Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 106 Part 3.djvu/151

 PUBLIC LAW 102-396—OCT. 6, 1992 106 STAT. 1945 mize small event flooding of the Auburn Canyon, and to minimize damages to the vegetation, soils, and habitat in the canyon; and (2) includes further analysis as to whether any feature or characteristic of the flood control dam would preclude its efficient expansion for water, power, or other purposes, and whether the design would create any greater difficulty for an expanded dam to meet seismic requirements than a multipurpose dam would otherwise encounter, and further assessment of the extra costs attributable to installation into an expanded dam such penstocks, operational gates and other features of a multipiupose dam which would not be included in an expandable dam lacking advanced features. (d) REPAYMENT OF DESIGN WORK. — The non-Federal share of the costs of the design and reevaluations described in subsection (a) shall not be reqmred to be repaid until sifter the execution of the agreement required by section 103(j) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and immediately prior to the initiation of construction of the project or the appropriate separable element. (e) SPECIAL EVALUATION REPORTS. — (1) In carrying out the reevaluation described in subsection (a) and in consultation with the State of California, the local non-Federal sponsors, and other interested groups, the Secretary of the Army shall perform further evaluation of, and, within twelve months after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit 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, other features and operational procedures that should be implemented in a coordinated plan to provide flood protection sufficiently high for a major urban area subject to risk of frequent floods causing great economic, environmental, and social damage. The report shall specifically address, at a minimum, the following: (i) The reliability, costs, environmental impacts, and public safety risks associated with increasing objective flows in the Lower American River above the 115,000 cubic feet per second design capacity, as well as the costs and impacts of permanent reoperation of Folsom Reservoir at different levels of increased flood storage, including the appropriate alternatives for sharing costs associated with Folsom Dam. (ii) The costs and benefits of lowering the spillway at Folsom Dam in order to improve the dam's ability to Sass a maximum probable flood and improve its operational exibilityfor flood control. (iii) The costs and benefits of transferring flood control obligations from the Folsom Reservoir to a new flood control facility at Auburn, increasing the Folsom Reservoir's capability for water supply. (iv) The costs and benefits of utilizing existing and increased flood space in the upstream reservoirs to enhance the flood control capability at Folsom Dam and of establishing offstream storage in Deer Creek, alone or in combination with the alternatives referenced in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this subsection.

�