUON CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES LAKES, NEBRASKA

The project for flood control, Pappillion Creek and Tributaries Lakes, Nebraska: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated June 12, 1986, at a total cost of $6,400,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $4,800,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $1,600,000. RAHWAY RIVER AND VAN WINKLES BROOK, NEW JERSEY

The project for flood control, Rahway River and Van Winkles Brook at Springfield, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated October 24, 1975, House Document Numbered 96-20, at a total cost of $17,500,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $12,500,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,000,000. ROBINSON'S BRANCH—RAHWAY RIVER, NEW JERSEY

The project for flood control, Robinson's Branch of the Rahway River at Clark, Scotch Plains, and Rahway, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated October 10, 1975, House Document Numbered 96-21, at a total cost of $26,600,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $20,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $6,600,000. I

"J;--";> ->

j ?,'

GREEN BROOK SUB-BASIN, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NEW JERSEY

The project for flood control, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 4, 1981, at a total cost of $203,000,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $151,000,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $52,000,000. Such project shall include flood protection for the upper Green Brook Sub-basin and the Stony Brook tributary, as described in plan A in the report of the District Engineer, New York District, dated August 1980. MOLLY A N N ' S BROOK, N E W J E R S E Y

The project for flood control, Molly Ann's Brook, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 1985, at a total cost of $21,600,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $16,200,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $5,400,000. LOWER SADDLE RIVER, NEW JERSEY

The project for flood control. Lower Saddle River, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 28, 1986, at a total cost of $36,500,000, with an estimated first Federal cost of $25,800,000 and an estimated first non-Federal cost of $10,700,000, including such modifications as the Secretary determines to be necessary and appropriate to improve aquatic habitat, including but not limited to the following instream habitat structures: pool-riffle areas, submerged scour holes, wing dam deflectors, and low-flow pilot channels. The instream habitat structures shall be carried out

Fish and fishing.

�