(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish within the Directorate of Civil Works an office to be known as the “Office of Inland Navigation Construction Management”.

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In establishing the office under this subsection, the Secretary shall—

(3) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a report detailing the results of the status of the implementation of this subsection, including—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish within the Directorate of Civil Works an office to be known as the “Office of Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency”.

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In establishing the office under this subsection, the Secretary shall—

(3) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that describes—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish within the Directorate of Civil Works an office to be known as the “Office on Technical Assistance and Community Outreach”.

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In establishing the office under this subsection, the Secretary shall—

(3) PRIORITIZATION.—In carrying out paragraph (2)(C), to the maximum extent practicable, the Technical Assistance and Community Outreach Manager shall prioritize providing technical assistance and guidance to a non-Federal interest seeking to carry out a water resources development project that will benefit a rural community, a Tribal community, or a community described in the guidance issued by the Secretary pursuant to section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note).

(4) ELECTRONIC PORTAL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish within the Directorate of Civil Works an office to be known as the “Office on Alternative Delivery Methods”.

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In establishing the office under this subsection, the Secretary shall—

(3) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that describes—

(1) COORDINATION.—Each office established under subsections (a) through (d) shall coordinate with other offices established under such subsections and with any other office of the Corps of Engineers to ensure consistency across the Corps of Engineers.

(2) FUNDING.—The offices established under subsections (a) through (d) shall be funded using amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated for the general expenses of the Directorate of Civil Works.

(1) the Corps of Engineers should maximize the efficiency of contract actions through the use of multiyear or continuing contracts; and

(2) multiyear or continuing contracts—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall carry out a review of any considerations relating to and benefits of awarding multiyear or continuing contracts for the construction of authorized water resources development projects carried out by the Secretary.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In developing the review under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—

(3) REPORT.—Upon completion of the review under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such review, including any legislative recommendations that result from such review.

(1) ensure that the covered activity protects human health and the environment; and

(2) include—

(1) consult with interested Federal, State, and local government officials; and

(2) provide an opportunity for public comment.

(1) document any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant present in the contaminated sediment to be removed or remediated; and

(2) seek to identify any person potentially responsible for the release of such hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant.

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(2) CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT.—The term “contaminated sediment” means sediment in which a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant is present.

(3) COVERED ACTIVITY.—The term “covered activity” means the removal or remediation of contaminated sediment pursuant to—

(4) HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE.—The term “hazardous substance” has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601).

(5) NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN.—The term “National Contingency Plan” means the national contingency plan published under section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605).

(6) POLLUTANT OR CONTAMINANT.—The term “pollutant or contaminant” has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601).

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Owners Board shall be composed of eleven members, each of which is a Federal levee system owner-operator, appointed by the Secretary so as to represent various regions of the country, including at least one member from each of the eight divisions of the Corps of Engineers.

(2) TERMS.—

(3) CHAIRPERSON.—The members of the Owners Board shall appoint a chairperson from among the members of the Owners Board.

(4) OBSERVERS.—The Secretary shall designate, and the Administrator may designate, a representative to act as an observer of the Owners Board.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Owners Board shall meet not less frequently than semiannually to develop and make recommendations to the Secretary and Congress regarding levee system reliability throughout the United States.

(2) ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Owners Board shall provide—

(3) INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.—The Owners Board shall ensure that any advice or recommendations made under paragraph (2) reflect the independent judgment of the Owners Board.

(1) designate an Executive Secretary who shall assist the chairperson in administering the Owners Board and ensuring that the Owners Board operates in accordance with chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code;

(2) provide to the Owners Board detailed reports of Corps of Engineers activities and expenditures related to flood risk management and levees, including for the levee safety program of the Corps of Engineers and the levee safety initiative, not less frequently than semiannually; and

(3) submit to the Owners Board a copy of any completed feasibility report for a flood risk management project submitted to Congress.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Owners Board shall be subject to chapter 10 of title 5, other than section 1013, and with the consent of the appropriate agency head, the Owners Board may use the facilities and services of any Federal agency.

(2) MEMBERS NOT CONSIDERED SPECIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.—For the purposes of complying with chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code, the members of the Owners Board shall not be considered special Government employees (as defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code).

(3) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Non-Federal members of the Owners 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.

(1) LEVEE SAFETY INITIATIVE.—The term “levee safety initiative” means the levee safety initiative established under section 9005 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3303a).

(2) NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY ACT OF 2007 TERMS.—The terms “Administrator”, “levee”, “levee system”, and “rehabilitation” have the meanings given those terms in section 9002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 3301).

(3) OWNERS BOARD.—The term “Owners Board” means the Levee Owners Board established by this section.

(1) by striking “It shall not be lawful” and inserting the following:

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(1) accept funds from the non-Federal interest for such project pursuant to a written agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b); and

“(2) use such funds to carry out such project, if the use of such funds does not increase the Federal share of the cost of such project.”.

(1) in the subsection heading, by striking “Development of Electronic” and inserting “Electronic”;

(2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

(3) in paragraph (2)—

(4) by adding at the end the following:

(1) in paragraph (4), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon;

(2) in paragraph (5)(C), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

(1) in the subsection heading, by striking “Record of Determinations” and inserting “Record Retention”;

(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting “, and all Federal environmental review documents included in the electronic system” before the period at the end; and

(3) in paragraph (2), by inserting “and all Federal environmental review documents included in the electronic system” before “after the 5-year”.

(1) in the subsection heading, by striking “Determinations” and inserting “Records”; and

(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting “, and all final Federal environmental review documents included in the electronic system,” before “available to the public”.

“(i) Consistency with E–NEPA.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall take into consideration the results of the permitting portal study conducted pursuant to the amendment made by section 321(b) of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (137 Stat. 44).”.

(1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:

(2) in subsection (d)(1), by striking “the environmental review process under section 1005” and inserting “any required environmental review”;

(3) by striking subsections (b), (c), (e), and (f); and

(4) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (b).

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking “, to the maximum extent practicable,”;

(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

(3) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

(1) NEW STUDIES.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to feasibility studies initiated on or after the date of enactment of this section.

(2) ONGOING STUDIES.—For any feasibility study initiated before the date of enactment of this section, but for which a final report of the Chief of Engineers has not been submitted to Congress pursuant to section 2033 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2282a) on or before such date of enactment, the Secretary shall, upon request from the relevant non-Federal interest, apply the requirements of section 1001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (as amended by this section) and section 905(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (as amended by this section) to the feasibility study.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a program to carry out studies and projects for the improvement of covered projects.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—

(3) COST SHARE.—

(4) LIMITATIONS.—

(5) COVERED PROJECT DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term “covered project” means—

(6) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this subsection $50,000,000 for each fiscal year.

(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to each covered water resources development project, the Secretary shall apply the maximum per-project Federal expenditure limit for the continuing authority program under which the project is authorized, as the provision of law establishing such limit is in effect on the day after the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

“SEC. 155. Studies and projects for drought resiliency.

(1) in subclause (IX), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon;

(2) in subclause (X), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

(1) IN GENERAL.—In determining the scope and performance timeline to be included in a contract entered into on or after the date of enactment of this Act with an entity to carry out maintenance dredging at an authorized water resources development project, the Secretary shall consult with stakeholders, including—

(2) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the Secretary determines that an emergency exists or there is an important national interest at stake, the Secretary may determine the scope and performance timeline to be included in a contract described in such paragraph without consulting with stakeholders that are not a party to the contract.

(1) determine whether such changes are reasonably likely to affect the period of performance of dredging under the contract; and

(2) if the Secretary determines that such changes are reasonably likely to affect such period, notify the applicable non-Federal interest of such changes.

(1) to align the requirements and policy of such regulations with—

(2) taking into consideration—

(1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)—

(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise or update the policy and guidance documents of the Corps of Engineers related to identifying and approving the appropriate minimum interest in real property necessary to support a water resources development project, including Chapter 12 of Engineering Regulation 405–1–12, entitled Real Estate Handbook, consistent with section 1104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (33 U.S.C. 598b).

(2) PUBLICATION.—The Secretary shall make publicly available (including on a publicly available website) the changes to any policy or guidance documents made pursuant to this section.

“(f) Delegation of approval authority.—The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, delegate approval of the minimum interest in real property identified under subsection (b) necessary to support a specific water resources development project to the District Commander of the district of the Corps of Engineers in which the project is located.”.

(1) complete a review of policies and guidance of the Corps of Engineers that are applicable to the real estate appraisal process for civil works projects for purposes of identifying efficiencies that may be incorporated into such process, including guidance related to review and approval of such appraisals; and

(2) based on such review, issue revisions to such policies and guidance to ensure efficient project delivery and avoid delays during feasibility study review and approval, to the extent practicable.

(1) guidelines for determining the validity of an appraisal at any time during the period beginning on the date on which the Secretary receives the appraisal and ending on the date on which the certification of a total project cost estimate for the applicable project expires; and

(2) standard—

(1) describes the findings of the review;

(2) identifies any revisions to policy and guidance made as a result of the review; and

(3) identifies any additional recommendations for legislative action to further improve the real estate appraisal process.

(A) in paragraph (17), by striking “; and” and inserting a semicolon;

(B) in paragraph (18), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

(1) MISSOURI RIVER.—The term “Missouri River” means the portions of the Missouri River within the United States.

(2) MISSOURI RIVER STATE.—The term “Missouri River State” means the States of Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Wyoming.

(1) the various contract and fee structures utilized by the Corps of Engineers and the impact of each such structure on total cost and work quality, including an assessment of such structures that is tied to the volume of debris removed;

(2) the addition of terms requiring coordination between the Corps of Engineers, the contractor, Federal, State, and local agencies and officials and other relevant experts prior to removing debris to ensure protection of healthy vegetation, important habitats, and vulnerable wildlife; and

(3) other terms and measures to protect private property, habitat, and wildlife during emergency debris removal activities.

(1) wildfire risk assessment; and

(2) wildfire mitigation plan.

(1) risks to such project from wildfires—

(2) risks of sediment, debris, and associated runoff into the project that may occur after a wildfire.

(1) a strategy that identifies actions the Secretary or non-Federal interest may take to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to the project from a wildfire, including—

(2) a summary of resources and capabilities to implement such plan;

(3) a timeline to implement such plan; and

(4) any other information determined necessary by the Secretary.

(1) review the services of the State to ensure that the services are consistent with the authorized purposes of the project;

(2) ensure that the State will indemnify the United States for, or has entered into an agreement approved by the Secretary to address, any adverse impact to the project as a result of such services; and

(3) require the State, prior to initiating the services and upon completion of the services, to conduct sediment surveys to determine the sediment profile and quality before and after the completion of such services.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not accept services under subsection (a) if the Secretary, after consultation with the Chief of Engineers, determines that accepting the services is not advantageous to the United States.

(2) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—If the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1) that accepting services is not advantageous to the United States, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate written notice describing the reasoning for the determination.

(1) John Redmond Reservoir, Kansas, authorized pursuant to section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 173).

(2) Kanopolis Lake, Kansas, and the surrounding lands managed by the Corps of Engineers.

(3) Tuttle Creek Lake, Kansas, authorized pursuant to section 2 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1218).

(4) Sardis Lake reservoir, Oklahoma, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1187; 95 Stat. 1137).

(A) in paragraph (15), by striking “and” at the end;

(B) in paragraph (16), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

“(h) Annual update to committees.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate an update on the status of the demonstration program carried out under subsection (a).”.

“(E) the restoration and rehabilitation of habitat for fish, including native oysters, in the East River, Flushing Bay and River, and Bronx River, New York, including—

“(F) the restoration and rehabilitation of habitat for fish in the Choctawhatchee Bay and off the coast in the vicinity of Okaloosa County, Florida.”.

(1) APPLICABILITY.—The Secretary shall utilize the authority under subsection (a) on not more than 10 projects that utilize a natural feature or nature-based feature, including the projects specified under paragraph (2).

(2) PRIORITY PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall utilize the authority under subsection (a) on—

(1) IN GENERAL.—It is the policy of the United States for the Corps of Engineers, consistent with applicable statutory authorities, to—

(2) MISSION AREAS DESCRIBED.—The mission areas described in this paragraph are the following:

(1) DECLARATION OF POLICY.—Section 1 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a) is amended—

(2) DEFINITION OF FLOOD CONTROL.—Section 2 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 701a–1) is amended by inserting “and the reduction of comprehensive flood risk from the isolated and compound effects of any of the drivers identified in section 8106(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2282g(a));” after “damages,”.

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “shall formulate” and inserting “shall include in the study any effects within the geographic scope of the study of, and formulate”;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking “frequency” and inserting “frequency, including flooding associated with stormwater that flows at a rate of less than 800 cubic feet per second for the 10-percent flood”;

(3) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (10) as clauses (A) through (J), respectively, and adjusting the margins accordingly;

(4) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), as so redesignated, by striking “In carrying out” and inserting the following:

(5) by adding at the end the following:

(1) Atchison County, Missouri, and Holt County, Missouri, shall be transferred to the Kansas City District.

(2) Northeast Missouri shall be transferred from the Rock Island District to the St. Louis District.

(3) The counties of Arkansas, Clay, Greene, Independence, Jackson, Lawrence, Lonoke, Randolph, and Woodruff, Arkansas, shall be transferred to the Memphis District.

(4) Desha County, Arkansas, and Lincoln County, Arkansas, shall be transferred to the Vicksburg District.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (a), the Secretary may not carry out any action to modify a geographic boundary of the Corps of Engineers unless the Secretary submits to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a notification not later than 30 days in advance of such modification.

(2) CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT.—In developing the notification required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, consult with and accept comments from affected stakeholders in the geographic boundary affected by the proposed modification to the geographic boundary of the Corps of Engineers, including—

(3) CONTENTS.—In the notification required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include—

(1) issue any new policy or guidance document necessary to implement this Act; and

(2) revise or update any policy or guidance document of the Corps of Engineers in effect on the date of enactment of this Act to be in compliance with this Act, including the amendments made by this Act.

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking “shall not submit” and all that follows through “unless such report contains” and inserting “may not approve any proposal related to a water resources project unless the Secretary has prepared a report relating to the project that contains”;

(B) in paragraph (2)—

(C) in paragraph (3)(B)(iv)(I), by inserting “or a description of the requirements for a third-party mitigation instrument that would be developed in the case that a contract for future delivery of credits will be used” after “to be used”;

(A) in clause (i), by inserting “, for immediate delivery or future delivery to be identified in the mitigation instrument” after “banks”; and

(B) in clause (ii), by inserting “, for immediate delivery or future delivery to be identified in the mitigation instrument” after “programs”; and

“(l) Separable elements.—Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses required under this section that is provided in the form of credit shall be considered a separable element of a project without requiring further evaluation.

“(m) Transparency.—The Secretary shall ensure that—

“(n) Coordination.—To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that the project delivery team and regulatory team of the Corps of Engineers work in coordination to successfully carry out mitigation efforts.”.

(A) to maintain project benefits pursuant to applicable guidance of the Corps of Engineers;

(B) to comply with the requirements of the manual prepared under section 5(c)(1) of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(c)(1)); and

(C) to be able to receive any permissions under section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 408), required for any anticipated construction, operation and maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of the project;

(1) maintain a level of recreational access to such public recreational amenity that is equivalent to the level provided when the public recreational amenity is not affected by such construction, including by providing alternative access where necessary to ensure continued recreational opportunities during such construction; and

(2) minimize temporary disruptions to such access through project planning and coordination with affected communities.

(1) review the potential impact of construction of the project on existing public recreational amenities, including facilities for hiking, biking, walking, and waterborne recreation; and

(2) include in any final recommendation for such project a plan to minimize disruptions and maintain recreational access, as described in subsection (a), to such amenities during and after construction of the project.

(1) the Corps of Engineers should maintain a professional workforce capable of addressing the varied statutory responsibilities entrusted to the Corps of Engineers in a timely manner, including—

(2) the Corps of Engineers should—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall seek to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration to carry out a comprehensive review of workforce demands and needs of the Corps of Engineers, which shall include—

(2) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Secretary receives the findings of the review under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that includes—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations of the Senate a report that includes for each report described in paragraph (2) the following:

(2) REPORTS DESCRIBED.—The reports described in this paragraph are the following:

(1) Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).

(2) Section 444 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3747; 113 Stat. 286; 138 Stat. 3149).

(3) Section 8132 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (33 U.S.C. 2238e).

(4) Section 1129 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3018).

(5) Section 1148 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3039).

“(17) The project for flood risk management, Big Island Local Flood Protection Project, Illinois, authorized pursuant to section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742).

“(18) The feasibility study for the project for flood risk management, including riverbank stabilization and bluff stabilization, Columbus and Hickman, Kentucky, authorized by section 8201(a)(28) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3746) (as modified by this Act).

“(19) The project for shoreline erosion management, Hickman Bluff Stabilization, Kentucky, authorized by section 3071 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1124).

“(20) The study for the project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Osage River Basin, Missouri, authorized by section 201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2670).

“(21) The project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Blackstone River, Rhode Island, described in section 8361 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3804).

“(22) The study for the reallocation of water supply storage, Aquilla Lake, Texas, carried out in accordance with section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b), authorized by section 202(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2675).

“(23) The study to modify the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management, Virginia, authorized by section 401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2738).”.

(1) meet the expedited construction outlined in the July 18, 2025 Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Florida and Department of the Army for Expediting and Advancing the Restoration of America’s Everglades, for the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir, authorized by section 1308 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3819; 134 Stat. 2709);

(2) incorporate other components of the Central Everglades Planning Project to fully utilize investment and restore the flow of water through the central Everglades and Everglades National Park to Florida Bay; and

(3) prepare for and take all necessary steps to review and implement opportunities for expedited construction timelines and operations for remaining everglades restoration projects to achieve objectives, goals, and regional benefits including but not limited to eliminating harmful transfers to the St. Lucie Estuary, and reducing harmful transfers to the Caloosahatchee River Estuary and the Lake Worth Lagoon without causing harm to Lake Okeechobee, Everglades or southern regions, while also protecting and meeting water supply goals south of the lake consistent with congressionally authorized project purposes.

(1) AFRICATOWN, ALABAMA.—Project for ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of the community of Africatown in Mobile County, Alabama.

(2) BIG CREEK LAKE, ALABAMA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Big Creek Lake, Mobile County, Alabama.

(3) MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA.—Project for ecosystem restoration in Mobile County, Alabama, in the vicinity of Chickasaw Creek, Hog Bayou, Three Mile Creek, and Mobile River.

(4) GALENA, ALASKA.—Project for flood risk management, City of Galena, Alaska.

(5) RUSSIAN CREEK, ALASKA.—Project for flood risk management, including riverbank stabilization, Russian Creek, Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska, in the vicinity of the community of Bell Flats.

(6) SCOW BAY, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, Scow Bay, Borough of Petersburg, Alaska.

(7) SITKA, ALASKA.—Project for coastal storm risk management, City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska.

(8) DUDLEYVILLE, ARIZONA.—Project for flood risk management, Dudleyville, Arizona.

(9) CARMEL RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Carmel River, Monterey County, California.

(10) EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, City of El Monte, California.

(11) HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA.—Project for coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration, City of Hayward, California, in the vicinity of the Water Resource Recovery Facility.

(12) PASADENA, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Lower Arroyo Seco, City of Pasadena, California.

(13) REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management, Redwood City, California.

(14) SAN CLEMENTE SHORELINE, CALIFORNIA.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline erosion protection, City of San Clemente, California.

(15) SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood risk management, including sediment management, in the vicinity of the Sweetwater Reservoir, including its spillways and dikes, San Diego County, California.

(16) CAPITOL REGION, CONNECTICUT.—Project for flood risk management in proximity to the Connecticut River, Capitol Region, Connecticut.

(17) COGINCHAUG RIVER, CONNECTICUT.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Coginchaug River, towns of Durham and Middlefield, Connecticut.

(18) DELAWARE RIVER, DELAWARE.—Project for flood risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, Delaware River, Delaware.

(19) NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE.—Project for flood risk management, City of New Castle, Delaware.

(20) BOGGY CREEK WATERSHED, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, Boggy Creek Watershed, Florida.

(21) BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, and ecosystem restoration, in the back bay system of Broward County, Florida.

(22) EATONVILLE, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, town of Eatonville, Florida, in the vicinity of Lake King.

(23) FLAGLER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including effects on back bays and open-coast shorelines, Flagler County, Florida.

(24) HORSESHOE BEACH, FLORIDA.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, town of Horseshoe Beach, Florida.

(25) LAKE HART WATERSHED, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, Lake Hart Watershed, Florida.

(26) LITTLE WEKIVA WATERSHED, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, including sediment management, and shoreline erosion, Little Wekiva Watershed, Orange County, Florida, including Lake Lawne and Lake Orlando.

(27) LOWER WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER WATERSHED, FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Lower Withlacoochee River watershed, Florida.

(28) PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply, Pasco County, Florida.

(29) SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk reduction and ecosystem restoration within the Shingle Creek Watershed, including Lake Fran and Lake Richmond, Florida.

(30) ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, and ecosystem restoration, city of St. Petersburg, Florida, including canals in the city of St. Petersburg.

(31) ELKHORN LAKE, LETCHER COUNTY, KENTUCKY.—Project for flood risk management and water supply at Elkhorn Lake, Letcher County, Kentucky.

(32) GWINNETT COUNTY, GEORGIA.—Project for flood risk management, Gwinnett County, Georgia.

(33) SOUTH RIVER WATERSHED, GEORGIA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, South River watershed, Georgia.

(34) HONOLULU, HAWAII.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, including shoreline erosion protection, in the vicinity of the Waikīkī Natatorium War Memorial, Kaimana and Waikīkī beaches, City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.

(35) PORT ALLEN, KAUA‘I COUNTY, HAWAII.—Project for flood risk management, navigation, and coastal storm risk management, Port Allen, Kaua‘i County, Hawaii.

(36) LITTLE SOAP CREEK WATERSHED, IOWA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Little Soap Creek Watershed, Appanoose and Davis Counties, Iowa.

(37) LOWER DES MOINES RIVER WATERSHED, IOWA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Lower Des Moines River Watershed, Appanoose, Davis, Marion, Monroe, and Wapello Counties, Iowa.

(38) COMITE RIVER, LOUISIANA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment and debris management, in the vicinity of East Baton Rouge Parish and East Feliciana Parish, Comite River, Louisiana.

(39) SAINT CHARLES PARISH, LOUISIANA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including water and sediment management, Saint Charles Parish, Louisiana.

(40) SCOTT’S BLUFF, LOUISIANA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including shoreline erosion prevention along the Mississippi River, Scott’s Bluff, City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, carry out utilizing and incorporating existing work, including analysis provided pursuant to section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16).

(41) ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND.—Project for flood risk management, City of Rockville, Maryland, in the vicinity of the Rockville Water Treatment Plant.

(42) ISLAND END RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management in the vicinity of Island End River, cities of Chelsea and Everett, Massachusetts.

(43) PROVINCETOWN, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, Town of Provincetown, Massachusetts.

(44) WINTHROP, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for navigation in the vicinity of Winthrop Town Pier, Town of Winthrop, Massachusetts.

(45) BAY CITY, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood risk management, Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan.

(46) GLADWIN AND MIDLAND COUNTIES, MICHIGAN.—Project for ecosystem restoration and streambank erosion prevention, Gladwin and Midland Counties, Michigan.

(47) OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration along the Caddell Drain, Oakland County, Michigan.

(48) WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, Wayne County, Michigan, in the vicinity of the seawall along Lakeshore Drive.

(49) MISSISSIPPI SOUND BEACHES, MISSISSIPPI.—Project for ecosystem restoration and coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, Mississippi Sound beaches in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.

(50) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—Project for flood risk management, navigation, recreation, and ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of Laclede’s Landing, city of St. Louis, Missouri.

(51) BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management in Bergen County, New Jersey.

(52) BOGOTA, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, borough of Bogota, New Jersey.

(53) CAMDEN AND GLOUCESTER COUNTIES, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration in riverine areas stemming from the Delaware River, Camden and Gloucester Counties, New Jersey.

(54) CRESSKILL, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, Borough of Cresskill, New Jersey.

(55) GARWOOD, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, Borough of Garwood, New Jersey.

(56) GLOUCESTER CITY, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management in the vicinity of Proprietors Park, Gloucester City, New Jersey.

(57) OVERPECK CREEK WATERSHED, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, including debris management, Overpeck Creek watershed, Borough of Tenafly, New Jersey.

(58) PASCACK BROOK, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, including debris management, in the vicinity of Pascack Brook, boroughs of Montvale and Park Ridge, New Jersey.

(59) PASCACK VALLEY, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management along the Hackensack River, Pascack Brook, and Musquapsink Brook in the Pascack Valley, Bergen County, New Jersey.

(60) WEST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY.—Project for flood risk management, township of West Orange, New Jersey.

(61) RIO GRANDE BASIN, NEW MEXICO.—Project for water supply and ecosystem restoration, Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico.

(62) AMITY HARBOR, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, Amity Harbor, New York.

(63) ATLANTIC BEACH, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, Village of Atlantic Beach, New York.

(64) BAYPORT, NEW YORK.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline erosion protection, Bayport, New York.

(65) DAVIS PARK, FIRE ISLAND, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk and coastal storm risk management, including shoreline erosion protection, Davis Park, Fire Island, New York.

(66) LAWRENCE, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, and navigation, in the vicinity of Bannister Bay and Village of Lawrence, New York.

(67) MATTITUCK INLET, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, coastal storm risk management, and ecosystem restoration, in Mattituck Inlet, Town of Southold, New York.

(68) MOHAWK RIVER AND ERIE CANAL, NEW YORK.—Project for ecosystem restoration, including aquatic invasive species management, Mohawk River and Erie Canal in the vicinity of the City of Rome, New York.

(69) NISSEQUOGUE RIVER, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, navigation, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, in the vicinity of Stony Brook Harbor, Nissequogue River, New York.

(70) PECONIC BAY, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation and coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, Peconic Bay and connected harbors and inlets, New York.

(71) POINT O’ WOODS, FIRE ISLAND, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage protection and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Point O’ Woods, Fire Island, New York.

(72) PORT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK.—Project for navigation, in the vicinity of Tom’s Point, Port Washington, New York.

(73) SOUTH SHORE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK.—Project for ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, coastal storm risk management, and navigation, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York.

(74) SPRING VALLEY, NEW YORK.—Project for flood risk management in the vicinity of Memorial Park, Village of Spring Valley, New York.

(75) CAPE FEAR RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for water supply and ecosystem restoration, Cape Fear River in the vicinity of Cumberland County, North Carolina.

(76) FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Cross Creek, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

(77) TOPSAIL BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood risk management, Town of Topsail Beach, North Carolina.

(78) WHITEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood risk management, City of Whiteville, North Carolina.

(79) WHITEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood risk management, Waccamaw River basin, City of Whiteville, North Carolina.

(80) MAUMEE RIVER, OHIO.—Project for flood risk management, including riverbank stabilization, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Maumee River, in the vicinity of Glass City Riverwalk, Ohio.

(81) HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including sediment management, Hood River County, Oregon.

(82) SAUCON CREEK, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood risk management, Saucon Creek, in the vicinity of the Borough of Hellertown, Pennsylvania.

(83) CEIBA, PUERTO RICO.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Ceiba, Puerto Rico.

(84) FAJARDO, PUERTO RICO.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Fajardo, Puerto Rico.

(85) LOÍZA, PUERTO RICO.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Loíza, Puerto Rico.

(86) NAGUABO, PUERTO RICO.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Naguabo, Puerto Rico.

(87) RÍO ANTÓN RUÍZ, PUERTO RICO.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration along the Río Antón Ruíz and adjacent levees in Humacao, Puerto Rico.

(88) VEGA BAJA, PUERTO RICO.—Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, including sediment management, Puerto Nuevo Lagoon (also known as “Quintín Valle Lagoon”), Vega Baja, Puerto Rico.

(89) YABUCOA, PUERTO RICO.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline damage prevention and mitigation, and ecosystem restoration, Yabucoa, Puerto Rico.

(90) EASTON POND, RHODE ISLAND.—Project for coastal storm risk management, ecosystem restoration, and water supply, Easton Pond, City of Newport, Rhode Island.

(91) WEST RIVER WATERSHED, RHODE ISLAND.—Project for flood risk management, West River watershed, Rhode Island.

(92) CUMBERLAND COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—Project for water supply, Cumberland County, Tennessee.

(93) DUCK RIVER, TENNESSEE.—Project for flood risk reduction, ecosystem restoration, water supply, and recreation, Duck River, Tennessee.

(94) ENKA DAM, TENNESSEE.—Project for ecosystem restoration, Enka Dam, in the vicinity of Newport, Tennessee.

(95) ARROYO COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including shoreline erosion protection, along the Arroyo Colorado River in the City of Rio Hondo, Texas.

(96) BELL AND MCLENNAN COUNTIES, TEXAS.—Project for water supply, Bell and McLennan Counties, Texas.

(97) CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, water supply, and ecosystem restoration, in the vicinity of Sweeney Lake and Resaca de los Fresnos, Cameron County, Texas.

(98) ESCOBARES, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, City of Escobares, Texas.

(99) NUECES COUNTY SHORELINE, TEXAS.—Project for coastal storm risk management, including shoreline erosion protection, Nueces County, Texas.

(100) ODESSA, TEXAS.—Project for water supply in the City of Odessa, Texas.

(101) PARKER COUNTY, TEXAS.—Project for water supply, Parker County, Texas.

(102) ROMA, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, City of Roma, Texas.

(103) UPPER SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management and water supply, Upper San Jacinto River basin, in the vicinity of Liberty, Montgomery, and San Jacinto Counties, Texas.

(104) WINN PARK, TEXAS.—Project for flood risk management, Winn Park, City of Farmers Branch, Texas.

(105) LOWER SPANISH FORK RIVER, UTAH.—Project for ecosystem restoration, lower Spanish Fork River, Utah.

(106) CLINCH RIVER, VIRGINIA.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, along the Clinch River, Town of Richlands, Virginia.

(107) NOOKSACK RIVER, WASHINGTON.—Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, including shoreline erosion, Nooksack River, Whatcom County, Washington.

(1) LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA.—Modifications to the project for flood diversion in Lowell Canyon, Seward, Alaska, authorized by section 5032 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1205; 134 Stat. 2719; 138 Stat. 3136), for environmental mitigation.

(2) MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA.—Modifications to the project for harbor development, Morro Bay, California, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 21), for navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration.

(3) NAUGATUCK RIVER, TORRINGTON, CONNECTICUT.—Modifications to the project for structural flood damage reduction, Naugatuck River, Connecticut, authorized pursuant to the first section of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 701–1), to improve flood risk management and reduce erosion within the Naugatuck River Flood Damage Reduction System.

(4) ASSAWOMAN CANAL, DELAWARE.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Assawoman Canal, Delaware, authorized pursuant to section 9 of the Act of July 5, 1884 (chapter 229, 23 Stat. 149), for flood risk management.

(5) INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, FLORIDA.—Modification to the project for navigation, Intracoastal Waterway from Jacksonville, Florida, to Miami, Florida, authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 16), to include the navigation channel at Jupiter Inlet, Florida.

(6) PENSACOLA HARBOR, FLORIDA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Pensacola Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174), for recreation and for additional deepening to 40 feet and widening.

(7) TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, Florida, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3167), for additional deepening to 47 feet.

(8) LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GWINNETT COUNTY, GEORGIA.—Modifications to the project for flood protection, power production, water supply, navigation, recreation, and fish and wildlife management at Lake Sidney Lanier, Gwinnett County, Georgia, authorized pursuant to the first section of the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 635), to improve flood risk management, navigation safety, hydropower reliability, and water supply.

(9) CHICAGO HARBOR LOCK, ILLINOIS.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Chicago Harbor Lock, Illinois, authorized pursuant to section 1 of the Act of July 11, 1870 (chapter 240, 16 Stat. 226; 21 Stat. 182; 37 Stat. 217; 40 Stat. 1283; 76 Stat. 1176), to add recreation as an authorized purpose.

(10) SAYLORVILLE RESERVOIR, IOWA.—Modifications to the project for flood control, Saylorville Reservoir, Iowa, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 310), to include water supply and sediment management.

(11) LAWRENCE, ON KANSAS RIVER, KANSAS.—Modifications to the project for flood protection, Lawrence, on Kansas River, Kansas, authorized pursuant to section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1588), to study raising levees on the Kansas River in Lawrence, Kansas, north of Bowersock Dam.

(12) BUCKHORN LAKE, LESLIE AND PERRY COUNTIES, KENTUCKY.—Modifications to the project for flood control and other purposes authorized pursuant to section 4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1217), to include sediment and debris management at Buckhorn Lake in Leslie and Perry Counties, Kentucky.

(13) LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, JEFFERSON AND BULLITT COUNTIES, KENTUCKY.—Modifications to the project for flood risk management, Louisville Metropolitan Flood Protection System Reconstruction, Jefferson and Bullitt Counties, Kentucky, authorized by section 401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2735), to expand project scope and incorporate features identified in the document prepared for the non-Federal interest for the project, issued in June 2017, and titled “20–Year Comprehensive Facility Plan, Critical Repair and Reinvestment Plan, Volume 4: Ohio River Flood Protection”.

(14) PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana, authorized by section 1001(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1053; 128 Stat. 1351), to improve navigation in the Federal navigation channel of the Freshwater Bayou by deepening the channel south of the Freshwater City Lock up to 32 feet, including the Freshwater Bayou lock bypass channel as part of the Federal project, and deepening and widening the bypass channel.

(15) CURTIS CREEK CHANNEL, MARYLAND.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 297), to expand the Federal channel to include the Curtis Creek Channel to a depth of 29 feet.

(16) BOSTON HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1867 (chapter 144, 14 Stat. 420; 104 Stat. 4607; 128 Stat. 1365), for additional deepening and widening.

(17) GRENADA LAKE, YAZOO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MISSISSIPPI.—Modifications to the project for flood control of the Yazoo River and Tributaries, Mississippi, authorized by section 10 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 538), to add recreation as a project purpose on the Yalobusha River, including at Grenada Lake.

(18) NEW JERSEY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, NEW JERSEY.—Modifications to the project for navigation for the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, New Jersey, authorized pursuant to section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 13; 100 Stat. 4181) to reroute the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway near Ventnor City, New Jersey.

(19) RAHWAY RIVER BASIN, NEW JERSEY.—Modifications to the project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Rahway River Basin, New Jersey, authorized by section 401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2737; 136 Stat. 3736; 138 Stat. 3066), to improve flood risk management for municipalities within the basin that are subject to repetitive flooding.

(20) PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), to improve navigation south of the Elizabeth Port Authority Marine Terminal.

(21) ALLEGHENY RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.—Modifications to the project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Allegheny River, Pennsylvania, authorized pursuant to the first section of the Act of July 25, 1912 (chapter 253, 37 Stat. 216; 46 Stat. 928; 49 Stat. 1035), to add recreation as a project purpose.

(22) DELAWARE AND SCHUYLKILL RIVERS, PENNSYLVANIA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Delaware River, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (including Philadelphia to the Sea), authorized by section 1 of the Act of June 25, 1910 (chapter 382, 36 Stat. 637; 46 Stat. 921; 52 Stat. 803; 59 Stat. 14; 68 Stat. 1249; 72 Stat. 297) and the project for navigation, Schuylkill River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 1 of the Act of August 8, 1917 (40 Stat. 252; 46 Stat. 921; 60 Stat. 635), to improve navigation for large commercial vessels in the vicinity of the confluence of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers.

(23) CHARLESTON PENINSULA, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Modifications to the project for coastal storm risk management, Charleston Peninsula, South Carolina, authorized by section 8401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3842), to include features for tidal- and inland-related flood risk management measures.

(24) LAKE AQUILLA, BRAZOS RIVER BASIN, TEXAS.—Modifications to the project for water supply, flood risk management, and recreation, Lake Aquilla, Brazos River Basin, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 741), for reallocation of water supply storage.

(25) JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, James River, Virginia, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174; 102 Stat. 4045), to include additional portions at the Appomattox River and add flood risk management as a purpose.

(26) NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA.—Modifications to the project for navigation, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia, authorized by section 201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4090; 132 Stat. 3840; 136 Stat. 3763), to improve navigation in the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River.

(1) Project for storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage in the State of Alaska, authorized by section 8315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3783).

(2) Project for reallocation of water supply storage, Greers Ferry Lake, Arkansas, authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b).

(3) Project for flood control and allied purposes, Homer Navigation Improvements, Alaska, authorized pursuant to section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1181).

(4) Project for navigation, Port of Nome Modifications, Alaska, authorized by section 401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2733).

(5) Project for flood risk management, Cave Buttes Dam, Phoenix, Arizona, authorized by section 1201(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018 (132 Stat. 3802).

(6) Project for flood risk management, McMicken Dam and Trilby Wash, Maricopa County, Arizona, authorized by section 8201 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3744; 138 Stat. 3065).

(7) Project for ecosystem restoration, Rio Salado Oeste, Phoenix, Arizona, authorized pursuant to section 6 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1225).

(8) Project for flood risk management, Yavapai County, in the vicinity of the City of Cottonwood, Arizona, authorized by section 1201(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3050).

(9) Project for flood control and other purposes, Calaveras River and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, California, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 902; 138 Stat. 3058).

(10) Project for flood risk management, water supply, and ecosystem restoration, Chowchilla River, Ash Slough, and Berenda Slough, Madera County, California, authorized by section 6 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688, 49 Stat. 1595; 52 Stat. 1225; 138 Stat. 3059).

(11) Project for flood control, water conservation, environmental restoration, water supply, and related purposes, Coyote Valley Dam, California, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 177; 130 Stat. 1682; 132 Stat. 3803; 134 Stat. 2672; 136 Stat. 3835; 138 Stat. 3065).

(12) Project for ecosystem restoration and water supply conservation and recharge, Eastman Lake, California, authorized by section 1201(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3050).

(13) Project for flood control, environmental restoration, and recreation, Murrieta Creek, California, authorized by section 103 of title I of appendix B of Public Law 106–377 (114 Stat. 1441A–65; 136 Stat. 3786).

(14) Project for ecosystem restoration, City of Petaluma, California, authorized by section 8201(a)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3745).

(15) Project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, and recreation, Pine Flat Dam, Fresno County, California, authorized by section 1201(a)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3050).

(16) Project for flood control, Redbank and Fancher Creeks, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112).

(17) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Salinas River, California, authorized by section 1201(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3050).

(18) Project for flood risk management, including sea level rise, San Diego Bay, California, authorized by section 1201(a)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3050).

(19) Project for flood risk management, including stormwater runoff reduction, City of San Mateo, California, authorized by section 1201(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3051).

(20) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and South Florida, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program, Lake Okeechobee Watershed Restoration, Florida, authorized pursuant to section 601(d)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 121 Stat. 1179; 134 Stat. 2673; 136 Stat. 3761; 138 Stat. 3067).

(21) Project for flood risk management, water supply, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and related purposes, Lake Istokpoga, Florida, authorized pursuant to section 8214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3759).

(22) Project for ecosystem restoration, Lake Runnymede, Florida, authorized by section 8201(a)(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3745).

(23) Project for ecosystem restoration and flood risk management, Lake Tohopekaliga, Florida, authorized by section 8201(a)(19) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3745).

(24) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of MacDill Air Force Base, City of Tampa, Florida, authorized by section 1201(a)(37) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3052).

(25) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, Port Tampa Bay, Florida, including McKay Bay, authorized by section 8201(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3745).

(26) Project for flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and water storage, Shingle Creek and Kissimmee River, Osceola County, Florida, authorized by section 201(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2670; 136 Stat. 3749).

(27) Project for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and coastal storm risk management, Volusia County, Florida, authorized by the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, dated February 16, 2000, and required to be expedited by section 1203(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3065).

(28) Project for local flood protection, Hanapēpē River, island of Kaua‘i, Hawaii, authorized by section 10 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (chapter 665, 58 Stat. 903; 138 Stat. 3060).

(29) Project for flood risk management, Kaiaka-Waialua watershed, O‘ahu, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 1201(a)(45) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3052).

(30) Project for flood risk management and coastal storm risk management, County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 1201(a)(46) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3052).

(31) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, County of Maui, Hawaii, authorized by section 1201(a)(47) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3052).

(32) Project for flood control and allied purposes, Wailupe Stream, ‘Āina Haina, Honolulu, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197).

(33) Project for flood risk management, Waimea River, County of Kaua‘i, Hawaii, authorized pursuant to section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830).

(34) Project for flood risk management, Hoosic River, Massachusetts, authorized pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted on December 2, 2010 (docket number 2828) for environmental restoration, streambank stabilization, flood risk management, watershed management, floodplain management, and other allied purposes.

(35) Project for navigation, Saginaw River, Michigan, authorized pursuant to section 456 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 332).

(36) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Tittabawassee River, Chippewa River, Pine River, and Tobacco River, Michigan, authorized by section 8201(a)(46) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3747).

(37) Project for flood control of the Mississippi River in its alluvial valley and for its improvement from the Head of the Passes to Cape Girardeau, Missouri, authorized by the first section of the Act of May 15, 1928 (chapter 569, 45 Stat. 534; 138 Stat. 3060).

(38) Project for flood risk management, Berry’s Creek, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(91) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(39) Project for storm damage reduction and shoreline protection, including the engineering documentation report, Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, Absecon Island, New Jersey, authorized by section 101(b)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668).

(40) Project for flood risk management, Fleischer Brook, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(92) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(41) Project for flood risk management and hydropower, Great Falls Raceway, Paterson, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(93) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(42) General reevaluation report for the project for flood risk management, Green Brook Sub-basin, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4119; 134 Stat. 2671; 138 Stat. 3066).

(43) General reevaluation report for the project for hurricane and storm damage, Hereford Inlet to Cape May Inlet, Cape May County, New Jersey, authorized by section 1401(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1712).

(44) Project for flood risk management, Ho-Ho-Kus Brook and Saddle River, Village of Ridgewood, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(98) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(45) Project for flood risk management and ecosystem restoration, Passaic River Basin, Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, and Passaic Counties, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(95) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(46) Project for navigation and flood risk management, Passaic River, Paterson, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(96) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(47) Project for navigation, Borough of Paulsboro, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(97) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(48) Project for flood risk management along the Peckman River Basin in the townships of Verona (and surrounding area), Cedar Grove, and West Caldwell, New Jersey, authorized by section 8201(a)(58) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3747).

(49) Project for flood risk management, Whippany River Watershed, Morris County, New Jersey, authorized by section 8201(a)(59) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3747).

(50) Project for flood risk management, Wolf Creek, New Jersey, authorized by section 1201(a)(99) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2024 (138 Stat. 3055).

(51) Project for storm damage reduction, to include additional replacement of beach groins, Long Beach, New York, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665; 138 Stat. 3061).

(52) Project for ecosystem restoration, Great Salt Lake, Utah, authorized by section 8201(a)(88) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3749).

(53) Project for coastal storm risk management, Virginia Coastal Storm Risk Management, authorized pursuant to the Act of June 15, 1955 (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132).

(1) Project for flood risk management, Selma Flood Risk Management and Bank Stabilization, Alabama, authorized by section 8401(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3839).

(2) Project for ecosystem restoration, Salt River (Va Shly’Ay Akimel), Maricopa County, Arizona, as authorized by section 6 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (chapter 795, 52 Stat. 1225).

(3) Study for repairs to recontour and stabilize the slope at Dardanelle Lock and Dam, Arkansas, authorized pursuant to section 7 of the Act of July 24, 1946 (chapter 595, 60 Stat. 640).

(4) Project for ecosystem restoration and recreation, Los Angeles River, California, as authorized by section 1407(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1714).

(5) Project for flood risk reduction, San Francisco Bay, California, authorized by section 142 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2930; 100 Stat. 4158; 134 Stat. 2672; 138 Stat. 3136).

(6) Project for ecosystem restoration, Central and South Florida, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program, Central Everglades Planning Project, Florida, authorized pursuant to section 601(d)(2)(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2684; 110 Stat. 3767; 114 Stat. 2680; 121 Stat. 1052; 128 Stat. 1369; 130 Stat. 1713; 132 Stat. 3819; 136 Stat. 3791; 138 Stat. 3067).

(7) Project for navigation, Port Everglades, Florida, authorized by section 1401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1709; 136 Stat. 3792).

(8) Project for flood risk management and resiliency, Lower Missouri Jefferson City L–142 Flood Risk Management Study, Lower and Upper Missouri River Comprehensive Flood Protection, Missouri, authorized by section 2 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (chapter 377, 55 Stat. 646; 58 Stat. 897; 134 Stat. 2687).

(9) Project for flood and storm damage reduction, New York and New Jersey Harbor and Tributaries, New York and New Jersey, as authorized by the Act of June 15, 1955 (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132; 134 Stat. 2676; 138 Stat. 3152).

(10) Project for coastal storm risk management, Nassau County Back Bays, New York, authorized pursuant to the Act of June 15, 1955 (chapter 140, 69 Stat. 132).

(11) Project for navigation, Matagorda Ship Channel Improvement Project, Port Lavaca, Texas, authorized by section 401(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (134 Stat. 2734; 138 Stat. 3083).

(12) Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, navigation, and ecosystem restoration, Chincoteague Island, Virginia, authorized by section 1201(27) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 (130 Stat. 1683).

(1) Homer Small Boat Harbor, Homer, Alaska, authorized pursuant to section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1181).

(2) Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 3, 1896 (chapter 314, 29 Stat. 209).

(3) Cleveland Harbor, Ohio, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 14, 1876 (chapter 267, 19 Stat. 133; 100 Stat. 4095; 101 Stat. 1329–107).

(1) SCHEDULE.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the non-Federal interests for the project described in subsection (b)(9), shall provide to such non-Federal interests and congressional delegations a schedule for completion of the final report of the Chief of Engineers and other project decision documents including—

(2) BRIEFINGS.—Until completion of the final report of the Chief of Engineers and other decision documents described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall brief the non-Federal interests and congressional delegations not less frequently than once per quarter on the status of the project, including progress toward the milestones identified under paragraph (1).

(3) CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for a period of 5 years, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report detailing the progress on the schedule for completion required under this subsection.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter for a period of 10 years, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the use of the procedures under part 234 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, issued pursuant to section 110 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (42 U.S.C. 1962–4), with respect to ongoing feasibility studies for water resources development projects.

(2) INCLUSION.—The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under paragraph (1)—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report detailing the implementation of forecast-informed reservoir operations at any reservoir constructed, owned, or operated by the Secretary, including a reservoir for which the Secretary is authorized to prescribe regulations for the use of storage allocated for flood control or navigation pursuant to section 7 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (33 U.S.C. 709).

(2) CONTENTS.—The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under paragraph (1)—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on floating cabins, including—

(2) FLOATING CABIN DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term “floating cabin” means a floating cabin, as such term is defined in section 1035 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (128 Stat. 1234), that is located on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary, including Federal water resources reservoirs or lake projects administered by the Secretary.

(1) an assessment of any administrative actions taken (including any guidance issued, policy changes made, or process improvements implemented) by the Secretary to implement such section;

(2) a summary of the use of each authority used by the Secretary in carrying out a project pursuant to such section, including—

(3) identification of any additional legislative authorities the Secretary determines are necessary to improve project delivery under such section.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate the strategic plan required by section 8130(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (136 Stat. 3717), developed in accordance with the national goal described in section 125(a)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (33 U.S.C. 2326g(a)(1)(B)).

(2) FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—If the Secretary fails to submit the strategic plan described in paragraph (1) by the deadline established by such paragraph, the Secretary shall, not later than 225 days after the date of enactment of this Act, submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on any statutory, regulatory, or policy limitation on architectural and engineering service fees applicable to water resources development projects carried out under the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall include in the report submitted under paragraph (1)—

(1) examine inland and intracoastal waterways of the United States and the ability of such waterways to meet the needs of the United States, including emergency and defense needs;

(2) investigate the reliability and effectiveness of water resources development projects within such waterways with respect to commerce, navigation, environment, and recreation;

(3) assess the condition of flood control structures (including locks, levees, and dams) along such waterways to determine the structural importance and identify any necessary repairs to maintain future reliability of such waterways;

(4) assess the effectiveness of ecosystem restoration and mitigation efforts within such waterways;

(5) evaluate water resources development projects (including separable elements) within such waterways that will reduce recurring dredging requirements to maintain authorized navigation dimensions of such waterways and prevent channel migration;

(6) assess the funding needed to improve the reliability and effectiveness of water resources development projects within such waterways; and

(7) identify components of water resources development projects that, in case of failure, would likely have significant impacts on the function of such waterways.

(1) the authorized dimensions and current condition of the harbor and associated Federal navigation features;

(2) the extent of deferred maintenance and dredging needs;

(3) the economic, public safety, emergency response, commercial fishing, Tribal, and recreational impacts associated with deferred maintenance;

(4) whether the harbor has been unable to receive regular maintenance because of current benefit-cost methodologies or other Federal policies;

(5) whether the harbor has not received Federal operations and maintenance funding for a period of not less than 10 years and the impacts of such lack of maintenance on navigation, safety, and local economic activity;

(6) recommendations for addressing identified maintenance backlogs; and

(7) a determination of—

(1) the potential deauthorization of federally authorized emerging harbors;

(2) the interest of non-Federal public entities in assuming responsibility for the operation and maintenance of such harbors; and

(3) the authorities, funding mechanisms, and technical assistance that may be necessary to facilitate such transfers.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the results of the assessment conducted under this section and recommendations for administrative or legislative actions to address any identified backlogs, including any recommendations regarding the transfer of operation and maintenance responsibilities to interested non-Federal entities.

(2) PRIORITY LIST.—The Secretary shall include in the report under paragraph (1) a prioritized list of emerging harbor maintenance projects based on economic importance, public safety, commercial fishing activity, Tribal reliance, emergency access needs, and the extent of deferred maintenance.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall initiate a review of the efforts of the Secretary to share with non-Federal public entities and private nonprofit entities the cost of managing recreation facilities and natural resources at water resource development projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the review under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—

(3) REPORT.—Upon completion of the review required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that contains the results of such review, including any recommendations developed under paragraph (2)(E).

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall initiate an analysis that includes—

(2) REPORT.—Upon completion of the analysis required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such analysis.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall initiate a review of the methods by which the Corps of Engineers performs architectural and engineering design services, including—

(2) REPORT.—Upon completion of the review required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such review.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall initiate a review of the compliance of the Secretary with any requirements under, and incorporation of any recommendations submitted to the Secretary pursuant to, the following:

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In conducting the review under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall—

(3) REPORT.—Upon completion of the review required under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the findings of such review.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Engineer Inspector General of the Corps of Engineers shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the policies of the Corps of Engineers related to identifying the inherently governmental function status of Corps of Engineers park rangers.

(2) CONTENTS.—In the report submitted under paragraph (1), the Engineer Inspector General shall include—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Engineer Inspector General of the Corps of Engineers shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the implementation of policies and programs of the Corps of Engineers relating to Tribal communities, including the uniformity of application of such policies and programs across all districts of the Corps of Engineers.

(2) CONTENTS.—In the report submitted under paragraph (1), the Engineer Inspector General shall include—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Engineer Inspector General of the Corps of Engineers shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the failure and degradation of the weir constructed at Wilson’s Slough, near Walkiah Bluff, Mississippi, as part of the project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River Basin, including Shoccoe, Mississippi, authorized by section 401(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4132; 121 Stat. 1134).

(2) CONTENTS.—The report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Engineer Research and Development Center, shall carry out research and development activities on, and test the effectiveness of, natural infrastructure in dryland streams technologies and approaches to using such technologies in arid, semi-arid, and drought-prone areas.

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable—

(3) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out a research and development activity or test under paragraph (1), the Secretary may consult with—

(4) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 1 year after the completion of the activities and testing described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall publish guidance for the utilization of natural infrastructure in dryland streams technologies in civil works projects.

(5) SUMMARY TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website), a written summary of the activities and tests carried out, and the guidance published, under this subsection.

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Engineer Research and Development Center and, as appropriate, in consultation with other Federal agencies and coastal States, shall carry out research and development activities on, and test the effectiveness of, shoreline stabilization, erosion control, and wave energy reduction technologies applicable to coastal areas exposed to flooding and erosion, including flooding and erosional impacts associated with tidally influenced portions of rivers, bays, and estuaries that are hydrologically connected to the coastal water body.

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

(3) SUMMARY TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and make publicly available (including on a publicly available website) a written summary of the activities carried out under this subsection.

(1) Areas of Catron and Grant Counties, New Mexico, impacted by the June 2025 wildfires.

(2) Areas of Valencia County, New Mexico, impacted by the June 2025 wildfires.

(3) Areas near Ruidoso, New Mexico, impacted by the June 2024 wildfires.

(1) develop a scope of work, including a communications plan, in collaboration with the non-Federal interest, that is in accordance with the intent of such authorizing documents and, to the extent practicable, meets the objectives of the non-Federal interest;

(2) include in the study area the entire Choctawhatchee River basin and Pea River basin, and all hydrologically connected downstream receiving waters, in the States of Alabama and Florida; and

(3) coordinate, as practicable, with relevant State, local, and Tribal entities in Alabama and Florida and with appropriate Federal agencies.

(1) a description of the rationale of the Secretary, including identification of any factors and any processes used by the Secretary, in deciding to implement the Lake Okeechobee Recovery Operations that occurred between December 2024 and June 2025;

(2) an assessment by the Secretary of such Recovery Operations, including identification and assessment of the effects, if any, of such Recovery Operations on—

(3) the identification of any periods during the 18-month period beginning on June 30, 2025, of water excess or water shortage in Lake Okeechobee, a canal used for navigation in the vicinity of Lake Okeehcobee, or sources of water for drinking or other consumption located in the area south of Lake Okeechobee;

(4) an assessment of the ability of the Corps of Engineers to undertake Lake Okeechobee Recovery Operations again during the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act; and

(5) an assessment of whether or not there may have been any adverse effects to water supply or other Congressionally authorized purposes, included but not limited to flood protection, protection of fish and wildlife resources, and navigation as a result of Lake Okeechobee Recovery Operations.

(1) expanding Federal authority or oversight over waters or environmental programs of a State; or

(2) anything contrary to the original goals, priorities, or authorizations of the project for ecosystem restoration, Central and South Florida, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program, Lake Okeechobee Watershed Restoration, Florida, authorized pursuant to section 601(d)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680; 121 Stat. 1179; 134 Stat. 2673; 136 Stat. 3761; 138 Stat. 3067).

(1) a description of work related to the ongoing and future dredging of the Calumet River and Harbor;

(2) a plan for carrying out activities related to the closure of the Chicago Area Confined Disposal Facility, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, including remediation, capping, seeding, and other measures necessary to stabilize the facility and ensure that the site of the facility is prepared for the authorized use of such site after such closure;

(3) a plan of actions to be taken to ensure conveyance of the Chicago Area Confined Disposal Facility to the Chicago Park District in a timely fashion after the completion of closure activities carried out pursuant to the plan under paragraph (2); and

(4) a plan of actions to be taken to ensure the Secretary coordinates with State and local governments in carrying out this section.

(A) the technical feasibility of such segmentation;

(B) potential cost efficiencies or risk reduction associated with phased implementation; and

(C) the extent to which segmentation could accelerate completion of critical repairs; and

(1) is not needed to carry out the authorized purposes of the project; and

(2) could be conveyed to the Town of Sandwich or the Town of Bourne, Massachusetts, for the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant.

(1) a study for the construction of confined aquatic disposal facilities in the Massachusetts Bay and Ipswich Bay region for the disposal of contaminated dredged material in such region; and

(2) any other study recommended by the Secretary in the assessment under subsection (a).

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a disposition study under section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 549a) for the release, transfer, conveyance, or exchange of excess easements, or the conveyance of excess land, held for the Big Sandy Lake project.

(2) SCOPE.—In carrying out the disposition study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

(3) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of the disposition study required under paragraph (1).

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to identify the core sedimentation issues in the Upper Missouri River Basin.

(2) RECOMMENDATIONS.—In conducting the study under this subsection, the Secretary may develop recommendations for—

(1) Any study recommended to be carried out in a report that the Chief of Engineers prepares for the study conducted under subsection (a).

(2) Any additional study recommended under subsection (a)(2).

(3) Any study spun off from the study conducted under subsection (a), or from an additional study recommended under paragraph (2) of such subsection, before the completion of such study.

(1) LIMITATION.—The total cost of the study conducted under subsection (a) shall not exceed $25,000,000.

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of the study conducted under subsection (a) and any study carried out pursuant to subsection (b) shall be 65 percent.