[House Report 108-265]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    108-265

======================================================================
 
                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2003

                                _______
                                

 September 5, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

     Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and 
                Infrastructure, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2557]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 2557) to provide for the 
conservation and development of water and related resources, to 
authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various 
projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United 
States, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources 
Development Act of 2003''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of secretary.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the 
environment.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.
sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 2001. Annual passes for recreation.
Sec. 2002. Non-Federal contributions.
Sec. 2003. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 2004. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 2005. National shoreline erosion control development and 
demonstration program.
Sec. 2006. Written agreement for water resources projects.
Sec. 2007. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.
Sec. 2008. Compilation of laws.
Sec. 2009. Dredged material disposal.
Sec. 2010. Wetlands mitigation.
Sec. 2011. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 2012. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 2013. Cost sharing provisions for certain areas.
Sec. 2014. Revision of project partnership agreement.
Sec. 2015. Cost sharing.
Sec. 2016. Credit for work performed before partnership agreement.
Sec. 2017. Recreation user fee revenues.
Sec. 2018. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction.
Sec. 2019. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 2020. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 2021. Treatment of certain separable elements.
Sec. 2022. Prosecution of work.
Sec. 2023. Wildfire firefighting.
Sec. 2024. Credit for nonconstruction services.
Sec. 2025. Technical assistance.
Sec. 2026. Centers of specialized planning expertise.
Sec. 2027. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local 
actions.
Sec. 2028. Project streamlining.
Sec. 2029. Lakes program.
Sec. 2030. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2031. Cooperative agreements.
Sec. 2032. Project planning.
Sec. 2033. Independent peer review.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3004. Tatilek, Alaska.
Sec. 3005. Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona.
Sec. 3006. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 3007. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.
Sec. 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. 3010. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.
Sec. 3011. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, 
California.
Sec. 3012. Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California.
Sec. 3013. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.
Sec. 3014. Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa River, California.
Sec. 3015. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.
Sec. 3016. Pinole Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Prado Dam, California.
Sec. 3018. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 3019. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 3020. San Lorenzo River, California.
Sec. 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3022. Walnut Creek Channel, California.
Sec. 3023. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.
Sec. 3024. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.
Sec. 3025. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3026. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 3027. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 3028. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.
Sec. 3029. Manatee Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3030. Tampa Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3031. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.
Sec. 3032. Miami Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3033. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.
Sec. 3034. Hennepin-Hopper Lakes, Illinois.
Sec. 3035. Mississippi River and Big Muddy River, Illinois.
Sec. 3036. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
Sec. 3037. Emiquon, Illinois.
Sec. 3038. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 3039. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 3040. Wolf Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 3041. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 3042. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge 
Parish Watershed.
Sec. 3043. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 3044. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3045. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to 
Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 3046. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 3047. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 3048. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), 
Louisiana.
Sec. 3049. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3050. Union River, Maine.
Sec. 3051. Cass River, Spaulding Township, Michigan.
Sec. 3052. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.
Sec. 3053. Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, Michigan.
Sec. 3054. Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan.
Sec. 3055. Ada, Minnesota.
Sec. 3056. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.
Sec. 3057. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3058. Granite Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 3059. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 3060. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3061. Silver Bay, Minnesota.
Sec. 3062. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3063. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Sec. 3064. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.
Sec. 3065. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri.
Sec. 3066. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.
Sec. 3067. Alamogordo, New Mexico.
Sec. 3068. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3069. Times Beach, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 3070. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 3071. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 3072. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3073. Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, 
Oregon.
Sec. 3074. French Creek, Union City Dam, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3075. Lackawanna River at Olyphant, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3076. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3077. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3078. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3079. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3080. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3081. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3082. Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee.
Sec. 3083. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3084. Lake Kemp, Texas.
Sec. 3085. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
Sec. 3086. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
Sec. 3087. Proctor Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3088. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 3089. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
Sec. 3090. Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia.
Sec. 3091. Blair and Sitcum Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington.
Sec. 3092. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 3093. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3094. Mississippi River Headwaters Reservoirs.
Sec. 3095. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 3096. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 3097. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 3098. Land conveyances.
Sec. 3099. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use 
restrictions.
Sec. 3100. Land exchange, disposal and acquisition of lands, Allatoona 
Lake, Georgia.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes basin program.
Sec. 4002. St. George Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 4003. Susitna River, Alaska.
Sec. 4004. Searcy County, Arkansas.
Sec. 4005. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway, Illinois, 
Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
Sec. 4006. Hamilton, California.
Sec. 4007. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 4008. Sacramento River, California.
Sec. 4009. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 4010. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 4011. Calumet Harbor, Illinois.
Sec. 4012. Paducah, Kentucky.
Sec. 4013. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4014. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4015. City of Mackinac Island, Michigan.
Sec. 4016. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4017. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4018. Northeast Mississippi.
Sec. 4019. Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico.
Sec. 4020. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 4021. Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma.
Sec. 4022. Sutherlin, Oregon.
Sec. 4023. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
Sec. 4024. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.
Sec. 4025. Northeastern Pennsylvania aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
protection.
Sec. 4026. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina.
Sec. 4027. Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas.
Sec. 4028. Grand County and Moab, Utah.
Sec. 4029. Chehalis River Basin, Washington.
Sec. 4030. Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington.
Sec. 4031. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 4032. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 5002. Watershed management.
Sec. 5003. Dam safety.
Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations.
Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas.
Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects.
Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain 
projects.
Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.
Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment.
Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.
Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 5012. Membership of Missouri River Trust.
Sec. 5013. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5014. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River basins.
Sec. 5015. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection 
program.
Sec. 5016. Montgomery, Alabama.
Sec. 5017. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.
Sec. 5018. Alaska.
Sec. 5019. Akutan Small Boat Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5020. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 5021. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 5022. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 5023. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.
Sec. 5024. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project, Arkansas 
and Oklahoma.
Sec. 5025. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 5026. Cambria, California.
Sec. 5027. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; 
Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 5028. East San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 5029. Sacramento Area, California.
Sec. 5030. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 5031. San Francisco, California.
Sec. 5032. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.
Sec. 5033. Stockton, California.
Sec. 5034. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, Connecticut.
Sec. 5035. Everglades restoration, Florida.
Sec. 5036. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
Sec. 5037. Lake Worth, Florida.
Sec. 5038. Lake Lanier, Georgia.
Sec. 5039. Riley Creek recreation area, Idaho.
Sec. 5040. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.
Sec. 5041. Kaskaskia River basin, Illinois, restoration.
Sec. 5042. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois.
Sec. 5043. Peoria riverfront development, Peoria, Illinois.
Sec. 5044. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 5045. Calumet region, Indiana.
Sec. 5046. Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
Sec. 5047. Cumberland River Basin, Kentucky.
Sec. 5048. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 5049. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky.
Sec. 5050. Southern and Eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 5051. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration.
Sec. 5052. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Sec. 5053. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 5054. Chesapeake Bay shoreline, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
and Delaware.
Sec. 5055. Delmarva conservation corridor, Maryland.
Sec. 5056. Detroit River, Michigan.
Sec. 5057. Oakland County, Michigan.
Sec. 5058. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 5059. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.
Sec. 5060. Northeastern Minnesota.
Sec. 5061. Desoto County, Mississippi.
Sec. 5062. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.
Sec. 5063. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois.
Sec. 5064. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 5065. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 5066. Atlantic Coast of New York.
Sec. 5067. College Point, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5068. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5069. Little Neck Bay, Village of Kings Point, New York.
Sec. 5070. Onondaga Lake, New York.
Sec. 5071. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5072. Stanly County, North Carolina.
Sec. 5073. Central Riverfront Park, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sec. 5074. Piedmont Lake Dam, Ohio.
Sec. 5075. Ohio.
Sec. 5076. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 5077. Columbia River, Oregon.
Sec. 5078. Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 5079. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 5080. Lowell, Oregon.
Sec. 5081. Hagerman's Run, Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5082. Northeast Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5083. Susquehannock Campground access road, Raystown Lake, 
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5084. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 5085. Washington, Greene, Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties, 
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5086. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 5087. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina.
Sec. 5088. Cooper River, South Carolina.
Sec. 5089. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina.
Sec. 5090. Upper Big Sioux River, Watertown, South Dakota.
Sec. 5091. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
Sec. 5092. Memphis, Tennessee.
Sec. 5093. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.
Sec. 5094. Tennessee River partnership.
Sec. 5095. Clear Creek and tributaries, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria 
Counties, Texas.
Sec. 5096. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 5097. Harris Gully, Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 5098. Onion Creek, Texas.
Sec. 5099. Pelican Island, Texas.
Sec. 5100. Front Royal, Virginia.
Sec. 5101. Richmond National Battlefield Park, Richmond, Virginia.
Sec. 5102. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.
Sec. 5103. Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington.
Sec. 5104. Hamilton Island Campground, Washington.
Sec. 5105. Puget Island, Washington.
Sec. 5106. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 5107. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 5108. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 5109. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 5110. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 5111. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
interests.
Sec. 5112. Bridge authorization.
Sec. 5113. Additional assistance for critical projects.
Sec. 5114. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

  In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Army.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following projects 
for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are 
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in 
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in 
the respective reports designated in this section:
          (1) American river watershed, california.--The project for 
        flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, American 
        River Watershed, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
        dated November 5, 2002, at a total cost of $257,300,000, with 
        an estimated Federal cost of $201,200,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $56,100,000; except that the Secretary is 
        authorized to accept funds from State and local governments and 
        other Federal agencies for the purpose of constructing a 
        permanent bridge instead of the temporary bridge described in 
        the recommended plan and may construct such permanent bridge if 
        all additional costs for such bridge, above the $36,000,000 
        provided for in the recommended plan for bridge construction, 
        are provided by such governments or agencies.
          (2) Pine flat dam and reservoir, california.--The project for 
        environmental restoration, Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, Fresno 
        County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
        July 19, 2002, at a total cost of $38,480,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $24,930,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $13,550,000.
          (3) South platte river, denver, colorado.--The project for 
        environmental restoration Denver County Reach, South Platte 
        River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
        dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $17,997,000, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $11,698,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $6,299,000.
          (4) Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana.--
                  (A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm 
                damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, 
                Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
                August 23, 2002, at a total cost of $719,00,000, with 
                an estimated Federal cost of $467,000,000 and an 
                estimated non-Federal cost of $252,000,000.
                  (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the 
                non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 
                of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 
                interim flood protection after March 31, 1989, if the 
                Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
                project.
          (5) Smith island, maryland.--The project for environmental 
        restoration and protection, Smith Island, Maryland: Report of 
        the Chief of Engineers, dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost 
        of $8,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,200,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,800,000.
          (6) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas.--The 
        project for navigation and environmental restoration, Corpus 
        Christi Ship Channel, Texas, Channel Improvement Project: 
        Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at a total 
        cost of $153,808,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
        $73,554,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $80,254,000.
          (7) Matagorda bay, texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf 
        Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O'Connor, Matagorda 
        Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
        December 4, 2002, at a total cost of $14,515,000. The costs of 
        construction of the project are to be paid \1/2\ from amounts 
        appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ 
        from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
          (8) Riverside oxbow, fort worth, texas.--
                  (A) In general.--The project for environmental 
                restoration, Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas: Report 
                of the Chief of Engineers dated May 29, 2003, at a 
                total cost of $22,200,000, with an estimated Federal 
                cost of $9,180,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
                $13,020,000.
                  (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the 
                non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 
                of design and construction work carried out on the 
                Beach Street Dam and associated features by the non-
                Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
                agreement for the project if the Secretary determines 
                that the work is integral to the project.
          (9) Deep creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The project for the 
        Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, 
        Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
        March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $22,178,000.

SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is 
feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
          (1) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Cache River basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
          (2) Santa ana river basin and orange county streams, 
        california.--Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Ana 
        River basin and Orange County streams, California.
          (3) Stony creek, oak lawn, illinois.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois.
          (4) Olive hill and vicinity, kentucky.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Olive Hill and vicinity, Kentucky.
          (5) Nashua river, fitchburg, massachusetts.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Nashua River, Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
          (6) Saginaw river, hamilton dam, flint, michigan.--Project 
        for flood damage reduction, Saginaw River, Hamilton Dam, Flint, 
        Michigan.
          (7) Marsh creek, minnesota.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
          (8) Roseau river, roseau, minnesota.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota.
          (9) South branch of the wild rice river, borup, minnesota.--
        Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild 
        Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
          (10) Twin valley lake, wild rice river, minnesota.--Project 
        for flood damage reduction, Twin Valley Lake, Wild Rice River, 
        Minnesota.
          (11) Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.
          (12) McKeel brook, new jersey.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, McKeel Brook, New Jersey.
          (13) East river, silver beach, new york city, new york.--
        Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach, 
        New York City, New York.
          (14) Ramapo river, town of monroe and villages of monroe, 
        kiryas joel, and harriman, new york.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Ramapo River, Town of Monroe and Villages of Monroe, 
        Kiryas Joel, and Harriman, New York.
          (15) Little mill creek, southampton, pennsylvania.--Project 
        for flood damage reduction, Little Mill Creek, Southampton, 
        Pennsylvania.
          (16) Little neshaminy creek, warrenton, pennsylvania.--
        Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek, 
        Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
          (17) Surfside beach, south carolina.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.
  (b) Special Rules.--In carrying out the project for flood damage 
reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota, 
referred to in subsection (a)(9) the Secretary may consider national 
ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in 
the project and shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in 
the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent 
that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is 
necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 
may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 
1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
          (1) Ouachita and black rivers, arkansas.--Project for 
        emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and Black Rivers, 
        Arkansas.
          (2) Melvina ditch, chicago ridge, illinois.--Project for 
        emergency streambank protection for the east side of Melvina 
        Ditch in the vicinity of 96th Street and Nashville Avenue, 
        Chicago Ridge, Illinois.
          (3) Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri.--
        Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork Grand 
        River, Gentry County, Missouri.
          (4) Shrewsbury river, rumson, new jersey.--Project for 
        emergency streambank protection, Shrewsbury River, Rumson, New 
        Jersey.
          (5) Kowawese unique area and hudson river, new windsor, new 
        york.--Project for emergency streambank protection, Kowawese 
        Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.

SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 
may carry out the project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
          (1) Blytheville county harbor, arkansas.--Project for 
        navigation, Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas.
          (2) Evanston, illinois.--Project for navigation, Evanston, 
        Illinois.
          (3) Niagara frontier transportation authority boat harbor, 
        buffalo, new york.--Project for navigation, Niagara Frontier 
        Transportation Authority Boat Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
          (4) Woodlawn marina, lackawanna, new york.--Project for 
        navigation, Woodlawn Marina, Lackawanna, New York.
          (5) Baker bay and ilwaco harbor, washington.--Project for 
        navigation, Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.

SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE 
                    ENVIRONMENT.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project and, if 
the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate, may carry out 
the project under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a): Project for improvement of the quality of 
the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri.

SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is 
appropriate, may carry out the project under section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
          (1) Colorado river, yuma, arizona.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Colorado River, Yuma, Arizona.
          (2) Chino valley, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, Chino Valley, California.
          (3) New and alamo rivers, imperial county, california.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, New and Alamo 
        Rivers, Imperial County, California, including efforts to 
        address invasive aquatic plant species.
          (4) San diego river, california.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, California, including 
        efforts to address invasive aquatic plant species.
          (5) Stockton deep water ship channel and lower san joaquin 
        river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
        Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San Joaquin River, 
        California.
          (6) Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, california.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater 
        Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to 
        address invasive aquatic plant species.
          (7) Biscayne bay, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida.
          (8) Destin harbor, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, Destin Harbor, Florida.
          (9) Chattahoochee river, columbus, georgia, and phenix city, 
        alabama.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Mills 
        Dam and Eagle and Phenix Dam, Chattahoochee River, Columbus, 
        Georgia, and Phenix City, Alabama.
          (10) Chattahoochee river and ocmulgee river basins, 
        georgia.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
        Chattahoochee River and Ocmulgee River basins, Gwinnett County, 
        Georgia.
          (11) Snake river, jerome, idaho.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Snake River, Jerome, Idaho.

SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project and, if 
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, may carry out 
the project under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly 
owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g):
          (1) Nelson lagoon, alaska.--Project for shoreline protection, 
        Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.

SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project and, if 
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary 
may carry out the project under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of 
August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g): Project for removal of snags and 
clearing and straightening of channels for flood control, Kowawese 
Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 2001. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION.

  Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (16 
U.S.C. 460d-3 note; 110 Stat. 3681; 113 Stat. 294) is amended by 
striking ``the December 31, 2003'' and inserting ``December 31, 2004''.

SEC. 2002. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

  Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2213) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(n) Non-Federal Contributions.--
          ``(1) Prohibition on solicitation of excess contributions.--
        The Secretary may not solicit contributions from non-Federal 
        interests for costs of constructing authorized water resources 
        development projects or measures in excess of the non-Federal 
        share assigned to the appropriate project purposes listed in 
        subsections (a), (b), and (c) or condition Federal 
        participation in such projects or measures on the receipt of 
        such contributions.
          ``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this 
        subsection shall be construed to affect the Secretary's 
        authority under section 903(c) of this Act.''.

SEC. 2003. HARBOR COST SHARING.

  (a) Payments During Construction.--Section 101(a)(1) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(1); 100 Stat. 
4082) is amended in each of subparagraphs (B) and (C) by striking ``45 
feet'' and inserting ``53 feet''.
  (b) Operation and Maintenance.--Section 101(b)(1) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``45 feet'' and inserting 
``53 feet''.
  (c) Definitions.--Section 214 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat. 
4108) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (3) by striking ``45 
feet'' and inserting ``53 feet''.
  (d) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and 
(c) shall apply only to a project, or separable element of a project, 
on which a contract for physical construction has not been awarded 
before the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2004. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

  Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 
U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594) is amended by striking ``2003'' and 
inserting ``2005''.

SEC. 2005. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND 
                    DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

  (a) Extension of Program.--Section 5(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act 
authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores 
of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
426h(a)), is amended by striking ``6 years'' and inserting ``10 
years''.
  (b) Extension of Planning, Design, and Construction Phase.--Section 
5(b)(1)(A) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking 
``3 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.
  (c) Cost-Sharing; Removal of Projects.--Section 5(b) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 426h(b)) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (5) 
        and (6), respectively; and
          (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
          ``(3) Cost sharing.--The Secretary may enter into a cost-
        sharing agreement with a non-Federal interest to carry out a 
        project, or a phase of a project, under the erosion control 
        program in cooperation with the non-Federal interest.
          ``(4) Removal of projects.--The Secretary may pay all or a 
        portion of the costs of removing a project, or an element of a 
        project, constructed under the erosion control program if the 
        Secretary determines during the term of the program that the 
        project or element is detrimental to the environment, private 
        property, or public safety.''.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 5(e)(2) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 426h(e)(2)) is amended by striking ``$21,000,000'' and inserting 
``$31,000,000''.

SEC. 2006. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

  (a) Partnership Agreements.--Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 
1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``under the provisions'' and all that 
                follows through ``under any other'' and inserting 
                ``under any'';
                  (B) by inserting ``partnership'' after ``written'';
                  (C) by striking ``Secretary of the Army to furnish 
                its required cooperation for'' and inserting ``district 
                engineer for the district in which the project will be 
                carried out under which each party agrees to carry out 
                its responsibilities and requirements for 
                implementation or construction of''; and
                  (D) by inserting after ``$25,000.'' the following: 
                ``Such agreement may include a provision for liquidated 
                damages in the event of a failure of one or more 
                parties to perform.'';
          (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
          (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
  ``(e) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as 
limiting the authority of the Secretary to ensure that a partnership 
agreement meets all requirements of law and policies of the Secretary 
in effect on the date of entry into the partnership agreement.''.
  (b) Local Cooperation.--Section 912(b) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (2)--
                  (A) by striking ``shall'' the first place it appears 
                and inserting ``may''; and
                  (B) by striking the last sentence; and
          (2) in paragraph (4)--
                  (A) by inserting after ``injunction, for'' the 
                following: ``payment of liquidated damages or, for'';
                  (B) by striking ``to collect a civil penalty imposed 
                under this section,''; and
                  (C) by striking ``any civil penalty imposed under 
                this section,'' and inserting ``any liquidated 
                damages,''.
  (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) 
only apply to partnership agreements entered into after the date of 
enactment of this Act; except that at the request of a non-Federal 
interest for a project the district engineer for the district in which 
the project is located may amend a project partnership agreement 
entered into on or before such date and under which construction on the 
project has not been initiated as of such date of enactment for the 
purpose of incorporating such amendments.
  (d) References.--
          (1) To cooperation agreements.--Any reference in a law, 
        regulation, document, or other paper of the United States to a 
        cooperation agreement or project cooperation agreement shall be 
        treated to be a reference to a partnership agreement or a 
        project partnership agreement, respectively.
          (2) To partnership agreements.--Any reference to a 
        partnership agreement or project partnership agreement in this 
        Act (other than this section) shall be treated as a reference 
        to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation agreement, 
        respectively.

SEC. 2007. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION, AND REUSE.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide to State and local 
governments assessment, planning, and design assistance for 
remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse of areas located 
within the boundaries of such State or local governments where such 
remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse will contribute to the 
improvement of water quality or the conservation of water and related 
resources of drainage basins and watersheds within the United States.
  (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2004 through 2008.

SEC. 2008. COMPILATION OF LAWS.

  Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the laws of 
the United States relating to the improvement of rivers and harbors, 
flood control, beach erosion, and other water resources development 
enacted after November 8, 1966, and before January 1, 2004, shall be 
compiled under the direction of the Secretary and the Chief of 
Engineers and printed for the use of the Department of the Army, 
Congress, and the general public. The Secretary shall reprint the 
volumes containing such laws enacted before November 8, 1966. In 
addition, the Secretary shall include an index in each volume so 
compiled or reprinted. Not later than December 1, 2004, the Secretary 
shall transmit at least 25 copies of each such volume to the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 
and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

SEC. 2009. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL.

  Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 
2326a; 110 Stat. 3694-3696) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
          (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
  ``(c) Governmental Partnerships.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost-sharing 
        agreements with 1 or more non-Federal public interests with 
        respect to a project, or group of projects within a geographic 
        region if appropriate, for the acquisition, design, 
        construction, management, or operation of a dredged material 
        processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal 
        facility (including any facility used to demonstrate potential 
        beneficial uses of dredged material, which may include 
        effective sediment contaminant reduction technologies) using 
        funds provided in whole or in part by the Federal Government. 
        One or more of the parties of the agreement may perform the 
        acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of 
        a dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal facility. 
        If appropriate, the Secretary may combine portions of separate 
        construction or maintenance appropriations from separate 
        Federal projects with the appropriate combined cost-sharing 
        between the various projects when the facility serves to manage 
        dredged material from multiple Federal projects located in the 
        geographic region of the facility.
          ``(2) Public financing.--
                  ``(A) Agreements.--
                          ``(i) Specified federal funding sources and 
                        cost sharing.--The cost-sharing agreement used 
                        shall clearly specify the Federal funding 
                        sources and combined cost-sharing when 
                        applicable to multiple Federal navigation 
                        projects and the responsibilities and risks of 
                        each of the parties related to present and 
                        future dredged material managed by the 
                        facility.
                          ``(ii) Management of sediments.--The cost-
                        sharing agreement may include the management of 
                        sediments from the maintenance dredging of 
                        Federal navigation projects that do not have 
                        partnership agreements. The cost-sharing 
                        agreement may allow the non-Federal sponsor to 
                        receive reimbursable payments from the Federal 
                        Government for commitments made by the sponsor 
                        for disposal or placement capacity at dredged 
                        material treatment, processing, contaminant 
                        reduction, or disposal facilities.
                          ``(iii) Credit.--The cost-sharing agreement 
                        may allow costs incurred prior to execution of 
                        a partnership agreement for construction or the 
                        purchase of equipment or capacity for the 
                        project to be credited according to existing 
                        cost-sharing rules.
                  ``(B) Credit.--Nothing in this subsection supersedes 
                or modifies existing agreements between the Federal 
                Government and any non-Federal sponsors for the cost-
                sharing, construction, and operation and maintenance of 
                Federal navigation projects. Subject to the approval of 
                the Secretary and in accordance with existing laws, 
                regulations, and policies, a non-Federal public sponsor 
                of a Federal navigation project may seek credit for 
                funds provided in the acquisition, design, 
                construction, management, or operation of a dredged 
                material processing, treatment, or disposal facility to 
                the extent the facility is used to manage dredged 
                material from the Federal navigation project. The non-
                Federal sponsor shall be responsible for providing all 
                necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, or 
                relocations associated with the facility and shall 
                receive credit for these items.''; and
          (3) in each of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A), as so 
        redesignated--
                  (A) by inserting ``and maintenance'' after 
                ``operation''; and
                  (B) by inserting ``processing, treatment, or'' after 
                ``dredged material'' the first place it appears.

SEC. 2010. WETLANDS MITIGATION.

  In carrying out a water resources project that involves wetlands 
mitigation and that has impacts that occur within the service area of a 
mitigation bank, the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable and 
where appropriate, shall give preference to the use of the mitigation 
bank if the bank contains sufficient available credits to offset the 
impact and the bank is approved in accordance with the Federal Guidance 
for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. 
Reg. 58605) or other applicable Federal law (including regulations).

SEC. 2011. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.

  (a) In General.--In conducting a study of harbor and navigation 
improvements, the Secretary may recommend a project without the need to 
demonstrate that the project is justified solely by national economic 
development benefits if the Secretary determines that--
          (1)(A) the community to be served by the project is at least 
        70 miles from the nearest surface accessible commercial port 
        and has no direct rail or highway link to another community 
        served by a surface accessible port or harbor; or
          (B) the project would be located in the Commonwealth of 
        Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
        Islands, or American Samoa;
          (2) the harbor is economically critical such that over 80 
        percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be 
        consumed within the community served by the harbor and 
        navigation improvement; and
          (3) the long-term viability of the community would be 
        threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement.
  (b) Justification.--In considering whether to recommend a project 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the benefits of the 
project to--
          (1) public health and safety of the local community, 
        including access to facilities designed to protect public 
        health and safety;
          (2) access to natural resources for subsistence purposes;
          (3) local and regional economic opportunities;
          (4) welfare of the local population; and
          (5) social and cultural value to the community.

SEC. 2012. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

  (a) In General.--Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by striking subsections (c) through 
(g) and inserting the following:
  ``(c) In General.--The Secretary may carry out projects to transport 
and place suitable material dredged in connection with the 
construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized navigation 
project at locations selected by a non-Federal entity for use in the 
construction, repair, or rehabilitation of projects determined by the 
Secretary to be in the public interest and associated with navigation, 
flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial 
water supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, hurricane and 
storm damage reduction, aquatic plant control, and environmental 
protection and restoration.
  ``(d) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken pursuant to this 
section shall be initiated only after non-Federal interests have 
entered into an agreement with the Secretary in which the non-Federal 
interests agree to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of 
construction of the project and 100 percent of the cost of operation, 
maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project in 
accordance with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
  ``(e) Special Rule.--Construction of a project under subsection (a) 
for the protection and restoration of aquatic and ecologically related 
habitat the cost of which does not exceed $750,000 and which will be 
located in a disadvantaged community as determined by the Secretary may 
be carried out at Federal expense.
  ``(f) Determination of Construction Costs.--Costs associated with 
construction of a project under this section shall be limited solely to 
construction costs that are in excess of those costs necessary to carry 
out the dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of the 
authorized navigation project in the most cost effective way, 
consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
  ``(g) Selection of Dredged Material Disposal Method.--In developing 
and carrying out a project for navigation involving the disposal of 
dredged material, the Secretary may select, with the consent of the 
non-Federal interest, a disposal method that is not the least-cost 
option if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of such 
disposal method are reasonable in relation to the environmental 
benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic environment to be 
derived from the creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion. 
The Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined in 
accordance with subsection (d).
  ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any project carried out 
under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit 
entity, with the consent of the affected local government.
  ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $30,000,000 annually for projects under this section of 
which not more than $3,000,000 annually may be used for construction of 
projects described in subsection (e). Such sums shall remain available 
until expended.
  ``(j) Regional Sediment Management Planning.--In consultation with 
appropriate State and Federal agencies, the Secretary may develop, at 
Federal expense, plans for regional management of material dredged in 
conjunction with the construction, operation, or maintenance of 
navigation projects, including potential beneficial uses of dredged 
material for construction, repair, or rehabilitation of public projects 
for navigation, flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal 
and industrial water supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, 
hurricane and storm damage reduction, aquatic plant control, and 
environmental protection and restoration.''.
  (b) Repeal.--
          (1) In general.--Section 145 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed.
          (2) Hold harmless.--The repeal made by paragraph (1) shall 
        not affect the authority of the Secretary to complete any 
        project being carried out under such section 145 on the day 
        before the date of enactment of this Act.
  (c) Priority Areas.--In carrying out section 204 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the Secretary shall 
give priority to a project for the beaches of Bogues Bank in the 
vicinity of Morehead City, North Carolina, and a project in the 
vicinity of the Smith Point Park Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 
Memorial, Brookhaven, New York.

SEC. 2013. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

  Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2310; 100 Stat. 4256) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

  ``The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up to 
$500,000 for all studies and projects in the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands, in Indian country (as 
defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, and including 
lands that are within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian 
tribe, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and are 
recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land 
status under part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations) or on 
land in the State of Alaska conveyed to an Alaska Native Village 
Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 
1601 et seq.).''.

SEC. 2014. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.

  Upon authorization by law of an increase in the maximum amount of 
Federal funds that may be allocated for a project or an increase in the 
total cost of a project authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, 
the Secretary shall revise the project partnership agreement for the 
project to take into account the change in Federal participation in the 
project.

SEC. 2015. COST SHARING.

  An increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
allocated for a project or an increase in the total cost of a project 
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary shall not affect any cost 
sharing requirement applicable to the project under title I of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.).

SEC. 2016. CREDIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.

  If the Secretary is authorized to credit toward the non-Federal share 
the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 
date of the partnership agreement for the project and such work has not 
been carried out as of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
shall enter into an agreement with the non-Federal interest for the 
project under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such work, 
and the credit shall apply only to work carried out under the 
agreement.

SEC. 2017. RECREATION USER FEE REVENUES.

  Section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
297-298) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``During fiscal years 
        1999 through 2002, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
          (2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``September 30, 2005'' 
        and inserting ``expended''.

SEC. 2018. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

  The Secretary shall expedite any authorized planning, design, and 
construction of any project for flood damage reduction for an area 
that, within the preceding 5 years, has been subject to flooding that 
resulted in the loss of life and caused damage of sufficient severity 
and magnitude to warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the 
President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and Emergency Relief 
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

SEC. 2019. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

  (a) In General.--Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587-2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is 
amended--
          (1) in subsection (d)--
                  (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
                  (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
                (5) and inserting ``; and''; and
                  (C) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(6) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.'';
          (2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) and inserting 
        the following:
          ``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the costs 
        of an assessment carried out under this section on or after 
        December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.''; and
          (3) by striking subsection (g).
  (b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise 
the partnership agreement for any assessment being carried out under 
such section 729 to take into account the change in non-Federal 
participation in the assessment as a result of the amendments made by 
subsection (a).

SEC. 2020. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

  Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(33 U.S.C. 2269(b)(1)(B); 114 Stat. 2589) is amended by inserting after 
``Code'' the following ``, and including lands that are within the 
jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the 
Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary of the 
Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 151 of title 25, 
Code of Federal Regulations''.

SEC. 2021. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SEPARABLE ELEMENTS.

  (a) In General.--If, in carrying out a water resources project, the 
Secretary identifies a separable element that would advance a primary 
mission of the Corps of Engineers, with benefits that could be achieved 
more cost-effectively if carried out in conjunction with the project, 
the Secretary, in consultation with the non-Federal interest, may carry 
out such separable element at Federal expense if the cost of such 
separable element does not exceed 3 percent of the Federal project cost 
and does not exceed $1,000,000.
  (b) Operation and Maintenance.--Operation and maintenance of a 
separable element of a project carried out under this section shall be 
a non-Federal responsibility.
  (c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section 
shall be construed to increase the amount authorized to be appropriated 
for a project beyond that amount authorized by law or to provide a 
separate authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2022. PROSECUTION OF WORK.

  Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of September 22, 1922 (33 
U.S.C. 621; 42 Stat. 1043), is amended by inserting after ``harbors'' 
the following: ``, including any planning, engineering, design, 
construction, operation, and maintenance,''.

SEC. 2023. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING.

  Section 309 of Public Law 102-154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a-1; 105 Stat. 1034) 
is amended by inserting ``the Secretary of the Army,'' after ``the 
Secretary of Energy,''.

SEC. 2024. CREDIT FOR NONCONSTRUCTION SERVICES.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to allow a non-Federal 
interest credit toward its share of project costs for any authorized 
water resources development project for the cost of materials and in-
kind services, including design and management services but not 
including construction, provided by the non-Federal interest for 
implementation of the project.
  (b) Limitation.--Credit authorized under subsection (a)--
          (1) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of project costs;
          (2) shall not alter any other requirements that require a 
        non-Federal interest to provide lands, easements, rights-of-
        way, and dredged material disposal areas for the project;
          (3) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the 
        materials or in-kind services provided by the non-Federal 
        interest, as determined by the Secretary; and
          (4) shall not be allowed unless the Secretary has determined 
        that such materials or services are compatible with and 
        necessary for the project.

SEC. 2025. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

  Section 22 of Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
1962d-16) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
        inserting the following:
  ``(a) Federal State Cooperation.--
          ``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary'';
          (2) by inserting after the last sentence in subsection (a) 
        the following:
          ``(2) Technical assistance.--
                          ``(A) In general.--At the request of a 
                        governmental agency or non-Federal interest, 
                        the Secretary may provide, at Federal expense, 
                        technical assistance to such agency or non-
                        Federal interest in managing water resources.
                          ``(B) Types of assistance.--Technical 
                        assistance under this paragraph may include 
                        provision and integration of hydrologic, 
                        economic, and environmental data and 
                        analyses.''
          (3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``this section'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)'';
          (4) in subsection (c) by striking ``(c) There is'' and 
        inserting the following:
  ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          ``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
          (5) in subsection (c) strike ``the provisions of this 
        section'' and insert ``subsection (a)(1);''; and
          (6) by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the following:
          ``(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be 
        appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection 
        (a)(2), of which not more than $2,000,000 annually may be used 
        by the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with 
        nonprofit organizations to provide assistance to rural and 
        small communities.''.

SEC. 2026. CENTERS OF SPECIALIZED PLANNING EXPERTISE.

  (a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to establish centers 
to provide specialized planning expertise for water resources projects 
to be carried out by the Secretary to enhance and supplement the 
capabilities of the districts of the Army Corps of Engineers.
  (b) Duties.--A center of expertise shall have the following duties:
          (1) Providing technical and managerial assistance to district 
        engineers for project planning, development, and 
        implementation.
          (2) Providing peer reviews of new major scientific, 
        engineering, or economic methods, models or analyses that will 
        be used to support decisions of the Secretary with respect to 
        feasibility studies.
          (3) Providing support for external peer review panels 
        convened by the Secretary.
          (4) Performing such other duties as prescribed by the 
        Secretary.

SEC. 2027. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL 
                    ACTIONS.

  (a) Notice of Intent.--Upon request of the non-Federal interest in 
the form of a written notice of intent to construct or modify a non-
Federal water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood damage 
reduction, environmental restoration, or navigation project that 
requires the approval of the Secretary, the Secretary shall initiate, 
subject to subsection (g)(1), procedures to establish a schedule for 
consolidating Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe 
environmental assessments, project reviews, and issuance of all permits 
for the construction or modification of the project. The non-Federal 
interest shall submit to the Secretary, with the notice of intent, 
studies and documentation, including environmental reviews, that may be 
required by Federal law for decisionmaking on the proposed project. All 
States and Indian tribes having jurisdiction over the proposed project 
shall be invited by the Secretary, but shall not be required, to 
participate in carrying out this section with respect to the project.
  (b) Procedural Requirements.--Within 15 days after receipt of notice 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish such notice in the 
Federal Register. The Secretary also shall provide written notification 
of the receipt of a notice under subsection (a) to all State and local 
agencies and Indian tribes that may be required to issue permits for 
the construction of the project or related activities. The Secretary 
shall solicit the cooperation of those agencies and request their entry 
into a memorandum of agreement described in subsection (c) with respect 
to the project. Within 30 days after publication of the notice in the 
Federal Register, State and local agencies and Indian tribes that 
intend to enter into the memorandum of agreement with respect to the 
project shall notify the Secretary of their intent in writing.
  (c) Scheduling Agreement.--Within 90 days after the date of receipt 
of notice under subsection (a) with respect to a project, the Secretary 
of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, as necessary, and any State or 
local agencies that have notified the Secretary under subsection (b) 
shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary establishing a 
schedule of decisionmaking for approval of the project and permits 
associated with the project and with related activities.
  (d) Contents of Agreement.--An agreement entered into under 
subsection (c) with respect to a project, to the extent practicable, 
shall consolidate hearing and comment periods, procedures for data 
collection and report preparation, and the environmental review and 
permitting processes associated with the project and related 
activities. The agreement shall detail, to the extent possible, the 
non-Federal interest's responsibilities for data development and 
information that may be necessary to process each permit required for 
the project, including a schedule when the information and data will be 
provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency or Indian 
tribe.
  (e) Revision of Agreement.--The Secretary may revise an agreement 
entered into under subsection (c) with respect to a project once to 
extend the schedule to allow the non-Federal interest the minimum 
amount of additional time necessary to revise its original application 
to meet the objections of a Federal, State, or local agency or Indian 
tribe that is a party to the agreement.
  (f) Final Decision.--Not later than the final day of a schedule 
established by an agreement entered into under subsection (c) with 
respect to a project, the Secretary shall notify the non-Federal 
interest of the final decision on the project and whether the permit or 
permits have been issued.
  (g) Reimbursement.--
          (1) Costs of coordination.--The costs incurred by the 
        Secretary to establish and carry out a schedule to consolidate 
        Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe environmental 
        assessments, project reviews, and permit issuance for a project 
        under this section shall be paid by the non-Federal interest.
          (2) Costs incurred to expedite permits and reviews.--
                  (A) Acceptance of non-federal funds.--The Secretary 
                may accept funds from the non-Federal interest to hire 
                additional staff or obtain the services of consultants, 
                or to provide financial, technical, and administrative 
                support to agencies that have entered into an agreement 
                with the Secretary under subsection (c) with respect to 
                a project in order to facilitate the timely processing, 
                review, and completion of applicable Federal, State, 
                and local agency and Indian tribe environmental 
                assessments, project reviews, and permits for the 
                project.
                  (B) Use of funds.--Funds accepted under this 
                paragraph shall be used to supplement existing 
                resources of the Secretary or a participating agency.
                  (C) Assurance of level of service and impartiality.--
                The Secretary shall ensure that the Department of the 
                Army and any participating agency that accepts funds 
                under this paragraph shall continue to provide the same 
                level of service to other projects and other 
                responsibilities not covered by this section as it 
                would provide notwithstanding any activities carried 
                out under this section and that acceptance of such 
                funds will not impact impartial decisionmaking either 
                substantively or procedurally.
  (h) Report on Timesavings Methods.--Not later than 3 years after the 
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and 
transmit to Congress a report estimating the time required for the 
issuance of all Federal, State, local, and tribal permits for the 
construction of non-Federal projects for water supply, wastewater 
infrastructure, flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and 
navigation. The Secretary shall include in that report recommendations 
for further reducing the amount of time required for the issuance of 
those permits, including any proposed changes in existing law.

SEC. 2028. PROJECT STREAMLINING.

  (a) Policy.--The benefits of water resources projects are important 
to the Nation's economy and environment, and recommendations to 
Congress regarding such projects should not be delayed due to 
uncoordinated and sequential environmental reviews or the failure to 
timely resolve disputes during the development of water resources 
projects.
  (b) Scope.--This section shall apply to each study initiated after 
the date of enactment of this Act to develop a feasibility report under 
section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2282), or a reevaluation report, for a water resources project if the 
Secretary determines that such study requires an environmental impact 
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
  (c) Water Resources Project Review Process.--The Secretary shall 
develop and implement a coordinated review process for water resources 
projects.
  (d) Coordinated Reviews.--
          (1) In general.--The coordinated review process under this 
        section shall provide that all environmental reviews, analyses, 
        opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals that must be issued 
        or made by a Federal, State, or local government agency or 
        Indian tribe for a water resources project will be conducted 
        concurrently, to the maximum extent practicable, and completed 
        within a time period established by the Secretary, in 
        cooperation with the agencies identified under subsection (e) 
        with respect to the project.
          (2) Agency participation.--Each Federal agency identified 
        under subsection (e) shall formulate and implement 
        administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms to enable the 
        agency to ensure completion of environmental reviews, analyses, 
        opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals described in 
        paragraph (1) in a timely and environmentally responsible 
        manner.
  (e) Identification of Jurisdictional Agencies.--With respect to each 
water resources project, the Secretary shall identify, as soon as 
practicable, all Federal, State, and local government agencies and 
Indian tribes that may have jurisdiction over environmental-related 
matters that may be affected by the project or may be required by law 
to conduct an environmental-related review or analysis of the project 
or determine whether to issue an environmental-related permit, license, 
or approval for the project.
  (f) State Authority.--If a coordinated review process is being 
implemented under this section by the Secretary with respect to a water 
resources project within the boundaries of a State, the State, 
consistent with State law, may choose to participate in such process 
and provide that all State agencies that have jurisdiction over 
environmental-related matters that may be affected by the project or 
may be required by law to conduct an environmental-related review or 
analysis of the project or determine whether to issue an environmental-
related permit, license, or approval for the project, be subject to the 
process.
  (g) Memorandum of Understanding.--The coordinated review process 
developed under this section may be incorporated into a memorandum of 
understanding for a project between the Secretary and the heads of 
other Federal, State, and local government agencies and Indian tribes 
identified under subsection (e) with respect to the project and the 
non-Federal interest for the project.
  (h) Effect of Failure To Meet Deadline.--
          (1) Notification of congress and ceq.--If the Secretary 
        determines that a Federal, State, or local government agency, 
        Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest that is participating in 
        a coordinated review process under this section with respect to 
        a project has not met a deadline established under subsection 
        (d) for the project, the Secretary shall notify, within 30 days 
        of the date of such determination, the Committee on 
        Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
        of the Senate, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the 
        agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest involved about 
        the failure to meet the deadline.
          (2) Agency report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
        receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, State, or 
        local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest 
        involved shall submit a report to the Secretary, the Committee 
        on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
        of the Senate, and the Council on Environmental Quality 
        explaining why the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal 
        interest did not meet the deadline and what actions it intends 
        to take to complete or issue the required review, analysis, 
        opinion, permit, license, or approval.
  (i) Purpose and Need and Determination of Reasonable Alternatives.--
          (1) In general.--As an official of the lead Federal agency 
        that is responsible for carrying out a study to which this 
        section applies and its associated process for meeting the 
        requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
        (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and as the Federal agency with 
        expertise in water resources development, the Secretary, in 
        carrying out such study and process, shall--
                  (A) define the purpose and need for the proposed 
                water resources project; and
                  (B) determine which alternatives are reasonable and 
                may be reasonably anticipated to meet project purposes 
                and needs.
          (2) Streamlining study.--To streamline a study to which this 
        section applies and its associated process for meeting the 
        requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
        (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Secretary may eliminate from 
        consideration any alternatives the Secretary determines are not 
        reasonable or are not reasonably anticipated to meet project 
        purposes and needs.
  (j) Solicitation and Consideration of Comments.--In applying 
subsection (i), the Secretary shall solicit, consider, and respond to 
comments from interested persons and governmental entities.
  (k) Categorical Exclusions.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and publish a 
list of categorical exclusions from the requirement that an 
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement be 
prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) for water resources projects.
  (l) Limitations.--Nothing in this section shall preempt or interfere 
with--
          (1) any practice of seeking public comment;
          (2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a Federal, 
        State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal 
        interest has with respect to carrying out a water resources 
        project; or
          (3) any obligation to comply with the provisions of the 
        National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et 
        seq.) and the regulations issued by the Council on 
        Environmental Quality to carry out such Act.
  (m) Benchmarks.--Within 12 months of the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Chief of Engineers shall establish benchmarks for determining 
the length of time it should take to conduct a feasibility study for a 
water resources development project and its associated review process 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et 
seq.). Benchmarks may be established for activities based on project 
type, size, cost, and complexity. The Chief of Engineers shall use such 
benchmarks as a management tool to make the feasibility study process 
more efficient in all districts of the Army Corps of Engineers.

SEC. 2029. LAKES PROGRAM.

  Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at end of paragraph (18);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of 
        silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
        sedimentation;
          ``(21) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal of 
        silt and restoration of structural integrity;
          ``(22) Greenwood Lake, Greenwood Lake, New York, removal of 
        silt and aquatic growth; and
          ``(23) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of 
        silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural 
        integrity.''.

SEC. 2030. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

  (a) Completion of Mitigation.--Section 906(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is amended by adding at the 
following:
          ``(3) Completion of mitigation.--In those instances in which 
        it is not technically practicable to complete mitigation 
        concurrent with the last day of project construction because of 
        the nature of the mitigation to be undertaken, the Secretary 
        shall complete the required mitigation as expeditiously as 
        practicable, but in no case later than the last day of the 
        first fiscal year beginning after the last day of construction 
        of the project or separable element of the project.''.
  (b) Mitigation Plan Contents.--Section 906(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
2283(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) Contents.--A mitigation plan shall include--
                  ``(A) a description of the physical action to be 
                undertaken to achieve the mitigation objectives within 
                the watershed in which such losses occur and, in any 
                case in which mitigation must take place outside the 
                watershed, a justification detailing the rationale for 
                undertaking the mitigation outside of the watershed;
                  ``(B) a description of the lands or interests in 
                lands to be acquired for mitigation and the basis for a 
                determination that such lands are available for 
                acquisition;
                  ``(C) the type, amount, and characteristics of the 
                habitat being restored;
                  ``(D) success criteria for mitigation based on 
                replacement of lost functions and values of the 
                habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative 
                characteristics; and
                  ``(E) a plan for any necessary monitoring to 
                determine the success of the mitigation, including the 
                cost and duration of any monitoring, and to the extent 
                practicable, the entities responsible for any 
                monitoring.
          ``(4) Responsibility for monitoring.--In any case in which it 
        is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for a water 
        resources project, the entity responsible for monitoring at the 
        time of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final 
        decision document for the project, such entity shall be 
        identified in the partnership agreement entered into with the 
        non-Federal interest.''.
  (c) Status Report.--
          (1) In general.--Concurrent with the President's submission 
        to Congress of the President's request for appropriations for 
        the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
        submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
        the House of Representatives and the Committee on the 
        Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the 
        status of construction of projects that require mitigation 
        under section 906 of Water Resources Development Act 1986 (33 
        U.S.C. 2283; 100 Stat. 4186) and the status of such mitigation.
          (2) Projects included.--The status report shall include the 
        status of all projects that are under construction, all 
        projects for which the President requests funding for the next 
        fiscal year, and all projects that have completed construction, 
        but have not completed the mitigation required under section 
        906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

SEC. 2031. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

  (a) In General.--For the purpose of expediting the cost-effective 
design and construction of wetlands restoration that is part of an 
authorized water resources project, the Secretary may enter into 
cooperative agreements under section 6305 of title 31, United States 
Code, with nonprofit organizations with expertise in wetlands 
restoration to carry out such design and construction on behalf of the 
Secretary.
  (b) Limitations.--
          (1) Per project limit.--A cooperative agreement under this 
        section shall not obligate the Secretary to pay the nonprofit 
        organization more than $1,000,000 for any single wetlands 
        restoration project.
          (2) Annual limit.--The total value of work carried out under 
        cooperative agreements under this section may not exceed 
        $5,000,000 in any fiscal year.

SEC. 2032. PROJECT PLANNING.

  (a) Objectives.--
          (1) Flood control, navigation, and hurricane and storm damage 
        reduction projects.--The Federal objective of any study of the 
        feasibility of a water resources project carried out by the 
        Secretary for flood damage reduction, navigation, or hurricane 
        and storm damage reduction shall be to maximize the net 
        national economic development benefits associated with the 
        project, consistent with protecting the Nation's environment.
          (2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--The Federal objective of 
        any study of the feasibility of a water resources project for 
        ecosystem restoration carried out by the Secretary shall be to 
        maximize the net national ecosystem restoration benefits 
        associated with the project, consistent with national economic 
        development.
          (3) Projects with multiple purposes.--In the case of a study 
        that includes multiple project purposes, the primary and other 
        project purposes shall be evaluated, based on the relevant 
        Federal objective identified under paragraphs (1) and (2).
          (4) Selection of project alternatives.--
                  (A) In general.--Notwithstanding the Federal 
                objectives identified in this subsection, the Secretary 
                may select a project alternative that does not maximize 
                net benefits if there is an overriding reason based 
                upon other Federal, State, local, or international 
                concerns.
                  (B) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane 
                storm damage reduction projects.--With respect to a 
                water resources project described in paragraph (1), an 
                overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the 
                plan that maximizes national economic development 
                benefits may be if the Secretary determines, and the 
                non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative plan 
                is feasible and achieves the project purposes while 
                providing greater ecosystem restoration benefits.
                  (C) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to 
                a water resources project described in paragraph (2), 
                an overriding reason for selecting a plan other than 
                the plan that maximizes national ecosystem restoration 
                benefits may be if the Secretary determines, and the 
                non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative is 
                feasible and achieves the project purpose while 
                providing greater economic development benefits.
  (b) Identifying Additional Benefits and Projects.--
          (1) Primarily economic benefits.--In conducting a study of 
        the feasibility of a project where the primary benefits are 
        expected to be economic, the Secretary may identify ecosystem 
        restoration benefits that may be achieved in the study area 
        and, after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal 
        interest, may study and recommend construction of a separate 
        project or separable project element to achieve those benefits.
          (2) Primarily ecosystem restoration benefits.--In conducting 
        a study of the feasibility of a project where the primary 
        benefits are expected to be associated with ecosystem 
        restoration, the Secretary may identify economic benefits that 
        may be achieved in the study area and, after obtaining the 
        participation of a non-Federal interest, may study and 
        recommend construction of a separate project or separable 
        project element to achieve those benefits.
          (3) Rules applicable to identified separate projects and 
        elements.--Any separate project or separable element identified 
        under paragraph (1) or (2) and recommended for construction 
        shall not be considered integral to the underlying project 
        under study and, if authorized, shall be subject to a separate 
        partnership agreement, unless a non-Federal interest agrees to 
        share in the cost of both projects or separable elements.
  (c) Calculation of Benefits and Costs for Flood Damage Reduction 
Projects.--A feasibility study for a project for flood damage reduction 
shall include, as part of the calculation of benefits and costs--
          (1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding following 
        completion of the proposed project;
          (2) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of 
        the proposed project; and
          (3) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs 
        associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are 
        evaluated in an equitable manner.

SEC. 2033. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

  (a) Project Studies Subject to Independent Peer Review.--
          (1) In general.--Project studies shall be subject to a peer 
        review by an independent panel of experts as determined under 
        this section.
          (2) Scope.--The peer review may include a review of the 
        economic and environmental assumptions and projections, project 
        evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental analyses, 
        engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, methods 
        for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in evaluation 
        of economic or environmental impacts of proposed projects, and 
        any biological opinions of the project study.
          (3) Project studies subject to peer review.--
                  (A) Mandatory.--A project study shall be subject to 
                peer review under paragraph (1) if the project has an 
                estimated total cost of more than $50,000,000, 
                including mitigation costs, and is not determined by 
                the Chief of Engineers to be exempt from peer review 
                under paragraph (6).
                  (B) Discretionary.--A project study may be subject to 
                peer review if--
                          (i) the Governor of an affected State 
                        requests a peer review by an independent panel 
                        of experts;
                          (ii) the head of a Federal or State agency 
                        charged with reviewing the project study 
                        determines that the project is likely to have a 
                        significant adverse impact on environmental, 
                        cultural, or other resources under the 
                        jurisdiction of the agency after implementation 
                        of proposed mitigation plans and requests a 
                        peer review by an independent panel of experts; 
                        or
                          (iii) the Chief of Engineers determines that 
                        the project study is controversial.
          (4) Controversial projects.--Upon receipt of a written 
        request under paragraph (3)(B) or on the initiative of the 
        Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers shall determine 
        whether a project study is controversial.
          (5) Factors to consider.--In determining whether a project 
        study is controversial, the Chief of Engineers shall consider 
        if--
                  (A) there is a significant public dispute as to the 
                size, nature, or effects of the project; or
                  (B) there is a significant public dispute as to the 
                economic or environmental costs or benefits of the 
                project.
          (6) Project studies excluded from peer review.--Project 
        studies that may be excluded from peer review under paragraph 
        (1) are--
                  (A) a study for a project the Chief of Engineers 
                determines--
                          (i) is not controversial;
                          (ii) has no more than negligible adverse 
                        impacts on scarce or unique cultural, historic, 
                        or tribal resources;
                          (iii) has no substantial adverse impacts on 
                        fish and wildlife species and their habitat 
                        prior to the implementation of mitigation 
                        measures; and
                          (iv) has, before implementation of mitigation 
                        measures, no more than a negligible adverse 
                        impact on a species listed as endangered or 
                        threatened species under the Endangered Species 
                        Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539 et seq.) or the 
                        critical habitat of such species designated 
                        under such Act; and
                  (B) a study for a project pursued under section 205 
                of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), 
                section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 
                (33 U.S.C. 701g), section 14 of the Flood Control Act 
                of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), section 107(a) of the River 
                and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), section 3 of 
                the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal 
                participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
                publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 
                U.S.C. 426g), section 111 of the River and Harbor Act 
                of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), section 3 of the Act entitled 
                ``An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and 
                preservation of certain public works on rivers and 
                harbors, and for other purposes'', approved March 2, 
                1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 1135 of the Water 
                Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), 
                section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
                1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), or section 204 of the Water 
                Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
          (7) Appeal.--The decision of the Chief of Engineers whether 
        to peer review a project study shall be published in the 
        Federal Register and shall be subject to appeal by a person 
        referred to in paragraph (3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the 
        Secretary of the Army if such appeal is made within the 30-day 
        period following the date of such publication.
          (8) Determination of project cost.--For purposes of 
        determining the estimated total cost of a project under 
        paragraph (3)(A), the project cost shall be based upon the 
        reasonable estimates of the Chief of Engineers at the 
        completion of the reconnaissance study for the project. If the 
        reasonable estimate of project costs is subsequently determined 
        to be in excess of the amount in paragraph (3)(A), the Chief of 
        Engineers shall make a determination whether a project study 
        should be reviewed under this section.
  (b) Timing of Peer Review.--The Chief of Engineers shall determine 
the timing of a peer review of a project study under subsection (a). In 
all cases, the peer review shall occur during the period beginning on 
the date of the completion of the reconnaissance study for the project 
and ending on the date the draft report of the Chief of Engineers for 
the project is made available for public comment. Where the Chief of 
Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a project study, the Chief 
of Engineers shall consider, at a minimum, whether to initiate a peer 
review at the time that--
          (1) the without project conditions are identified;
          (2) the array of alternatives to be considered are 
        identified; and
          (3) the preferred alternative is identified.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Chief of 
Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a project study.
  (c) Establishment of Panels.--
          (1) In general.--For each project study subject to peer 
        review under subsection (a), as soon as practicable after the 
        Chief of Engineers determines that a project study will be 
        subject to peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall contract 
        with the National Academy of Sciences (or a similar independent 
        scientific and technical advisory organization), or an eligible 
        organization, to establish a panel of experts to peer review 
        the project study for technical and scientific sufficiency.
          (2) Membership.--A panel of experts established for a project 
        study under this section shall be composed of independent 
        experts who represent a balance of areas of expertise suitable 
        for the review being conducted.
          (3) Limitation on appointments.--An individual may not be 
        selected to serve on a panel of experts established for a 
        project study under this section if the individual has a 
        financial or close professional association with any 
        organization or group with a strong financial or organizational 
        interest in the project.
          (4) Congressional notification.--Upon identification of a 
        project study for peer review under this section, but prior to 
        initiation of any review, the Chief of Engineers shall notify 
        the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
        the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
        of Representatives of such review.
  (d) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a peer 
review for a project study under this section shall, consistent with 
the scope of the referral for review--
          (1) conduct a peer review for the project study submitted to 
        the panel for review;
          (2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and 
        environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief 
        of Engineers;
          (3) provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief of 
        Engineers throughout the development of the project study, as 
        requested; and
          (4) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report 
        containing the panel's economic, engineering, and environmental 
        analysis of the project study, including the panel's assessment 
        of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and 
        environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief 
        of Engineers, to accompany the publication of the project 
        study.
  (e) Duration of Project Study Peer Reviews.--
          (1) Deadline.--A panel of experts shall--
                  (A) complete its peer review under this section for a 
                project study and submit a report to the Chief of 
                Engineers under subsection (d)(4) within 180 days after 
                the date of establishment of the panel, or, if the 
                Chief of Engineers determines that a longer period of 
                time is necessary, such period of time established by 
                the Chief of Engineers, but in no event later than 90 
                days after the date a draft project study is made 
                available for public review; and
                  (B) terminate on the date of submission of the 
                report.
          (2) Failure to meet deadline.--If a panel does not complete 
        its peer review of a project study under this section and 
        submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection 
        (d)(4) on or before the deadline established by paragraph (1) 
        for the project study, the Chief of Engineers shall continue 
        the project study for the project that is subject to peer 
        review by the panel without delay.
  (f) Recommendations of Panel.--
          (1) Consideration by the chief of engineers.--After receiving 
        a report on a project study from a panel of experts under this 
        section and before entering a final record of decision for the 
        project, the Chief of Engineers shall consider any 
        recommendations contained in the report and prepare a written 
        response for any recommendations adopted or not adopted.
          (2) Public availability and transmittal to congress.--After 
        receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 
        under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall--
                  (A) make a copy of the report and any written 
                response of the Chief of Engineers on recommendations 
                contained in the report available to the public; and
                  (B) transmit to Congress a copy of the report, 
                together with any such written response, on the date of 
                a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final 
                decision document for a project study that is subject 
                to peer review by the panel.
  (g) Costs.--
          (1) In general.--The costs of a panel of experts established 
        for a peer review under this section--
                  (A) shall be a Federal expense; and
                  (B) shall not exceed $500,000.
          (2) Waiver.--The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000 
        limitation contained in paragraph (1)(B) in cases that the 
        Chief of Engineers determines appropriate.
  (h) Applicability.--This section shall apply to--
          (1) project studies initiated during the 2-year period 
        preceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the 
        array of alternatives to be considered has not been identified; 
        and
          (2) project studies initiated during the period beginning on 
        such date of enactment and ending 4 years after such date of 
        enactment.
  (i) Report.--Within 4 1/2 years of the date of enactment of this 
section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit a report to Congress on 
the implementation of this section.
  (j) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any peer review panel established under 
this section.
  (k) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers to cause or conduct a 
peer review of a water resources project existing on the date of 
enactment of this section.
  (l) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a 
        feasibility study or reevaluation study for a project. The term 
        also includes any other study associated with a modification or 
        update of a project that includes an environmental impact 
        statement, including the environmental impact statement.
          (2) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'', as used 
        with respect to a project, means a State all or a portion of 
        which is within the drainage basin in which the project is or 
        would be located and would be economically or environmentally 
        affected as a consequence of the project.
          (3) Eligible organization.--The term ``eligible 
        organization'' means an organization that--
                  (A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt 
                from Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal 
                Revenue Code of 1986;
                  (B) is independent;
                  (C) is free from conflicts of interest;
                  (D) does not carry out or advocate for or against 
                Federal water resources projects; and
                  (E) has experience in establishing and administering 
                peer review panels.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

SEC. 3001. COOK INLET, ALASKA.

  (a) Anchorage Harbor.--The project for navigation improvements, Cook 
Inlet, Alaska (Anchorage Harbor, Alaska), authorized by section 101 of 
the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299) and modified by section 
199 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2944), is 
further modified to direct the Secretary to establish a harbor depth of 
minus 45 feet mean lower low water for a length of 5,200 feet at the 
modified Port of Anchorage intermodal marine facility at each phase as 
such phases are completed and thereafter as the entire project is 
completed, at a total cost of $8,175,000. Federal maintenance shall 
continue for the existing facility until the modified facility is 
completed. Federal maintenance of the modified project shall be in 
accordance with such section 101; except that the project shall be 
maintained at a depth of minus 45 feet mean lower low water for such 
5,200 feet, at an estimated annual cost of $6,000,000.
  (b) Navigation Channel.--The Secretary shall modify the channel depth 
to run the entire length of Fire Island Range and Point Woronzof Range 
maintaining the same width and modifying the depth to minus 45 feet 
mean lower low water in the existing Cook Inlet Navigation Channel 
approach to Anchorage Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $21,525,000. 
The project shall be maintained at a depth of minus 45 mean lower low 
water, at an estimated annual cost of $3,000,000.

SEC. 3002. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for navigation, King Cove Harbor, Alaska, being carried out 
under section 107 of the River Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), 
shall be $8,000,000.

SEC. 3003. SITKA, ALASKA.

  The Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, element of the project for 
navigation Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, authorized by 
section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4801), is modified to direct the Secretary to take such action as may 
be necessary to correct design deficiencies in such element, at a 
Federal expense of $6,300,000.

SEC. 3004. TATILEK, ALASKA.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for navigation, Tatilek, Alaska, being carried out under 
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall 
be $10,000,000.

SEC. 3005. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES, ARIZONA.

  The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona, 
authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 303 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) and section 302 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2600), is 
further modified to direct the Secretary to use the Mexico Plan-1st 
Added Increment, as described in the limited reevaluation report dated 
September 13, 2002, to determine the cost allocation and cost 
apportionment for the project.

SEC. 3006. GRAND PRAIRIE REGION AND BAYOU METO BASIN, ARKANSAS.

  The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation report for the 
Bayou Meto basin element of the project for Grand Prairie Region and 
Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas, reauthorized by section 363(a) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3730), and make a 
determination of whether the element is feasible, regardless of mission 
priorities.

SEC. 3007. SAINT FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS.

  The project for flood control, Saint Francis Basin, Missouri and 
Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 
(64 Stat. 172), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct 
improvements along Ditch No. 1 that consist of a gated culvert through 
the Saint Francis Levee and related channel improvements.

SEC. 3008. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for flood damage reduction, American and Sacramento 
Rivers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3662-3663) and modified by 
section 366 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
319-320), is further modified to direct the Secretary to carry out the 
project, at a total cost of $205,000,000.

SEC. 3009. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, California, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4112), is modified to direct the Secretary to mitigate 
the impacts of the new south levee of the Cache Creek settling basin on 
the city of Woodland's storm drainage system, including all appurtenant 
features, erosion control measures, and environmental protection 
features. Such mitigation shall restore the city's preproject capacity 
(1,360 cubic feet per second) to release water to the Yolo Bypass, 
including channel improvements, an outlet work through the west levee 
of the Yolo Bypass, and a new low-flow cross channel to handle city and 
county storm drainage and settling basin flows (1,760 cubic feet per 
second) when the Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condition.

SEC. 3010. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER'S CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson Creek/
Murderer's Creek, California, being carried out under section 206 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is 
modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the 
project.

SEC. 3011. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCKTON SHIP CHANNEL, 
                    CALIFORNIA.

  The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, California, 
authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 
1091) is modified--
          (1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
        John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel element 
        of the project may be provided in the form of in-kind services 
        and materials; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of such element the cost of planning and 
        design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 
        date of an agreement for such planning and design if the 
        Secretary determines that such work is integral to such 
        element.

SEC. 3012. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, 
California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of the planning, design, and construction work carried 
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines the work is 
integral to the project.

SEC. 3013. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, 
California, authorized by section 601(d) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to prepare a limited reevaluation report to determine whether 
maintenance of the project is feasible. If the Secretary determines 
that maintenance of the project is feasible, the Secretary shall carry 
out the maintenance.

SEC. 3014. NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, NAPA RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

  In carrying out the feasibility study for the project for aquatic 
ecosystem restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa and 
Sonoma Counties, California, the Secretary shall determine whether work 
carried out by the non-Federal interest is integral to the project. In 
any case in which the work is determined to be integral to the project 
before completion of the final report of the Chief of Engineers on the 
project, such work shall be included as part of the project, and the 
cost of such work shall be recommended in the final report for credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. Work carried 
out after submission of the final report and before the date of the 
partnership agreement for the project that is determined to be integral 
to the project shall be considered as part of the project, and the cost 
of such work shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project.

SEC. 3015. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific Flyway Center, 
Sacramento, California, being carried out under section 206 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified 
to authorize the Secretary to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public 
access to the project.

SEC. 3016. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Pinole 
Creek Phase I, California, being carried out under section 1135 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified 
to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3017. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA.

  Upon completion of the modifications to the Prado Dam element of the 
project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4113), the Memorandum of Agreement for the Operation 
for Prado Dam for Seasonal Additional Water Conservation between the 
Department of the Army and the Orange County Water District (including 
all the conditions and stipulations in the memorandum) shall remain in 
effect for volumes of water made available prior to such modifications.

SEC. 3018. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, 
California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 3019. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for flood control, Sacramento River, California, 
authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
control of the floods of the Mississippi River and of the Sacramento 
River, California, and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 
Stat. 949), and modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), section 301(b)(3) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3110), title 
I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 
Stat. 1841), and section 305 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999 (113 Stat. 299), is further modified to direct the Secretary to 
credit the non-Federal interest up to $4,000,000 toward the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project for costs incurred by the non-Federal 
interest in carrying out activities (including the provision of lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal 
areas) associated with environmental compliance for the project if the 
Secretary determines that the activities are integral to the project.

SEC. 3020. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for flood control, San Lorenzo River, California, 
authorized by section 101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
not more than $2,000,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 
the project for the cost of the work carried out by the non-Federal 
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
if the Secretary determines the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3021. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper 
Guadalupe River, California, described as the Bypass Channel Plan of 
the Chief of Engineers dated August 19, 1998, authorized by section 
101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
275), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, 
at a total cost of $140,328,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$70,164,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $70,164,000. The non-
Federal share of the cost of the project shall be subject to section 
103(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2213(a)(3)).

SEC. 3022. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut Creek Channel, 
California, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
determines that the work is integral to the project and to authorize 
the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in 
determining the Federal interest in the project.

SEC. 3023. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 
Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, being carried out under 
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out 
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.

SEC. 3024. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/San Pablo 
Creek Phase II, California, being carried out under section 206 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified 
to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project 
and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the 
project.

SEC. 3025. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

  Section 310 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
301) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(d) Credit.--After completion of the study, the Secretary shall 
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 
of nourishment and renourishment associated with the shore protection 
project incurred by the non-Federal interest to respond to damages to 
Brevard County beaches that are the result of a Federal navigation 
project, as determined in the final report for the study.''.

SEC. 3026. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA.

  The project for shore protection, Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, 
Florida, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 
(79 Stat. 1090), and modified by section 311 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301), is further modified to direct 
the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of mitigation construction and derelict erosion 
control structure removal carried out by the non-Federal interest 
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3027. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.

  The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero Island 
segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized under section 201 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073) by Senate Resolution dated 
December 17, 1970, and by House Resolution dated December 15, 1970, and 
modified by section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2602), is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3028. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.

  The project for shore protection, Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida, 
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 
1819), deauthorized under section 1001(b) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), and reauthorized by 
section 364(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 313), is modified to direct the Secretary to construct the 
project, at a total cost of $12,926,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
of $6,547,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,379,000, and at 
an estimated average annual cost of $925,000 for periodic nourishment 
over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal 
cost of $468,500 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of $456,500.

SEC. 3029. MANATEE HARBOR, FLORIDA.

  The project for navigation, Manatee Harbor, Florida, authorized by 
section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4093) and modified by section 102(j) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4612), is further modified--
          (1) to include the construction of an extension of the south 
        channel a distance of approximately 1584 feet consistent with 
        the general reevaluation report, dated April 2002, prepared by 
        the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, at a total cost 
        of $11,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,475,000 
        and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,825,000;
          (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of in-kind services 
        and materials provided for the project by the non-Federal 
        interest;
          (3) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, 
        and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
        before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 
        the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
        project; and
          (4) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project as 
        modified at a total cost of $61,500,000.

SEC. 3030. TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA.

  The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, referred to in 
section 4 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 
1042), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, 
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3031. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA.

  The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida, 
authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 276) is modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3032. MIAMI HARBOR, FLORIDA.

  The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, authorized 
by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
(104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 315 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 302), is further modified to include 
as a project purpose environmental mitigation required before July 18, 
2003, by Federal, State, and local environmental agencies for 
unauthorized or unanticipated environmental impacts within, or in the 
vicinity of, the authorized project.

SEC. 3033. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO.

  The project for flood damage reduction, Little Wood River, Gooding, 
Idaho, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified--
          (1) to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any 
        portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in 
        the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind 
        contributions;
          (2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to use funds made 
        available under any other Federal program toward the non-
        Federal share of the cost of the project if such use of the 
        funds is permitted under the other Federal program; and
          (3) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project, to make a determination under 
        section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
        (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest's ability to 
        pay.

SEC. 3034. HENNEPIN-HOPPER LAKES, ILLINOIS.

  (a) Project Purpose.--The project for flood control, Hennepin levees, 
Illinois, authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 26, 1936 (35 
Stat. 1583), is modified to add environmental restoration as a project 
purpose.
  (b) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the 
environment, Hennepin-Hopper Lakes, Illinois, being carried out under 
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2309a), shall be $7,500,000.
  (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility 
of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of 
the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain 
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
purposes'', approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

SEC. 3035. MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND BIG MUDDY RIVER, ILLINOIS.

  (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Mississippi River and 
Big Muddy River, Illinois, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938, 
is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out repair and 
rehabilitation of the project at a total cost of $22,600,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $16,950,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $5,650,000, and to perform operation and maintenance of the project 
thereafter.
  (b) Other Assistance.--Federal assistance made available through the 
Department of Agriculture may be used toward payment of the non-Federal 
share of the costs of the repair and rehabilitation under this section.
  (c) United States Lands.--Costs under this section for the repair and 
rehabilitation allocable to the protection of lands owned by the United 
States shall be a Federal responsibility. The Secretary shall seek 
reimbursement from the Secretary of Agriculture for the costs allocated 
to protecting lands owned by the Department of Agriculture.
  (d) Operation and Maintenance of Non-Federal Lands.--The cost of 
operation and maintenance under this section allocated to protecting 
non-Federal lands shall be a non-Federal responsibility.

SEC. 3036. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS.

  (a) Project Purpose.--The project for flood control at Spunky 
Bottoms, Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 
June 26, 1936 (35 Stat. 1584), is modified to add environmental 
restoration as a project purpose.
  (b) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the 
environment, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, being carried out under section 
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), 
shall be $7,500,000.
  (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility 
of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of 
the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain 
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
purposes'', approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

SEC. 3037. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS.

  (a) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Emiquon, 
Illinois, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), shall be $7,500,000.
  (b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility 
of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of 
the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain 
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
purposes'', approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

SEC. 3038. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.

  The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry 
out the project in accordance with the postauthorization change report 
dated August 2000, at a total cost of $186,300,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $136,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$49,700,000.

SEC. 3039. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.

  The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of White 
River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and 
harbors for flood control, and other purposes'', approved June 22, 1936 
(49 Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and section 322 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 303-304), is further 
modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake the riverfront 
alterations described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept 
Plan, dated February 1994, for the Fall Creek Reach feature, at a total 
cost of $28,545,000 and to direct the Secretary to credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, 
design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3040. WOLF LAKE, INDIANA.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wolf Lake, Indiana, 
being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 
of planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 3041. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY.

  The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project for flood control, 
Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland Rivers, West 
Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), 
is modified to direct the Secretary to take measures to provide a 100-
year level of flood protection for the city of Prestonsburg.

SEC. 3042. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON ROUGE 
                    PARISH WATERSHED.

  The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Amite River 
and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed, 
authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 277) and modified by section 116 of Division D of 
Public Law 108-7 (117 Stat. 140), is further modified to direct the 
Secretary to carry out the project with the cost sharing for the 
project determined in accordance with section 103(a) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effect on 
October 11, 1996.

SEC. 3043. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.

  (a) In General.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603-2604) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(1) is authorized to study, design, construct, operate, and 
        maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A Regional Visitor Center 
        in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana, in consultation with 
        the State of Louisiana, to provide information to the public on 
        the Atchafalaya River system and other associated waterways 
        that have influenced surrounding communities, and national and 
        local water resources development of the Army Corps of 
        Engineers in South Central Louisiana; and''.
  (b) Technical Correction.--Section 315(b) of such Act is amended by 
striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a)(2)''.
  (c) Donations.--Section 315 of such Act is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
   ``(c) Donations.--In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the Mississippi 
River Commission is authorized to accept the donation of cash, funds, 
lands, materials, and services from non-Federal governmental entities 
and nonprofit corporations.''.

SEC. 3044. PUBLIC ACCESS, ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA.

  The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, 
Louisiana, project, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act 
1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
acquire from willing sellers the fee interest, exclusive of oil, gas, 
and minerals, of an additional 20,000 acres of land within the Lower 
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for the public access feature of the 
Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, to enhance fish and wildlife 
resources, at a total cost of $4,000,000.

SEC. 3045. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO 
                    SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.

  The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, J. Bennett 
Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana, 
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and modified by section 4(h) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 
301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3710), and section 316 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2572), is further modified to authorize the purchase and 
reforesting of lands which have been cleared or converted to 
agricultural uses.

SEC. 3046. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA.

  The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, authorized as part 
of the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake Pontchartrain, 
Louisiana, by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 
1077) and modified by section 365 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3739), is further modified to direct the 
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the costs of relocating oyster beds in the Davis Pond project 
area if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
Mississippi Delta Region project.

SEC. 3047. NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LOUISIANA.

  The New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana, project for hurricane 
protection, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 
(76 Stat. 1184), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out 
the work on the St. Jude to City Price, Upper Reach A back levee. The 
Federal share of the cost of such work shall be 70 percent.

SEC. 3048. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY CANAL), 
                    LOUISIANA.

  Section 328 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
304-305) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``operation and maintenance'' and 
                inserting ``operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, 
                repair, and replacement''; and
                  (B) by striking ``Algiers Channel'' and inserting 
                ``Algiers Canal Levees''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
shall be 35 percent.''.

SEC. 3049. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project being carried out under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the mitigation of shore damages 
attributable to the project for navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, 
shall be $10,000,000.

SEC. 3050. UNION RIVER, MAINE.

  The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, authorized by the 
first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making appropriations for 
the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on 
rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'', approved June 3, 1896 (29 
Stat. 215), is modified by redesignating as an anchorage area that 
portion of the project consisting of a 6-foot turning basin and lying 
northerly of a line commencing at a point N315,975.13, E1,004,424.86 
thence running north 61 degrees 27 minutes 20.71 seconds west about 
132.34 feet to a point N316,038.37, E1,004,308.61.

SEC. 3051. CASS RIVER, SPAULDING TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN.

  (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, Cass River, 
Spaulding Township, Saginaw County, Michigan, being carried out under 
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is 
modified to incorporate flood control works constructed by the non-
Federal interests between Sheridan Road and East Street (M-13) if the 
Secretary determines that the inclusion of such flood control works is 
feasible.
  (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 3052. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

  (a) In General.--The project for emergency streambank and shoreline 
protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan, being carried 
out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), 
is modified to include measures to enhance public access.
  (b) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be expended for the project shall be $3,000,000.

SEC. 3053. WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE, MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN.

  (a) In General.--The project for emergency streambank and shoreline 
protection, Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, Michigan, being 
carried out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 
U.S.C. 701r), is modified to provide for completion of shoreline 
protection measures in accordance with the approved plans and 
specifications for Grand Valley State University, Lake Michigan Center, 
dated August 6, 2001.
  (b) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be expended for the project shall be $2,000,000.
  (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the cost of the project the cost of design and implementation of 
shoreline protection measures carried out by the non-Federal interest 
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3054. SAGINAW RIVER, BAY CITY, MICHIGAN.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for emergency streambank protection, Saginaw River, Bay City, 
Michigan, being carried out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), shall be $2,000,000.

SEC. 3055. ADA, MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice 
River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in 
determining the Federal interest in the project.
  (b) Evaluation of Benefits and Costs.--In evaluating the economic 
benefits and costs for the project, the Secretary shall not consider 
the emergency levee adjacent to Judicial Ditch No. 51 in the 
determination of conditions existing prior to construction of the 
project.
  (c) Special Rule.--In evaluating and implementing the project, the 
Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that 
the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is 
necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 3056. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, McQuade 
Road, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 321 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), is further 
modified to authorize the Secretary to provide public access and 
recreational facilities as generally described in the Detailed Project 
Report and Environmental Assessment, McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge, 
Duluth, Minnesota, dated August 1999.
  (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs of design work 
carried out before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.
  (c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be expended for the project shall be $5,000,000.

SEC. 3057. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

  The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share of 
the cost of the navigation project for Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota, 
carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 
U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 312 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), for the costs of design work 
carried out before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 3058. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to implement under section 
205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) the locally 
preferred plan for flood damage reduction, Granite Falls, Minnesota, 
substantially in accordance with the detailed project report dated 
2002, at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$8,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,000,000.
  (b) Project Financing.--In evaluating and implementing the project 
under this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interests 
to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with 
section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4184), to the extent that the detailed project report evaluation 
indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the 
project.
  (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out by 
the non-Federal interest before date of execution of a partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.
  (d) Maximum Funding.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the flood damage reduction shall be $8,000,000.

SEC. 3059. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.

  Section 527 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
2657) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a) by inserting after ``June 30, 1999'' 
        the following ``, and including Hennepin Island and adjacent 
        areas on the east side of the Mississippi River''; and
          (2) in subsection (c) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$25,000,000''.

SEC. 3060. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

  The project for flood control, Red Lake River at Crookston, 
Minnesota, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is modified to include flood 
protection for the adjacent and interconnected areas generally known as 
the Sampson and Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance with the 
Feasibility Report Supplement, Local Flood Protection, Crookston, 
Minnesota, at a total cost of $25,000,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $16,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,750,000.

SEC. 3061. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA.

  The project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, authorized by 
section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), 
is modified to include operation and maintenance of the general 
navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility.

SEC. 3062. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

  The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Minnesota, carried out 
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), 
is modified to include operation and maintenance of the general 
navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility.

SEC. 3063. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota, 
being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 
(33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include construction of a dredged 
material disposal facility, including actions required to clear the 
site.
  (b) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--Non-Federal interests shall 
be responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and 
relocations necessary for the construction of the dredged material 
disposal facility.
  (c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be expended for the project shall be $5,000,000.

SEC. 3064. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

  The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island, Harrison County, 
Mississippi, being carried out under section 204 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is modified to authorize the 
non-Federal interest to provide any portion of the non-Federal share of 
the cost of the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, 
or other in-kind contributions.

SEC. 3065. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, MISSOURI.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for flood damage reduction, Bois Brule Drainage and Levee 
District, Missouri, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $25,000,000.

SEC. 3066. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA.

  The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, 
Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(20) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is 
modified--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-
        Federal share of the cost of the project or reimbursement for 
        the costs of any work that has been or will be performed by the 
        non-Federal interest before, on, or after the approval of the 
        project partnership agreement, including work performed by the 
        non-Federal interest in connection with the design and 
        construction of 7 upstream detention storage structures, if the 
        Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project;
          (2) to require that in-kind work to be credited under 
        paragraph (1) be subject to audit; and
          (3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance funds from the 
        non-Federal interest as needed to maintain the project 
        schedule.

SEC. 3067. ALAMOGORDO, NEW MEXICO.

  The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation report, dated 
March 1999, for the project for flood protection, Alamogordo, New 
Mexico, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 
Stat. 85), and determine if the locally preferred flood detention basin 
would provide the same level of flood protection for the north side of 
the city of Alamogordo at a cost that is not greater than the cost of 
authorized channel improvements. If the Secretary determines that the 
flood detention basin is feasible, would provide the same level of 
flood protection, and can be constructed at the no additional cost, the 
Secretary may construct the flood detention basin instead of the 
channel improvements. The Federal share of the cost of the flood 
detention basin alternative shall be calculated in the same manner as 
if the channel improvements project was being constructed.

SEC. 3068. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

  The project for shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, 
authorized by section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (110 Stat. 3781), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
construct the project, at a total cost of $18,000,000.

SEC. 3069. TIMES BEACH, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

  The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Times 
Beach, Buffalo, New York, being carried out under section 1135 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4251), is modified 
to direct the Secretary to credit not more than $750,000 toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the cost of planning, 
design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
Secretary determines the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3070. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

  The navigation project, Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and 
New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(2) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is modified--
          (1) to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal 
        interest to construct a temporary dredged material storage 
        facility to receive dredged material from the project if--
                  (A) the non-Federal interest submits, in writing, a 
                list of potential sites for the temporary storage 
                facility to the Committee on Transportation and 
                Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the 
                Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
                Senate, and the Secretary at least 180 days before the 
                selection of the final site; and
                  (B) at least 70 percent of the dredged material 
                generated in connection with the project suitable for 
                beneficial reuse will be used at sites in the State of 
                New Jersey to the extent that there are sufficient 
                sites available; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of construction of 
        the temporary storage facility if the Secretary determines that 
        the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3071. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

  Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3781) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this section, the term 
`New York State Canal System' means the 524 miles of navigable canal 
that comprise the New York State Canal System, including the Erie, 
Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and Champlain Canals and the historic alignments 
of these canals, including the cities of Albany and Buffalo.''.

SEC. 3072. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

  Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the Secretary in 
October 1999 of all costs associated with present and future water 
storage costs at Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma, under Arcadia Lake Water 
Storage Contract Number DACW56-79-C-002 shall satisfy the obligations 
of the city under that contract.

SEC. 3073. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, 
                    OREGON.

  (a) In General.--The project for environmental restoration, 
Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon, 
authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665) and modified by section 344 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 308), is further modified 
to direct the Secretary to pay, subject to the availability of 
appropriations, compensation for losses to small business attributable 
to the implementation of the drawdown conducted as a part of project 
implementation in 2002.
  (b) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish, and provide 
public notice of, a program--
          (1) to receive claims for compensation for losses to small 
        business attributable to the implementation of the drawdown 
        conducted as a part of project implementation in 2002;
          (2) to evaluate claims for such losses; and
          (3) to pay claims for such losses.
  (c) Implementation of Program.--In carrying out the program 
established under subsection (b), the Secretary shall provide--
          (1) public notice of the existence of the program sufficient 
        to reach those in the area that may have suffered losses to 
        small businesses;
          (2) a period for the submission of claims of not fewer than 
        45 days and not greater than 75 days from the date of the first 
        public notice of the existence of the program;
          (3) for the evaluation of each claim submitted to the 
        Secretary under the program and a determination of whether the 
        claim constitutes a loss to a small business on or before the 
        last day of the 30-day period beginning on the date of 
        submission of the claim; and
          (4) for the payment of each claim that the Secretary 
        determines constitutes a loss to a small business on or before 
        the last day of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the 
        Secretary's determination.
  (d) Loss to a Small Business Defined.--In this section, the term 
``loss to a small business'' means documented financial losses 
associated with commercial activity of a small business that can be 
attributed to the turbidity levels in the McKenzie River being higher 
than those anticipated in the original planning documents and public 
announcements existing before the initiation of the drawdown in 2002. 
Commercial losses include decline in sales, loss of revenue (including 
loss of revenue from canceled or delayed reservations at lodging 
establishments), and any other financial losses that can be shown to be 
associated with the elevated turbidity levels in the McKenzie River in 
2002.
  (e) Payment of Claims.--The payment of claims for losses to small 
businesses shall be a Federal responsibility.

SEC. 3074. FRENCH CREEK, UNION CITY DAM, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The project for flood control French Creek, Union City Dam, 
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 
1962 (76 Stat. 1189), is modified to include recreation as a project 
purpose.

SEC. 3075. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT OLYPHANT, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at Olyphant, 
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(16) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to construct the project, at a total cost of $20,000,000.

SEC. 3076. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at Scranton, 
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(17) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to construct the project, at a total cost of $23,000,000.

SEC. 3077. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary, including 
construction of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline erosion between .07 
and 2.7 miles south of Pennsylvania State Route 994 on the east shore 
of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 3078. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS CREEK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 
                    PENNSYLVANIA.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sheraden Park Stream 
and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, being carried out 
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 
U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit up to 
$400,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3079. SOLOMON'S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is modified to include as a project element the 
project for flood control for Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, 
Pennsylvania.

SEC. 3080. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 313(h)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4847; 109 Stat. 407; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by striking 
``Allegheny, Armstrong, Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, 
Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, 
Somerset, Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties'' and inserting 
``Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Fayette, Franklin, 
Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Somerset, Washington, and 
Westmoreland Counties''.

SEC. 3081. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.

  In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, 
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), the Secretary shall 
coordinate with non-Federal interests to review opportunities for 
increased public access.

SEC. 3082. LITTLE LIMESTONE CREEK, JONESBOROUGH, TENNESSEE.

  In evaluating and implementing the project for flood damage 
reduction, Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee, under 
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), the 
Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), to the extent that 
the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is 
necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 3083. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

  (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, 
reauthorized by section 349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632), is modified--
          (1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project to a 
        depth of 10 feet by 100 feet wide from mile 2.5 to mile 11 on 
        Cedar Bayou if the Secretary determines that the project is 
        feasible; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of planning and 
        design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the 
        project if the Secretary determines that such work is integral 
        to the project.
  (b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for construction and operation and 
maintenance of the project shall be determined in accordance with 
section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2211).

SEC. 3084. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may not take any legal or 
administrative action seeking to remove a Lake Kemp improvement before 
the earlier of January 1, 2020, or the date of any transfer of 
ownership of the improvement occurring after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
  (b) Limitation on Liability.--The United States, or any of its 
officers, agents, or assignees, shall not be liable for any injury, 
loss, or damage accruing to the owners of a Lake Kemp improvement, 
their lessees, or occupants as a result of any flooding or inundation 
of such improvements by the waters of the Lake Kemp reservoir, or for 
such injury, loss, or damage as may occur through the operation and 
maintenance of the Lake Kemp dam and reservoir in any manner.
  (c) Lake Kemp Improvement Defined.--In this section, the term ``Lake 
Kemp improvement'' means an improvement (including dwellings) located 
within the flowage easement of Lake Kemp, Texas, below elevation 1159 
feet mean sea level.

SEC. 3085. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.

  The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is modified--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, 
        and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
        before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 
        the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
        project; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project, to make a determination under 
        section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
        (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest's ability to 
        pay.

SEC. 3086. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS.

  The project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage reduction, 
North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, authorized by section 
556 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), is 
modified to include recreation as a project purpose.

SEC. 3087. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS.

  The Secretary is authorized to convert flowage easements to fee 
simple title in the subdivisions of Buffalo Springs and Frees Lakeview, 
and adjacent areas, located within the boundaries necessary for the 
operation of the Proctor Lake project, Texas, authorized by section 203 
of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and to purchase all 
improved and unimproved properties within such boundaries and to pay 
relocation assistance benefits to qualified landowners as applicable 
under the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).

SEC. 3088. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

  The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, Texas, authorized 
by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259) as part 
of the comprehensive plan for flood protection on the Guadalupe and San 
Antonio Rivers in Texas and modified by section 103 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and section 335 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is 
further modified to authorize the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of construction work 
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3089. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.

  Section 358 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
312) is amended by striking ``September 30, 1999'' and inserting ``May 
4, 1997''.

SEC. 3090. ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, VIRGINIA.

  The project for flood control, Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4126) and modified by section 110 of the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 650), is further 
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project, at a 
total cost of $64,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$42,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,200,000. In 
carrying out the project, the Secretary shall award contracts based on 
invitation-for-bids procedures.

SEC. 3091. BLAIR AND SITCUM WATERWAYS, TACOMA HARBOR, WASHINGTON.

  (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Blair and Sitcum 
Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington, authorized by section 202(a) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4096) and 
deepened to 51 feet under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to direct the Secretary to review the 
locally prepared plan for the Blair and Sitcum Waterways, Washington, 
and, if the Secretary determines that the plan meets the evaluation and 
design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the plan is 
feasible, to authorize the Secretary to carry out the plan, at a 
Federal cost of $4,240,000.
  (b) Non-Federal Work.--The Secretary shall provide credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project, or reimbursement for, the 
cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines 
that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3092. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

  Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking ``$47,000,000'' and 
inserting ``$89,000,000''.

SEC. 3093. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

  The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized 
by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852, is modified to direct 
the Secretary to deepen the upstream reach of the navigation channel 
from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total cost of $300,000.

SEC. 3094. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

  Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 
4027) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``1276.42'' and inserting 
                ``1278.42'';
                  (B) by striking ``1218.31'' and inserting 
                ``1221.31''; and
                  (C) by striking ``1234.82'' and inserting 
                ``1235.30''; and
          (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
  ``(b) Exception.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters reservoirs 
below the minimum or above the maximum water levels established in 
subsection (a) in accordance with water control regulation manuals (or 
revisions thereto) developed by the Secretary, after consultation with 
the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal governments, landowners, 
and commercial and recreational users. The water control regulation 
manuals (and any revisions thereto) shall be effective when the 
Secretary transmits them to Congress. The Secretary shall report to 
Congress at least 14 days before operating any such headwaters 
reservoir below the minimum or above the maximum water level limits 
specified in subsection (a); except that notification is not required 
for operations necessary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the 
safety of the dam or where the drawdown of lake levels is in 
anticipation of flood control operations.''.

SEC. 3095. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), the following 
projects shall remain authorized to be carried out by the Secretary:
          (1) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, 
        Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
        Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).
          (2) The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam, 
        authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 
        Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127).
  (b) Limitation.--A project described in subsection (a) shall not be 
authorized for construction after the last day of the 5-year period 
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, unless, during such 
period, funds have been obligated for the construction (including 
planning and design) of the project.

SEC. 3096. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

  Each of the following projects may be carried out by the Secretary 
and no construction on any such project may be initiated until the 
Secretary determines that the project is feasible:
          (1) Menominee harbor and river, michigan and wisconsin.--The 
        project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan 
        and Wisconsin, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
        Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized on April 15, 
        2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)).
          (2) Manitowoc harbor, wisconsin.--That portion of the project 
        for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, consisting of the 
        channel in the south part of the outer harbor, deauthorized by 
        section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 
        1176).

SEC. 3097. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) In General.--The following projects are not authorized after the 
date of enactment of this Act:
          (1) Bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--The portion of the 
        project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, 
        authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 
        Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel in Yellow Mill 
        River and described as follows: Beginning at a point along the 
        eastern limit of the existing project, N123,649.75, 
        E481,920.54, thence running northwesterly about 52.64 feet to a 
        point N123,683.03, E481,879.75, thence running northeasterly 
        about 1,442.21 feet to a point N125,030.08, E482,394.96, thence 
        running northeasterly about 139.52 feet to a point along the 
        east limit of the existing channel, N125,133.87, E482,488.19, 
        thence running southwesterly about 1,588.98 feet to the point 
        of origin.
          (2) Norwalk harbor, connecticut.--The following portions a 
        10-foot channel of the project for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, 
        Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the Rivers and 
        Harbors Appropriations Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1276):
                  (A) An approximate rectangular shaped section along 
                the northwesterly terminus of the channel. The section 
                is 35-feet wide and about 460-feet long and is further 
                described as follows: Commencing at a point 
                N104,165.85, E417,662.71, thence running south 24 
                degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds east 395.00 feet to a 
                point N103,805.32, E417,824.10, thence running south 00 
                degrees 38 minutes 06 seconds east 87.84 feet to a 
                point N103,717.49, E417,825.07, thence running north 24 
                degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds west 480.00 feet, to a 
                point N104,155.59, E417.628.96, thence running north 73 
                degrees 05 minutes 25 seconds east 35.28 feet to the 
                point of origin.
                  (B) An area having the approximate shape of a 
                parallelogram along the northeasterly portion of the 
                channel, southeast of the area described in 
                subparagraph (A). This area is 20-feet wide and about 
                260-feet long and is further described as follows: 
                Commencing at a point N103,855.48, E417,849.99, thence 
                running south 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds east 
                133.40 feet to a point N103,743.76, E417,922.89, thence 
                running south 24 degrees 07 minutes 04 seconds east 
                127.75 feet to a point N103,627.16, E417,975.09, thence 
                running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds west 
                190.00 feet to a point N103,786.28, E417,871.26, thence 
                running north 17 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds west 
                72.39 feet to the point of origin.
          (3) Chicago river and harbor, chicago, illinois.--Those 
        portions of the projects for navigation, Chicago River and 
        Chicago Harbor, Chicago, Illinois, authorized by the River and 
        Harbor Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1129), extending 50 feet 
        riverward of the existing dock wall on the south side of the 
        channel from Lake Street to Franklin Street and 25 feet 
        riverward of the existing dock wall on the south side of the 
        channel from Franklin Street to Wabash Avenue, and those areas 
        within 20 feet of the bridge abutments on the south side of the 
        channel for the length of the protection bridge piers from the 
        Franklin Street Bridge to the Michigan Avenue Bridge.
          (4) Island end river, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
        project for navigation, Island End River, Massachusetts, 
        carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
        1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), described as follows: Beginning at a 
        point along the eastern limit of the existing project, 
        N507,348.98, E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35 
        feet to a point N507,384.17, E721,183.36, thence running 
        northeast about 324 feet to a point N507,590.51, E721,433.17, 
        thence running northeast about 345 feet to a point along the 
        northern limit of the existing project, N507,927.29, 
        E721,510.29, thence running southeast about 25 feet to a point 
        N507,921.71, E721,534.66, thence running southwest about 354 
        feet to a point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence running 
        southwest about 357 feet to the point of origin.
          (5) City waterway, tacoma, washington.--The portion of the 
        project for navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, 
        authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 
        Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), consisting 
        of the last 1,000 linear feet of the inner portion of the 
        waterway beginning at Station 70+00 and ending at Station 
        80+00.
  (b) Anchorage Area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.--The portion of 
the project for navigation, New London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized 
by the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 
333), that consists of a 23-foot waterfront channel and that is further 
described as beginning at a point along the western limit of the 
existing project, N188, 802.75, E779, 462.81, thence running 
northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet to a point N189, 554.87, E780, 
612.53, thence running southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a point N189, 
319.88, E780, 983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to 
a point N188, 864.63, E780, 288.08, thence running southeasterly about 
567.39 feet to a point N188, 301.88, E780, 360.49, thence running 
northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet to the point of origin, shall be 
redesignated as an anchorage area.
  (c) Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.--The 10-foot channel portion of the 
Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, navigation project described in subsection 
(a)(2) is modified to authorize the Secretary to realign the channel to 
include a new section immediately north of the area described in 
subsection (a)(2)(B). The new triangular shaped section is described as 
follows: Commencing at a point N103,968.35, E417,815.29, thence running 
south 17 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds east 118.09 feet to a point 
N103,855.48, E417,849.99, thence running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 
seconds west 36.76 feet to a point N103,886.27, E417.829.90, thence 
running north 10 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds west 83.37 feet to the 
point of origin.
  (d) Chicago River and Harbor, Chicago, Illinois.--The projects for 
navigation, Chicago River and Chicago Harbor referred to in subsection 
(a)(3) are modified to direct the Secretary to redefine the Federal 
navigation channel for the North Branch Canal portion extending from 
100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet upstream 
of the Division Street Bridge to be no wider than 66 feet.
  (e) Additional Deauthorizations.--The following projects are not 
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, except with respect 
to any portion of such a project which portion has been completed 
before such date or is under construction on such date:
          (1) The project for flood damage reduction, Cache Creek 
        Basin, Clear Lake Outlet Channel, California, authorized by the 
        Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
          (2) The project for flood control, Goleta and Vicinity, 
        California, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1970.
          (3) The project to modify the Central and Southern Florida 
        project to improve water supply to the Everglades National 
        Park, Florida, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1954 
        (Public Law 83-780) and the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public 
        Law 90-483).
          (4) The project for flood control, Central and Southern 
        Florida Project, Shingle Creek Basin, Florida, authorized by 
        the Flood Control Act of 1962.
          (5) The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield 
        Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control 
        Act of 1946.
          (6) The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George, 
        Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602 of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
          (7) The project for flood damage reduction, Green Bay Levee 
        and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, authorized by the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986, deauthorized in fiscal year 
        1991, and reauthorized by the Water Resources Development Act 
        of 1992 (Public Law 102-580).
          (8) The project for flood damage reduction, Hazard, Kentucky, 
        authorized by section 3 of the Water Resources Development Act 
        of 1988 (Public Law 100-676) and section 108 of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-640).
          (9) The recreation portion of the project for flood control, 
        Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 203 of the 
        Flood Control Act of 1966.
          (10) The project for flood control, West Kentucky 
        Tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by the Flood Control Acts of 
        1965 and 1970 and the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
          (11) The project for flood damage reduction, Bayou Cocodrie 
        and Tributaries, Louisiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act 
        of 1941 and the Water Resources Development Act of 1974.
          (12) The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and 
        South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by the 
        Flood Control Act of 1970 (Public Law-611).
          (13) The project for Red River Waterway, Shreveport, 
        Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, authorized by the River and 
        Harbor Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-483).
          (14) The project for flood damage reduction Brockton, 
        Massachusetts, authorized by section 401(c) of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
          (15) The project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, 
        Michigan, authorized by section 202 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
          (16) The project for navigation, Greenville Harbor, 
        Mississippi, authorized by section 601 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
          (17) The project for hydropower, Libby Dam, Montana, (Units 
        6-8), authorized by section 549 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303).
          (18) The project for flood damage reduction, Platte River 
        Flood and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska, 
        authorized by section 603 of the Water Resources Development 
        Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
          (19) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New 
        York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1992.
          (20) The project for flood damage reduction, Sugar Creek 
        Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina, authorized by section 
        401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 
        99-662).
          (21) The project for flood control and recreation, Fairfield, 
        Ohio, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
          (22) The project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay, Lake 
        Erie, Ohio, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1986.
          (23) The project for flood control and water supply, Parker 
        Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma, authorized by the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
          (24) The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, 
        Hammond, Oregon, authorized by the Energy and Water Development 
        Appropriations Act of 1991.
          (25) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-
        Davisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the 
        Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
          (26) The project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork 
        Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of the 
        Water Resources Development Acts of 1976 and 1986.
          (27) The project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo Colorado, 
        Texas, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 
        1986 (Public Law 99-662).
          (28) The project for flood damage reduction, Cypress Creek-
        Structural, Texas, authorized by the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1988.
          (29) The project for flood damage reduction, East Fork 
        Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity 
        River, Texas, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962.
          (30) The project for flood damage reduction, Falfurrias, 
        Texas, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 
        1988.
          (31) The project for bank erosion, Kanawha River, Charleston, 
        West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662).
  (f) Conditions.--The first sentence of section 1001(b)(2) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``two years'' and inserting ``year''; and
          (2) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``5''.

SEC. 3098. LAND CONVEYANCES.

  (a) Milford, Kansas.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of this section, 
        the Secretary shall convey by quitclaim deed without 
        consideration to the Geary County Fire Department, Milford, 
        Kansas, all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
        and to a parcel of land consisting of approximately 7.4 acres 
        located in Geary County, Kansas, for construction, operation, 
        and maintenance of a fire station.
          (2) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage 
        and the description of the real property referred to in 
        paragraph (1) shall be determined by a survey that is 
        satisfactory to the Secretary.
          (3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the property 
        conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public 
        ownership or to be used for any purpose other than a fire 
        station, all right, title, and interest in and to the property 
        shall revert to the United States, at the option of the United 
        States.
  (b) Boardman, Oregon.--Section 501(g)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``city of Boardman,'' and inserting ``the 
        Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,''; and
          (2) by striking ``such city'' and inserting ``the city of 
        Boardman''.
  (c) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
          (1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--Section 
        2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any 
        conveyance under this section.
          (2) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
        require that any conveyance under this section be subject to 
        such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers 
        appropriate and necessary to protect the interests of the 
        United States.
          (3) Costs of conveyance.--An entity to which a conveyance is 
        made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable 
        and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and 
        environmental compliance costs, associated with the conveyance.
          (4) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made under 
        this section shall hold the United States harmless from any 
        liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after 
        the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The 
        United States shall remain responsible for any liability with 
        respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the 
        real property conveyed.

SEC. 3099. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE 
                    RESTRICTIONS.

  (a) Idaho.--
          (1) In general.--With respect to each deed listed in 
        paragraph (2), the reversionary interests and use restrictions 
        relating to industrial use purposes are extinguished.
          (2) Affected deeds.--The deeds with the following county 
        auditor's file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1):
                  (A) Auditor's Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce 
                County, Idaho--2.07 acres.
                  (B) Auditor's Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce 
                County, Idaho--7.32 acres.
  (b) Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.--
          (1) Release of retained rights, interests, reservations.--
        With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the Tennessee 
        Society of Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (now 
        known as ``Easter Seals Tennessee''), at Old Hickory Lock and 
        Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under section 211 of the 
        Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087), the reversionary 
        interests and the use restrictions relating to recreation and 
        camping purposes are extinguished.
          (2) Instrument of release.--As soon as possible after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute and 
        file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended deed, 
        or other appropriate instrument effectuating the release of 
        interests required by paragraph (1).
  (c) No Effect of Other Rights.--Nothing in this section affects the 
remaining rights and interests of the Corps of Engineers for authorized 
project purposes.

SEC. 3100. LAND EXCHANGE, DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION OF LANDS, ALLATOONA 
                    LAKE, GEORGIA.

  (a) Land Exchange.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange lands above 863 
        feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the 
        Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile district 
        engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 1996, for 
        lands on the north side of Allatoona Lake that are needed for 
        wildlife management and for protection of the water quality and 
        overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
          (2) Terms and conditions.--The basis for all land exchanges 
        under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal so that 
        lands exchanged are of equal value.
  (b) Disposal and Acquisition of Lands, Allatoona Lake, Georgia.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may also sell lands above 863 
        feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the 
        memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1) and may use the 
        proceeds to pay costs associated with the purchase of lands 
        needed for wildlife management and for protection of the water 
        quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
          (2) Terms and conditions.--Land sales and purchases to be 
        conducted under this subsection shall be subject to the 
        following terms and conditions:
                  (A) Lands acquired under this subsection shall be by 
                negotiated purchase from willing sellers only.
                  (B) The basis for all transactions under the program 
                shall be a fair market appraisal acceptable to the 
                Secretary.
                  (C) The purchasers shall share in the associated 
                environmental and real estate costs, to include surveys 
                and associated fees in accordance with the memorandum 
                referred to in subsection (a)(1).
                  (D) Any other conditions that the Secretary may 
                impose.
  (c) Repeal.--Section 325 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.

  Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
330-332) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(g) In-Kind Contributions for Study.--The non-Federal interest may 
provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share required under 
subsection (f) in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other 
in-kind contributions.''.

SEC. 4002. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA.

  The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to determine 
the feasibility of providing navigation improvements at St. George, 
Alaska.

SEC. 4003. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for hydropower, recreation, and related purposes 
on the Susitna River, Alaska.

SEC. 4004. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply source for Searcy County, 
Arkansas.

SEC. 4005. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY, ILLINOIS, 
                    IOWA, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, AND WISCONSIN.

  The Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of 
the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Restructured System 
Navigation Feasibility Study, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and 
Wisconsin, no later than July 1, 2004.

SEC. 4006. HAMILTON, CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary is directed to continue planning, preconstruction, 
engineering, and design efforts on the Sacramento-San Joaquin River 
Basins Comprehensive Study-Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and 
Ecosystem Restoration Initial Project and shall include in the study an 
area 2 miles north and 4 miles south of State Highway 32.

SEC. 4007. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.

  Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
2636) is amended by striking ``32 months'' and inserting ``44 months''.

SEC. 4008. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to determine the 
feasibility of, and alternatives for, measures to protect water 
diversion facilities and fish protective screen facilities in the 
vicinity of river mile 178 on the Sacramento River, California.

SEC. 4009. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged material from the San 
Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, 
including the benefits and impacts of salinity in the Delta and the 
benefits to navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, 
water quality, salinity control, water supply reliability, and 
recreation.
  (b) Cooperation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall 
cooperate with the California Department of Water Resources and 
appropriate Federal and State entities in developing options for the 
beneficial use of dredged material from San Francisco Bay for the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area.
  (c) Review.--The study shall include a review of the feasibility of 
using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for levee maintenance 
material, as well as for ecosystem restoration. The review may include 
monitoring a pilot project using up to 150,000 cubic yards of dredged 
material and being carried out at the Sherman Island site, examining 
larger scale use of dredged materials from the San Francisco Bay and 
Suisun Bay Channel, and analyzing the feasibility of the potential use 
of saline materials from the San Francisco Bay for both rehandling and 
ecosystem restoration purposes.

SEC. 4010. TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
including the northern end of Tybee Island extending from the north 
terminal groin to the mouth of Lazaretto Creek as a part of the project 
for beach erosion control, Tybee Island, Georgia, carried out under 
section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5).

SEC. 4011. CALUMET HARBOR, ILLINOIS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigation at Calumet Harbor, Illinois.

SEC. 4012. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY.

  The Secretary is authorized to complete a rehabilitation evaluation 
report for the project for flood damage reduction, Paducah, Kentucky, 
and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, proceed 
to preconstruction engineering and design for rehabilitation of the 
project.

SEC. 4013. BASTROP-MOREHOUSE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for water supply, Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, 
Louisiana.

SEC. 4014. WEST FELICIANA PARISH, LOUISIANA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for riverfront development, including enhanced 
public access, recreation, and environmental restoration, on the 
Mississippi River in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.

SEC. 4015. CITY OF MACKINAC ISLAND, MICHIGAN.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigation at the city of Mackinac Island, 
Michigan.

SEC. 4016. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

  Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 
Stat. 2638) is amended by inserting ``Lake Michigan and'' before ``the 
Chicago River''.

SEC. 4017. SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration at the South Fork of 
the South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.

SEC. 4018. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
modifying the project for navigation, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, 
Alabama and Mississippi, to provide water supply for northeast 
Mississippi.

SEC. 4019. PUEBLO OF ZUNI, NEW MEXICO.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for water resources development, environmental 
restoration, and natural resources protection for the Pueblo of Zuni, 
New Mexico, under section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269).

SEC. 4020. HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

  In carrying out the study for environmental restoration, Hudson-
Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey, the Secretary shall establish 
and utilize watershed restoration teams composed of estuary restoration 
experts from the Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey Department of 
Environmental Protection, and the Port Authority of New York and New 
Jersey and other experts designated by the Secretary for the purpose of 
developing habitat restoration and water quality enhancement.

SEC. 4021. SAC AND FOX NATION, OKLAHOMA.

  The Secretary shall complete a water and related land resource 
conservation and management plan for the Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma, 
under section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 
U.S.C. 2269).

SEC. 4022. SUTHERLIN, OREGON.

  (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of water resources 
along Sutherlin Creek in the vicinity of Sutherlin, Oregon, to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project to restore and 
enhance aquatic resources using a combination of structural and 
bioengineering techniques and, if the Secretary determines that the 
project is feasible, may carry out the project.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.

SEC. 4023. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OREGON.

  The Secretary shall conduct under section 216 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830) a study of the project for navigation, 
Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon, authorized by the first section of the 
River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 25, 1912 (37 Stat. 220), to 
investigate measures to address dangerous and hazardous wave and ocean 
conditions.

SEC. 4024. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON.

  (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish passage 
improvements on rivers throughout the State of Oregon.
  (b) Requirements.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall--
          (1) work in coordination with the State of Oregon, local 
        governments, and other Federal agencies; and
          (2) place emphasis on--
                  (A) fish passage and conservation and restoration 
                strategies to benefit species that are listed or 
                proposed for listing as threatened or endangered 
                species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
                U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
                  (B) other watershed restoration objectives.
  (c) Pilot Program.--
          (1) In general.--In conjunction with conducting the study 
        under subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out pilot 
        projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of ecosystem 
        restoration and fish passages.
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to 
        be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

SEC. 4025. NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND 
                    PROTECTION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in 
the counties of Lackawanna, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, 
Wayne, Sullivan, Bradford, Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour, 
Pennsylvania, particularly as related to abandoned mine drainage 
abatement and reestablishment of stream and river channels.

SEC. 4026. GEORGETOWN AND WILLIAMSBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for water supply for Georgetown and Williamsburg 
Counties, South Carolina, including the viability and practicality of 
constructing a desalinization water treatment facility to meet such 
water supply needs.

SEC. 4027. SABINE PASS TO GALVESTON BAY, TEXAS.

  In conducting a feasibility study for shore protection and related 
improvements between Sabine Pass and the entrance to Galveston Bay, 
Texas, the Secretary may include any benefits related to the use of 
State Highway 87 as an emergency evacuation route in the determination 
of national economic development benefits of the project.

SEC. 4028. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for water supply for Grand County and the city 
of Moab, Utah, including a review of the impact of current and future 
demands on the Spanish Valley Aquifer.

SEC. 4029. CHEHALIS RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON.

  The Secretary shall conduct a river basin study for the Chehalis 
River basin, Washington, including a study of the uses of the basin's 
water resources to assist users in developing a fair and equitable 
distribution of such resources.

SEC. 4030. SPRAGUE, LINCOLN COUNTY, WASHINGTON.

  The Secretary may accept from the non-Federal interest to pay all or 
a part of the non-Federal share of the cost of feasibility study for 
the project for flood control in the vicinity of Sprague, Lincoln 
County, Washington, funds made available under any other Federal 
program if such use of the funds is permitted under the Federal 
program.

SEC. 4031. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in 
the watersheds of the Monongahela River basin lying within the counties 
of Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, 
Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, 
Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Rithchie, West Virginia, 
particularly as related to abandoned mine drainage abatement.

SEC. 4032. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental 
restoration, Menomonee River and Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.

  (a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the 
Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the following 
navigation channels and breakwaters constructed or improved by the non-
Federal interest if the Secretary determines that such maintenance is 
economically justified and environmentally acceptable and that the 
channel or breakwater was constructed in accordance with applicable 
permits and appropriate engineering and design standards:
          (1) Pix Bayou navigation channel, Chambers County, Texas.
          (2) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, 
        Memphis Harbor, Tennessee.
          (3) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin.
  (b) Completion of Assessment.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
of receipt of a request from a non-Federal interest for Federal 
assumption of maintenance of a channel listed in subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall make a determination as provided in subsection (a) and 
advise the non-Federal interest of the Secretary's determination.
  (c) Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas.--The Secretary shall remove sunken 
vessels and debris between miles 35 and 43 of the Channel to Orange, 
Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas, for the purpose of improving navigation 
safety and reducing the risk to the public.

SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide technical, planning, and 
design assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out watershed 
management, restoration, and development projects at the locations 
described in subsection (d).
  (b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) may 
be in support of non-Federal projects for the following purposes:
          (1) Management and restoration of water quality.
          (2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments.
          (3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and 
        other waterbodies to their natural condition as a means to 
        control flooding, excessive erosion, and sedimentation.
          (4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, including urban 
        watersheds.
          (5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural measures 
        to reduce destructive impacts of flooding.
  (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
  (d) Project Locations.--The locations referred to in subsection (a) 
are the following:
          (1) Spring Branch watershed, Huntsville, Alabama.
          (2) Tuolumne County, California.
          (3) Cucamonga basin, Upland, California.
          (4) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
          (5) Those portions of the watersheds of the Concord, Charles, 
        Blackstone, Neponset, Taunton, Nashua, Shawsheen, and Merrimack 
        Rivers, Massachusetts, lying within the Interstate Route 495 
        corridor.
          (6) Jackson Brook watershed, New Jersey.
          (7) Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper 
        Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower 
        Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers lying 
        within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer, 
        Pennsylvania.
          (8) Southampton Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania.
          (9) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
          (10) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
          (11) Iberville Parish, East Atchafalaya River basin, 
        Louisiana.
          (12) Genesee River watershed, New York.
          (13) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York.
          (14) Buffalo River watershed, New York.
          (15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County, New York.
          (16) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York.
          (17) Oswego River basin, New York.
          (18) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
          (19) Fountain Creek and tributaries, Colorado.
  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY.

  (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide assistance to enhance dam 
safety at the following locations:
          (1) Mountain Park Dam, Mountain Park, Georgia.
          (2) Barber Dam, Ada County, Idaho.
          (3) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
          (4) Lost Valley Dam, Adams County, Idaho.
          (5) Salmon Falls Dam, Twin Falls County, Idaho.
          (6) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
          (7) Lake Carl Blackwell Dam, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
          (8) Dams in Mountain Lakes Park, Princeton Township, New 
        Jersey.
          (9) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
          (10) Candor Dam, Candor, New York.
  (b) Special Rule.--The assistance provided under subsection (a) for 
State Dam, Auburn, New York, shall be for a project for rehabilitation 
in accordance with the report on State Dam Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake 
Outlet, New York, dated March 1999, if the Secretary determines that 
the project is feasible.
  (c) Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.--It is the sense of Congress that the 
Secretary should work to immediately remedy the situation at Fern Ridge 
Dam, Oregon, due to the rapid deterioration of the dam.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $6,000,000.

SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the 
Secretary shall evaluate the structural integrity and effectiveness of 
a project for flood damage reduction and, if the Secretary determines 
that the project does not meet such minimum standards as the Secretary 
may establish and, absent action by the Secretary, the project will 
fail, the Secretary may take such action as may be necessary to restore 
the integrity and effectiveness of the project.
  (b) Priority.--The Secretary shall evaluate under subsection (a) the 
following projects:
          (1) Project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River 
        Levees, river mile 205 to river mile 308.4, Arkansas.
          (2) Project for flood damage reduction, Marianna Borough, 
        Pennsylvania.
          (3) Project for flood damage reduction, Nonconnah Creek, 
        Tennessee.

SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS.

  Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 
U.S.C. 2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (27);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(29) La Crosse County, Wisconsin;
          ``(30) Crawford County, Wisconsin;
          ``(31) Buffalo County, Wisconsin;
          ``(32) Calhoun County, Illinois;
          ``(33) Saint Charles County, Missouri;
          ``(34) Saint Louis County, Missouri;
          ``(35) Dubuque County, Iowa;
          ``(36) Scott County, Iowa;
          ``(37) Rock Island County, Illinois;
          ``(38) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
          ``(39) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
          ``(40) Iberville Parish, Louisiana; and
          ``(41) Livingston Parish, Louisiana.''.

SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

  Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(9) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(20);
          ``(10) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(25);
          ``(11) $15,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(26);
          ``(12) $7,800,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(27);
          ``(13) $18,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(31); and
          ``(14) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(40).''.

SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CONSTRUCTION FOR CERTAIN 
                    PROJECTS.

  The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports and, if the 
Secretary determines the project is feasible, shall expedite completion 
of construction for the following projects:
          (1) Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, Maryland, being 
        carried out under section 535(a) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 348-349).
          (2) West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland, being carried 
        out under section 521 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
        2000 (114. Stat. 2655).
          (3) Sylvan Beach Breakwater, Verona, Oneida County, New York, 
        being carried out under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
        authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the 
        shores of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 
        (33 U.S.C. 426g).
          (4) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being carried 
        out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
        U.S.C. 701s).
          (5) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being 
        carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
        (33 U.S.C. 701s).
          (6) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried 
        out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
        U.S.C. 701s).
          (7) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York, being 
        carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
          (8) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New 
        York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).
          (9) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York, being carried out 
        under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
        701r).
          (10) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being carried 
        out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
        1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
          (11) Lucas Berg Pit, Worth, Illinois, being carried out as 
        part of the Calumet-Sag navigation project, authorized by 
        section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (59 
        Stat. 19), and modified by the first section of the River and 
        Harbor Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636), and section 109 of 
        the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 302).

SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall expedite completion of the 
reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary determines 
that a project is justified in the completed report, proceed directly 
to project preconstruction, engineering, and design:
          (1) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
        restoration, Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, Hamilton, 
        California.
          (2) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, Baton 
        Rouge, Louisiana.
          (3) Project for shoreline protection, Detroit River Greenway 
        Corridor, Detroit, Michigan.
          (4) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, 
        Florida.
  (b) Special Rule.--In carrying out the project for shoreline 
stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, referred to in subsection (a)(4), 
the Secretary shall waive any cost share to be provided by non-Federal 
interests for any portion of the project that benefits federally owned 
property.
  (c) Chesapeake, Maryland.--The Secretary shall expedite completion of 
the study being carried out under section 535(b) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 349) with respect to additional 
compensation to the city of Chesapeake, Maryland.

SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT.

  The Secretary may provide assistance to a coordinated effort by 
Federal, State, and local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, 
regional researchers, and other interested parties to assess the water 
resources and water resources needs of river basins and watersheds of 
the southeastern United States.

SEC. 5010. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

  Section 1103(e)(7)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(33 U.S.C. 652(e)(7)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
``The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share of the 
cost of the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, or 
other in-kind contributions.''.

SEC. 5011. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.

  Section 514(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by striking ``and 2004'' and 
inserting ``through 2015''.

SEC. 5012. MEMBERSHIP OF MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.

  Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2708) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (vii);
          (2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and
          (3) by inserting after clause (vii) the following:
                          ``(viii) rural water systems; and''.

SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  Section 506(f)(3)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-22; 114 Stat. 2646) is amended by striking ``50 
percent'' and inserting ``100 percent''.

SEC. 5014. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS.

  (a) Ex Officio Member.--Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of the 1997 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From Natural 
Disasters, and for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in 
Bosnia (111 Stat. 176) and section 2.2 of both the Susquehanna River 
Basin Compact (Public Law 91-575) and the Delaware River Basin Compact 
(Public Law 87-328), beginning in fiscal year 2002 and thereafter, the 
Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers, shall 
be the ex officio United States member under the Susquehanna River 
Basin Compact and the Delaware River Basin Compact, who shall serve 
without additional compensation and who may designate an alternate 
member or members in accordance with the terms of those respective 
compacts.
  (b) Authorization To Allocate.--The Secretary may allocate funds to 
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware River Basin 
Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 
(Potomac River Basin Compact (Public Law 91-407)) to fulfill the 
equitable funding requirements of their respective interstate compacts.
  (c) Water Supply and Conservation Storage.--The Secretary shall enter 
into an agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to provide 
temporary water supply and conservation storage at the Francis E. 
Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, during any period in which the Commission has 
determined that a drought warning or drought emergency exists. The 
agreement shall provide that the cost for any such water supply and 
conservation storage shall not exceed the incremental operating costs 
associated with providing the storage.

SEC. 5015. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION 
                    PROGRAM.

  Section 510(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3761) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting 
``$30,000,000''.

SEC. 5016. MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA.

  The Secretary shall review the navigation and aquatic ecosystem 
restoration components of the Montgomery Riverfront and Downtown Master 
Plan, Montgomery, Alabama, dated May 2001, and prepared by the non-
Federal interest and, if the Secretary determines that those components 
meet the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers and 
that the components are feasible, may carry out the components at a 
Federal cost not to exceed $5,000,000.

SEC. 5017. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA.

  The Secretary shall design and construct the locally preferred plan 
for flood protection at Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama, under the 
authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
701s). The Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to 
participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 
903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) 
to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying 
such section is necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 5018. ALASKA.

  Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
369) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence;
          (2) in subsection (h) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$40,000,000''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any project 
undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a 
nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.
  ``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of 
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 
100 percent Federal expense.''.

SEC. 5019. AKUTAN SMALL BOAT HARBOR, ALASKA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall expedite the study for the 
Akutan Small Boat Harbor, Alaska, and upon completion of the 
feasibility study, shall design and construct the project, if the 
Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
  (b) Treatment of Certain Dredging.--The headlands dredging for the 
mooring basin shall be considered general navigation feature for 
purposes of estimating the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project.

SEC. 5020. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA.

  (a) Long-Term Maintenance and Repair.--The Secretary shall assume 
responsibility for the long-term maintenance and repair of the Lowell 
Creek Tunnel.
  (b) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine whether 
alternative methods of flood diversion in Lowell Canyon are feasible.

SEC. 5021. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA.

  The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, necessary 
removal of rubble, sediment, and rock that are impeding the entrance to 
the St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska, at a Federal cost 
of $2,000,000.

SEC. 5022. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to perform operation, 
maintenance, and rehabilitation of authorized and completed levees on 
the White River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
  (b) Reimbursement.--After performing the operation, maintenance, and 
rehabilitation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall seek 
reimbursement from the Secretary of the Interior of an amount equal to 
the costs allocated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such 
operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation.

SEC. 5023. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the vicinity 
of Loomis Landing, Arkansas, to determine if the damage is the result 
of a Federal navigation project, and, if the Secretary determines that 
the damage is the result of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary 
shall carry out a project to mitigate the damage under section 111 of 
the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i).

SEC. 5024. MCCLELLAN-KERR ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, ARKANSAS 
                    AND OKLAHOMA.

  The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation and comprehensive 
development project, Arkansas and Oklahoma, authorized by the Act 
entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works 
on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', 
approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), and the first section of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 364) and modified by section 108 
of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 
1329-112), is further modified to authorize a project depth of 12 feet 
in the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma.

SEC. 5025. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation and 
streambank erosion in the St. Francis River basin, Arkansas and 
Missouri, to determine if the siltation or erosion, or both, are the 
result of a Federal flood control project and, if the Secretary 
determines that the siltation or erosion, or both, are the result of a 
Federal flood control project, the Secretary shall carry out a project 
to mitigate the siltation or erosion, or both.

SEC. 5026. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA.

  Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``$10,300,000'' and inserting the following:
                  ``(A) In general.--$10,300,000'';
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the 
                non-Federal share of the cost of the project not to 
                exceed $3,000,000 for the cost of planning and design 
                work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 
                date of the partnership agreement for the project if 
                the Secretary determines that the work is integral to 
                the project.''; and
          (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) 
        (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
        subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

SEC. 5027. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA; 
                    MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA.

  Sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2650) are each amended by adding at the end the following: 
``All planning, study, design, and construction on the project shall be 
carried out by the office of the district engineer, San Francisco, 
California.''.

SEC. 5028. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

  Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835-4836; 113 Stat. 336) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting the following:
                  ``(A) In general.--$25,000,000'';
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the 
                non-Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the 
                cost of design and construction work carried out by the 
                non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
                agreement for the project if the Secretary determines 
                that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) the 
                cost of in-kind services and materials provided for the 
                project by the non-Federal interest.
                  ``(C) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal 
                interest may provide any portion of the non-Federal 
                share of the cost of the project in the form of 
                services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind 
                contributions.''; and
          (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) 
        (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
        subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

SEC. 5029. SACRAMENTO AREA, CALIFORNIA.

  Section 219(f)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835-4836; 113 Stat. 336) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$35,000,000'';
          (2) by inserting ``water supply and'' before ``regional''; 
        and
          (3) by adding at the end the following: ``$________ for 
        wastewater and water supply infrastructure in the counties of 
        Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, Nevada, El Dorado, and 
        Placer, California.''.

SEC. 5030. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to transfer title to the 
Bascule Bridge, deauthorized by section 347(a)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114. Stat. 2618), to the city of 
West Sacramento, California, subject to the execution of an agreement 
by the Secretary and the city which specifies the terms and conditions 
for such transfer. The terms and conditions of the transfer shall 
include a provision authorizing the Secretary to participate in the 
construction of a replacement bridge following the removal of the 
Bascule Bridge.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $5,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in the 
construction of a replacement bridge under this section.

SEC. 5031. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) Pier 70 Wharf 5 Removal and Dredging Project.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port 
        of San Francisco, shall carry out the project for removal of 
        Wharf 5 and associated pilings and dredgings at Pier 70 in San 
        Francisco, California, substantially in accordance with the 
        Port's redevelopment plans.
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to 
        be appropriated $1,600,000 to carry out this subsection.
  (b) Piers 94-96 Repairs Project.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port 
        of San Francisco, California, may carry out the project for 
        repairs to Piers 94-96 in San Francisco, California, 
        substantially in accordance with the Port's redevelopment plan.
          (2) Authorization of appropriation.--There is authorized to 
        be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
  (c) Capital Improvement Project.--
          (1) Establishment of office.--The Secretary shall establish a 
        centralized office at the office of the district engineer, San 
        Francisco, California, for the use of all Federal and State 
        agencies that are or will be involved in issuing permits and 
        conducting environmental reviews for the capital improvement 
        project to repair and upgrade the water supply and delivery 
        system for the city of San Francisco.
          (2) Contributions.--The Secretary may use the authority under 
        section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 
        U.S.C. 2201 note) for the project described in paragraph (1).
          (3) Protection of impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out 
        this subsection, the Secretary and the heads of Federal 
        agencies receiving funds under such section 214 for the project 
        described in paragraph (1) shall ensure that the use of the 
        funds accepted under such section for such project will not 
        impact impartial decisionmaking with respect to the issuance of 
        permits, either substantively or procedurally, or diminish, 
        modify, or otherwise affect the statutory or regulatory 
        authorities of such agencies.

SEC. 5032. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA.

  (a) Area To Be Declared Nonnavigable; Public Interest.--Unless the 
Secretary finds, after consultation with local and regional public 
officials (including local and regional public planning organizations), 
that the proposed projects to be undertaken within the boundaries of 
the portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area described 
in subsection (b) are not in the public interest, such portion is 
declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United States.
  (b) Northern Embarcadero South of Bryant Street.--The portion of the 
San Francisco, California, waterfront area referred to in subsection 
(a) is as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the northwesterly 
line of Bryant Street with the southwesterly line of Spear Street, 
which intersection lies on the line of jurisdiction of the San 
Francisco Port Authority; following thence westerly and southerly along 
said line of jurisdiction as described in the State of California 
Harbor and Navigable Code Section 1770, as amended in 1961, to its 
intersection with the easterly line of Townsend Street produced 
southerly; thence northerly along said easterly line of Townsend Street 
produced to its intersection with the United States Government pier-
head line; thence following said pier-head line westerly and northerly 
to its intersection with the existing boundary line of Piers 30/32, 
then northerly and easterly along the existing boundary of Piers 30/32 
until its intersection with the United States Government pier-head 
line, thence following said pier-head line westerly and northerly to 
the northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced northwesterly; thence 
southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced 
to the point of beginning.
  (c) Requirement That Area Be Improved.--The declaration of 
nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies only to those parts of the 
area described in subsection (b) that are or will be bulkheaded, 
filled, or otherwise occupied by permanent structures and does not 
affect the applicability of any Federal statute or regulation 
applicable to such parts the day before the date of enactment of this 
Act, including sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 
401 and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors 
Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
  (d) Expiration Date.--If, 20 years from the date of enactment of this 
Act, any area or part thereof described in subsection (b) is not 
bulkheaded or filled or occupied by permanent structures, including 
marina facilities, in accordance with the requirements set out in 
subsection (c), or if work in connection with any activity permitted in 
subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after issuance of such 
permits, then the declaration of nonnavigability for such area or part 
thereof shall expire.

SEC. 5033. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) Reevaluation.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the feasibility of 
the Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions on the Upper 
Calaveras River element of the project for flood control, Stockton 
Metropolitan Area, California, carried out under section 211(f)(3) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3683), to 
determine the eligibility of such elements for reimbursement under 
section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13).
  (b) Special Rules for Reevaluation.--In conducting the reevaluation 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall not reject a feasibility 
determination based on policies of the Corps of Engineers concerning 
the frequency of flooding, the drainage area, and the amount of runoff.
  (c) Reimbursement.--If the Secretary determines that the elements 
referred to subsection (a) are feasible, the Secretary shall reimburse, 
subject to appropriations, the non-Federal interest under section 211 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 for the Federal share of 
the cost of such elements.

SEC. 5034. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, CONNECTICUT.

  The western breakwater for the project for navigation, New Haven 
Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the 1st section of the Act entitled 
``An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and 
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for 
other purposes'', approved September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be 
known and designated as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater''.

SEC. 5035. EVERGLADES RESTORATION, FLORIDA.

  (a) Comprehensive Plan.--
          (1) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer.--Section 601(b)(2)(A) 
        of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) 
        is amended--
                  (A) in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: 
                ``The project for aquifer storage and recovery, 
                Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized 
                by section 101(a)(16) of the Water Resources 
                Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), shall be 
                treated for purposes of this section as being in the 
                Plan.''; and
                  (B) in clause (iii) by inserting after ``subparagraph 
                (B)'' the following: ``and the project for aquifer 
                storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee 
                Aquifer''.
          (2) Outreach and assistance.--Section 601(k) of such Act (114 
        Stat. 2691-2692) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) Maximum expenditures.--The Secretary may expend up to 
        $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after 
        September 30, 2002, to carry out this subsection.''.
  (b) Critical Restoration Projects.--Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769; 113 Stat. 286) is 
amended--
          (1) in clause (i) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and all that 
        follows through ``2003'' and inserting ``$95,000,000''; and
          (2) in clause (ii) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$30,000,000''.

SEC. 5036. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

  Section 109(e)(2) of Division B of the Miscellaneous Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (enacted into law by Public Law 106-554) (114 Stat. 2763A-
222) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(C) Credit for work prior to execution of the 
                partnership agreement.--The Secretary shall credit 
                toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
                (i) the cost of construction work carried out by the 
                non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
                agreement for the project if the Secretary determines 
                that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) the 
                cost of land acquisition carried out by the non-Federal 
                interest for projects to be carried out under this 
                section.''.

SEC. 5037. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA.

  The Secretary may carry out necessary repairs for the Lake Worth 
bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, Florida, at an estimated 
total cost of $9,000,000.

SEC. 5038. LAKE LANIER, GEORGIA.

  The Secretary may assist local interests with planning, design, and 
construction of facilities at the Lake Lanier Olympic Center, Georgia, 
in support of the 2003 World Kayaking Championships, at a total cost of 
$5,300,000.

SEC. 5039. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO.

  The Secretary is authorized to carry out the Riley Creek Recreation 
Area Operation Plan of the Albeni Falls Management Plan, dated October 
2001, for the Riley Creek Recreation Area, Albeni Falls Dam, Bonner 
County, Idaho.

SEC. 5040. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in the reconstruction 
of an eligible flood control project if the Secretary determines that 
such reconstruction is not required as a result of improper operation 
and maintenance of the project by the non-Federal interest.
  (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs for the 
reconstruction of a flood control project authorized by this section 
shall be the same Federal share that was applicable to construction of 
the project. The non-Federal interest shall be responsible for 
operation and maintenance and repair of a project for which 
reconstruction is undertaken under this section.
  (c) Reconstruction Defined.--In this section, the term 
``reconstruction'', as used with respect to a project, means addressing 
major project deficiencies caused by long-term degradation of the 
foundation, construction materials, or engineering systems or 
components of the project, the results of which render the project at 
risk of not performing in compliance with its authorized project 
purposes. In addressing such deficiencies, the Secretary may 
incorporate current design standards and efficiency improvements, 
including the replacement of obsolete mechanical and electrical 
components at pumping stations, if such incorporation does not 
significantly change the scope, function, and purpose of the project as 
authorized.
  (d) Eligible Projects.--The following flood control projects are 
eligible for reconstruction under this section:
          (1) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois, 
        authorized as part of the navigation project of the Upper 
        Mississippi River basin by section 2 of the Flood Control Act 
        of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218).
          (2) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois, 
        authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 
        1936 (49 Stat. 1581).
          (3) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, 
        Illinois, authorized as part of the navigation project of the 
        Upper Mississippi River basin by section 2 of the Flood Control 
        Act of June 22, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218).
  (e) Justification.--The reconstruction of a project authorized by 
this section shall not be considered a separable element of the 
project.
  (f) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $15,000,000 to carry out this section. Such sums shall 
remain available until expended.

SEC. 5041. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORATION.

  (a) Kaskaskia River Basin Defined.--In this section, the term 
``Kaskaskia River basin'' means the Kaskaskia River, Illinois, its 
backwaters, its side channels, and all tributaries, including their 
watersheds, draining into the Kaskaskia River.
  (b) Comprehensive Plan.--
          (1) Development.--The Secretary shall develop, as 
        expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for the 
        purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the Kaskaskia 
        River basin.
          (2) Technologies and innovative approaches.--The 
        comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new 
        technologies and innovative approaches--
                  (A) to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a 
                transportation corridor;
                  (B) to improve water quality within the entire 
                Kaskaskia River basin;
                  (C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for 
                plants and wildlife;
                  (D) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture 
                and business communities; and
                  (E) to reduce the impacts of flooding to communities 
                and landowners.
          (3) Specific components.--The comprehensive plan shall 
        include such features as are necessary to provide for--
                  (A) the development and implementation of a program 
                for sediment removal technology, sediment 
                characterization, sediment transport, and beneficial 
                uses of sediment;
                  (B) the development and implementation of a program 
                for the planning, conservation, evaluation, and 
                construction of measures for fish and wildlife habitat 
                conservation and rehabilitation, and stabilization and 
                enhancement of land and water resources in the basin;
                  (C) the development and implementation of a long-term 
                resource monitoring program;
                  (D) the development and implementation of a 
                computerized inventory and analysis system; and
                  (E) the development and implementation of a systemic 
                plan to reduce flood impacts by means of ecosystem 
                restoration projects.
          (4) Consultation.--The comprehensive plan shall be developed 
        by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate Federal 
        agencies, the State of Illinois, and the Kaskaskia River 
        Coordinating Council.
          (5) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
        Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.
          (6) Additional studies and analyses.--After transmission of a 
        report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall conduct studies 
        and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive plan that 
        are appropriate and consistent with this subsection.
  (c) General Provisions.--
          (1) Water quality.--In carrying out activities under this 
        section, the Secretary's recommendations shall be consistent 
        with applicable State water quality standards.
          (2) Public participation.--In developing the comprehensive 
        plan under subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement 
        procedures to facilitate public participation, including 
        providing advance notice of meetings, providing adequate 
        opportunity for public input and comment, maintaining 
        appropriate records, and making a record of the proceedings of 
        meetings available for public inspection.
  (d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall integrate activities carried 
out under this section with ongoing Federal and State programs, 
projects, and activities, including the following:
          (1) Farm programs of the Department of Agriculture.
          (2) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State of 
        Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program of the 
        Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
          (3) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and the 
        Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the 
        Illinois Department of Agriculture.
          (4) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources 
        Conservation Service.
          (5) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the 
        Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
  (e) Cost Sharing.--
          (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
        activities carried out under this section shall be 35 percent.
          (2) In-kind services.--The Secretary may credit the cost of 
        in-kind services provided by the non-Federal interest for an 
        activity carried out under this section toward not more than 80 
        percent of the non-Federal share of the cost of the activity. 
        In-kind services shall include all State funds expended on 
        programs that accomplish the goals of this section, as 
        determined by the Secretary. The programs may include the 
        Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve Program, the Illinois 
        Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust Fund, and other 
        appropriate programs carried out in the Kaskaskia River basin.

SEC. 5042. NATALIE CREEK, MIDLOTHIAN AND OAK FOREST, ILLINOIS.

  The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage reduction 
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) 
Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois, if the Secretary 
determines that the project is feasible.

SEC. 5043. PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, PEORIA, ILLINOIS.

  The Secretary may carry out the project for Peoria riverfront 
development, Peoria, Illinois, under section 519 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2653-2655), at a total cost of 
$16,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,400,000 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $5,600,000.

SEC. 5044. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.

  (a) Extension of Authorization.--Section 519(c)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is amended by 
striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2010''.
  (b) In-Kind Services.--Section 519(g)(3) of such Act (114 Stat. 2655) 
is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
sentence ``if such services are provided not more than 5 years before 
the date of initiation of the project or activity''.

SEC. 5045. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.

  Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(113 Stat. 335) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$30,000,000''; and
          (2) by striking ``Lake and Porter'' and inserting ``Benton, 
        Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter''.

SEC. 5046. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA.

  (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey the remaining water 
supply storage allocation in Rathbun Lake, Iowa, to the Rathbun 
Regional Water Association (in this section referred to as the ``Water 
Association'').
  (b) Cost Sharing.--Notwithstanding the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 
U.S.C. 390b), the Water Association shall pay 100 percent of the cost 
of the water supply storage allocation to be conveyed under subsection 
(a). The Secretary shall credit toward such non-Federal share the cost 
of any structures and facilities constructed by the Water Association 
at the project.
  (c) Terms and Conditions.--Before conveying the water supply storage 
allocation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall enter into an 
agreement with the Water Association, under which the Water Association 
shall agree to--
          (1) in accordance with designs approved by the Chief of 
        Engineers, construct structures and facilities referred to in 
        subsection (b) that have a value equal to or greater than the 
        amount that otherwise would be paid to the Federal Government 
        for the costs of the water supply storage under the Water 
        Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b);
          (2) be responsible for operating and maintaining the 
        structures and facilities;
          (3) pay all operation and maintenance costs allocated to the 
        water supply storage space;
          (4) use any revenues generated at the structures and 
        facilities that are above those required to operate and 
        maintain or improve the complex to undertake, subject to the 
        approval of the Chief of Engineers, activities that will 
        improve the quality of the environment in the Rathbun Lake 
        watershed area; and
          (5) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary 
        considers necessary to protect the interests of the United 
        States.

SEC. 5047. CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KENTUCKY.

  At reservoirs managed by the Secretary within the Cumberland River 
basin, Kentucky, the Secretary shall continue to charge fees associated 
with storage and maintenance of water supply that were in effect on 
October 1, 2002.

SEC. 5048. MAYFIELD CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, KENTUCKY.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of flood damage along Mayfield 
Creek and tributaries between Wickliffe and Mayfield, Kentucky, to 
determine if the damage is the result of a Federal flood damage 
reduction project, and, if the Secretary determines that the damage is 
the result of a Federal flood damage reduction project, the Secretary 
shall carry out a project to mitigate the damage at Federal expense.

SEC. 5049. NORTH FORK, KENTUCKY RIVER, BREATHITT COUNTY, KENTUCKY.

  The Secretary shall rebuild the structure that is impeding high water 
flows on the North Fork of the Kentucky River in Breathitt County, 
Kentucky, in a manner that will reduce flood damages, at an estimated 
total cost of $1,800,000. The non-Federal interest shall provide lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas required for 
the project. Operation and maintenance of the rebuilt structure shall 
be a non-Federal expense.

SEC. 5050. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

  Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3774; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by adding the following:
  ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal years 2004 and 
thereafter may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to 
administer projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 
expense.''.

SEC. 5051. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION.

  (a) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Coastal louisiana ecosystem.--The term ``Coastal 
        Louisiana Ecosystem'' means the coastal area of Louisiana from 
        the Sabine River on the west to the Pearl River on the east and 
        includes tidal waters, barrier islands, marshes, coastal 
        wetlands, rivers and streams, and adjacent areas.
          (2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of 
        Louisiana.
          (3) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Coastal 
        Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force 
        established by subsection (e).
  (b) Comprehensive Plan.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a comprehensive 
        plan for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and restoring 
        the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem. The comprehensive plan shall 
        provide for the protection, conservation and restoration of the 
        wetlands, barrier islands, shorelines, and related lands and 
        features that protect critical resources, habitat, and 
        infrastructure from the impacts of coastal storms, hurricanes, 
        erosion, and subsidence.
          (2) Deadline.--Not later than July 1, 2004, the Secretary 
        shall transmit the plan to Congress.
          (3) Contents.--The plan shall include a comprehensive report 
        and a programmatic environmental impact statement covering the 
        proposed Federal action set forth in the plan.
          (4) Additional studies and analyses.--After transmission of a 
        report under this subsection, the Secretary may conduct studies 
        and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive plan that 
        are appropriate and consistent with this subsection.
  (c) Integration of Other Activities.--
          (1) In general.--In developing the plan under subsection (b), 
        the Secretary shall integrate ongoing Federal and State 
        projects and activities, including projects implemented under 
        the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act 
        (16 U.S.C. 3951 et seq.), the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands 
        Conservation Plan, the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan, 
        and the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled ``Coast 2050: 
        Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana''.
          (2) Statutory construction.--
                  (A) Existing authority.--Except as otherwise 
                expressly provided for in this section, nothing in the 
                section affects any authority in effect on the date of 
                enactment of this Act, or any requirement relating to 
                the participation in protection or restoration 
                activities in the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem, 
                including projects and activities specified in 
                paragraph (1) of--
                          (i) the Department of the Army;
                          (ii) the Department of the Interior;
                          (iii) the Department of Commerce;
                          (iv) the Environmental Protection Agency;
                          (v) the Department of Agriculture;
                          (vi) the Department of Transportation;
                          (vii) the Department of Energy; and
                          (viii) the State of Louisiana.
                  (B) New authority.--Nothing in this section confers 
                any new regulatory authority on any Federal or non-
                Federal entity that carries out any activity authorized 
                by this section.
  (d) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of developing 
the plan under subsection (b) shall be 50 percent.
  (e) Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task 
Force.--
          (1) Establishment and membership.--There is established the 
        Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task 
        Force, which shall consist of the following members (or, in the 
        case of the head of a Federal Agency, a designee at the level 
        of Assistant Secretary or an equivalent level):
                  (A) The Secretary.
                  (B) The Secretary of the Interior.
                  (C) The Secretary of Commerce.
                  (D) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
                Agency.
                  (E) The Secretary of Agriculture.
                  (F) The Secretary of Transportation.
                  (G) The Secretary of Energy.
                  (H) The Coastal Advisor to the Governor.
                  (I) The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of 
                Natural Resources.
                  (J) A representative of the Governor's Advisory 
                Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation, 
                Louisiana.
          (2) Duties of task force.--The Task Force--
                  (A) shall consult with, and provide recommendations 
                to, the Secretary during development of the 
                comprehensive plan under subsection (b)(1);
                  (B) shall coordinate the development of consistent 
                policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, 
                activities, and priorities for addressing the 
                protection, conservation, and restoration of the 
                Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem;
                  (C) shall exchange information regarding programs, 
                projects, and activities of the agencies and entities 
                represented on the Task Force to promote ecosystem 
                protection, restoration, and maintenance;
                  (D) shall establish a regional working group which 
                shall include representatives of the agencies and 
                entities represented on the Task Force as well as other 
                governmental entities as appropriate for the purpose of 
                formulating, recommending, coordinating, and 
                implementing policies, strategies, plans, programs, 
                projects, activities, and priorities of the Task Force;
                  (E) may allow the working group described in 
                subparagraph (D) to--
                          (i) establish such advisory bodies as are 
                        necessary to assist the Task Force in its 
                        duties; and
                          (ii) select as an advisory body any entity 
                        that represents a broad variety of private and 
                        public interests;
                  (F) shall facilitate the resolution of interagency 
                and intergovernmental conflicts associated with the 
                protection, conservation, and restoration of the 
                Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem;
                  (G) shall coordinate scientific research associated 
                with the protection and restoration of the Coastal 
                Louisiana Ecosystem;
                  (H) shall provide assistance and support to agencies 
                and entities represented on the Task Force in their 
                protection and restoration activities;
                  (I) shall prepare an integrated financial plan and 
                recommendations for coordinated budget requests for the 
                funds proposed to be expended by agencies and entities 
                represented on the Task Force for the protection, 
                conservation, and restoration of the Coastal Louisiana 
                Ecosystem; and
                  (J) shall transmit 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 summarizes the activities of the 
                Task Force.
          (3) Procedures and advice.--
                  (A) Public participation.--
                          (i) In general.--The Task Force shall 
                        implement procedures to facilitate public 
                        participation in the advisory process, 
                        including providing advance notice of meetings, 
                        providing adequate opportunity for public input 
                        and comment, maintaining appropriate records, 
                        and making a record of proceedings of meetings 
                        available for public inspection.
                          (ii) Oversight.--The Secretary shall ensure 
                        that the procedures described in clause (i) are 
                        adopted and implemented and that the records 
                        described in clause (i) are accurately 
                        maintained and available for public inspection.
                  (B) Advisors to the task force and working groups.--
                The Task Force or the working group described in 
                paragraph (2)(D) may seek such advice and input from 
                any interested, knowledgeable, or affected party as the 
                Task Force or working group determines to be necessary 
                to perform the duties described in paragraph (2).
                  (C) Application of the federal advisory committee 
                act.--The Task Force, advisors to the Task Force, and 
                any associated workgroups shall not be considered 
                advisory committees under the Federal Advisory 
                Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App).
          (4) Compensation.--A member of the Task Force shall receive 
        no additional compensation for the services provided as a 
        member of the Task Force.
          (5) Travel expenses.--Travel expenses incurred by a member of 
        the Task Force in the performance of services for the Task 
        Force shall be paid by the agency or entity that the member 
        represents.

SEC. 5052. BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.

  Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by striking 
``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$35,000,000''.

SEC. 5053. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

  Section 517(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 345) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, 
        project for waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, 
        enhancement modifications, and interpretive center 
        development.''.

SEC. 5054. CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE, MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, PENNSYLVANIA, 
                    AND DELAWARE.

  (a) In General.--In carrying out comprehensive study of the 
feasibility of a project to address shoreline erosion and related 
sediment management measures to protect water and land resources of the 
Chesapeake Bay, the Secretary may carry out pilot projects to 
demonstrate the feasibility of alternative measures to address sediment 
loads to the Chesapeake Bay from sediment behind dams on the lower 
Susquehanna River.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 5055. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, MARYLAND.

  (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide technical assistance to 
the Secretary of Agriculture in carrying out the Conservation Corridor 
Demonstration Program authorized under subtitle G of title II of Public 
Law 107-171 (116 Stat. 275-278).
  (b) Coordination and Integration.--In carrying out water resources 
projects in the State of Maryland on land located on the east side of 
the Chesapeake Bay, the Secretary shall coordinate and integrate, to 
the extent practicable, such projects with any activities undertaken to 
implement a conservation corridor plan approved by the Secretary of 
Agriculture under section 2602 of Public Law 107-171 (116 Stat. 275-
276).

SEC. 5056. DETROIT RIVER, MICHIGAN.

  Section 568(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 368) is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting 
``$25,000,000''.

SEC. 5057. OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN.

  Section 219(f)(29) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(113 Stat. 336) is amended by inserting ``sanitary sewer overflows 
and'' before ``combined sewer overflows''.

SEC. 5058. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

  The Secretary shall carry out feasible aquatic ecosystem restoration 
projects identified in the comprehensive management plan for St. Clair 
River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan, developed under section 426 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 326), at a total 
Federal cost of not to exceed $5,000,000.

SEC. 5059. GARRISON AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA.

  (a) Project Description.--Section 219(f)(61) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended--
          (1) in the paragraph heading by striking ``township'' and 
        inserting ``and crow wing and mille lacs counties'';
          (2) by inserting ``, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County,'' 
        after ``Garrison''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following: ``Such assistance 
        shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille 
        Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota.''.
  (b) Procedures.--In carrying out the project for Garrison and Kathio 
Township, Minnesota, authorized by such section 219(f)(61), the 
Secretary may use the cost sharing and contracting procedures available 
to the Secretary under section 569 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368).

SEC. 5060. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--Section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 368) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Benton, Sherburne,'' and 
        inserting ``Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena,'';
          (2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (e)(3)(B);
          (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
  ``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any project 
undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a 
nonprofit entity.''; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of 
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 
100 percent Federal expense.''.
  (b) Biwabik, Minnesota.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest for the project for environmental infrastructure, 
Biwabik, Minnesota, carried out under section 569 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368-369), for planning, 
design, and construction costs that were incurred by the non-Federal 
interest with respect to the project before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project and that were in excess of the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project if the Secretary determines that the 
costs are appropriate.

SEC. 5061. DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

  Section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by striking 
``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$30,000,000''.

SEC. 5062. HARRISON, HANCOCK, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI.

  In carrying out projects for the protection, restoration, and 
creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats located in 
Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi, under section 204 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the 
Secretary shall accept any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project in the form of services, materials, supplies, and other 
in-kind contributions.

SEC. 5063. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI, AND ILLINOIS.

  As a part of the operation and maintenance of the project for the 
Mississippi River (Regulating Works), between the Ohio and Missouri 
Rivers, Missouri and Illinois, authorized by the first section of an 
Act entitled ``Making appropriations for the construction, repair, and 
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for 
other purposes'', approved June 25, 1910, the Secretary may carry out 
activities necessary to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat 
in the middle Mississippi River system. Such activities may include 
modification of navigation training structures, modification and 
creation of side channels, modification and creation of islands, and 
studies and analysis necessary to apply adaptive management principles 
in design of future work.

SEC. 5064. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

  Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835-4836; 113 Stat. 337) is amended by striking 
``$15,000,000'' and inserting ``$35,000,000''.

SEC. 5065. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.

  Section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4849; 110 Stat. 3779) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``design'' and inserting ``planning, 
                design,''; and
                  (B) by striking ``Hackensack Meadowlands 
                Development'' and all that follows through ``Plan for'' 
                and inserting ``New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for 
                the development of an environmental improvement program 
                for'';
          (2) in subsection (b)--
                  (A) in the subsection heading by striking 
                ``Required'';
                  (B) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may'';
                  (C) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the 
                following:
          ``(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands 
        and aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands 
        ecosystem.'';
                  (D) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``and aquatic 
                habitat'' before the period at the end; and
                  (E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the 
                following:
          ``(7) Research, development, and implementation for a water 
        quality improvement program, including restoration of hydrology 
        and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and other sources 
        of contaminants that degrade existing or planned sites.'';
          (3) in subsection (c) by inserting before the last sentence 
        the following: ``The non-Federal sponsor may also provide in-
        kind services, not to exceed 25 percent of the total project 
        cost, and may also receive credit for reasonable cost of design 
        work completed prior to entering into the partnership agreement 
        with the Secretary for a project to be carried out under the 
        program developed under subsection (a).''; and
          (4) in subsection (d) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$35,000,000''.

SEC. 5066. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.

  (a) Development of Program.--Section 404(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``processes'' and inserting ``and related 
        environmental processes'';
          (2) by inserting after ``Atlantic Coast'' the following: 
        ``(and associated back bays)'';
          (3) by inserting after ``actions'' the following: ``, 
        environmental restoration or conservation measures for coastal 
        and back bays,''; and
          (4) by inserting at the end the following: ``The plan for 
        collecting data and monitoring information included in such 
        annual report shall be fully coordinated with and agreed to by 
        appropriate agencies of the State of New York.''.
  (b) Annual Reports.--Section 404(b) of such Act is amended--
          (1) by striking ``Initial Plan.--Not later than 12 months 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, the'' and 
        inserting ``Annual Reports.--The'';
          (2) by striking ``initial plan for data collection and 
        monitoring'' and inserting ``annual report of data collection 
        and monitoring activities''; and
          (3) by striking the last sentence.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 404(c) of such Act (113 
Stat. 341) is amended by striking ``and an additional total of 
$2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter'' and inserting ``$2,500,000 for 
fiscal years 2000 through 2002, and $17,000,000 for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 2002,''.

SEC. 5067. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

  In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1990 (104 Stat. 4639-4640), the Secretary shall give priority to work 
in College Point, New York City, New York.

SEC. 5068. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

  The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project for ecosystem restoration, Flushing Bay and Creek, New 
York City, New York, the cost of design and construction work carried 
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.

SEC. 5069. LITTLE NECK BAY, VILLAGE OF KINGS POINT, NEW YORK.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a navigation project at 
Little Neck Bay (Hague Basin), Village of Kings Point, New York, 
sufficient to permit the safe operation of the vessel T/V Kings Pointer 
at all tide levels.
  (b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the 
United States Merchant Marine Academy for the cost of the project 
carried out under this section.

SEC. 5070. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.

  Section 573 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
372-373) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (f) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$30,000,000'';
          (2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
        (g) and (h), respectively; and
          (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
  ``(f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any project 
carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor may include a 
nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.''.

SEC. 5071. JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA.

  The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the calculations 
necessary to negotiate and execute a revised, permanent contract for 
water supply storage at John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina, 
among the Secretary and the Kerr Lake Regional Water System and the 
city of Henderson, North Carolina.

SEC. 5072. STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

  Section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by inserting ``water and'' before 
``wastewater''.

SEC. 5073. CENTRAL RIVERFRONT PARK, CINCINNATI, OHIO.

  If the Secretary is authorized to carry out a downtown waterfront 
development project for the Central Riverfront Park, Cincinnati, Ohio, 
the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 
the project the cost of--
          (1) design and construction work undertaken by the non-
        Federal interest before entering into a partnership agreement 
        for the project with the Secretary if the Secretary determines 
        that the work is integral to the project; and
          (2) land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations provided 
        by the non-Federal interest.

SEC. 5074. PIEDMONT LAKE DAM, OHIO.

  In reconstructing the road on the Piedmont Lake Dam as part of the 
project for dam safety assurance, Piedmont Lake Dam, Ohio, being 
carried out under section 4 of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 
(53 Stat. 1414-1415), the Secretary shall upgrade the condition of the 
road to meet standards applicable to public use roads in the State of 
Ohio. The incremental cost of upgrading the road to meet such standards 
shall be a non-Federal expense.

SEC. 5075. OHIO.

  Section 594(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 383) is amended by striking ``$60,000,000'' and inserting 
``$90,000,000''.

SEC. 5076. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

  The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master Conservancy 
District payable to the United States Government in the amounts, rates 
of interest, and payment schedules is set at the amounts, rates of 
interest, and payment schedules that existed, and that both parties 
agreed to, on June 3, 1986, and may not be adjusted, altered, or 
changed without a specific, separate, and written agreement between the 
District and the United States Government.

SEC. 5077. COLUMBIA RIVER, OREGON.

  Section 401(b)(3) of Public Law 100-581 (102 Stat. 2944), is amended 
by inserting ``and Celilo Village, Oregon'' after ``existing sites''.

SEC. 5078. EUGENE, OREGON.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of restoring the millrace in Eugene, Oregon, and, if the 
Secretary determines that the restoration is feasible, shall carry out 
the restoration.
  (b) Consideration of Noneconomic Benefits.--In determining the 
feasibility of restoring the millrace, the Secretary shall include 
noneconomic benefits associated with the historical significance of the 
millrace and associated with preservation and enhancement of resources.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

SEC. 5079. JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, LAKE UMATILLA, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall pay up to $2,500,000 to the 
provider of research and curation support previously provided to the 
Federal Government as a result of the multipurpose project, John Day 
Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and Washington, authorized by 
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 167), and the 
several navigation and flood damage reduction projects constructed on 
the Columbia River and Lower Willamette River, Oregon and Washington.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.

SEC. 5080. LOWELL, OREGON.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may convey without consideration to 
Lowell School District, by quitclaim deed, all right, title and 
interest of the United States in and to approximately 3.32 acres of 
land and buildings thereon, known as Tract A-82, located in Lowell, 
Oregon, and described in subsection (b).
  (b) Description of Property.--The parcel of land authorized to be 
conveyed under subsection (a) is as follows: Commencing at the point of 
intersection of the west line of Pioneer Street with the westerly 
extension of the north line of Summit Street, in Meadows Addition to 
Lowell, as platted and recorded at page 56 of Volume 4, Lane County 
Oregon Plat Records; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a 
distance of 176.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this 
description; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance 
of 170.0 feet; thence west at right angles to the west line of Pioneer 
Street a distance of 250.0 feet; thence south and parallel to the west 
line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence east 250.0 feet 
to the true point of beginning of this description in Section 14, 
Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Lane 
County, Oregon.
  (c) Terms and Conditions.--Before conveying the parcel to the school 
district, the Secretary shall ensure that the conditions of buildings 
and facilities meet the requirements of applicable Federal law.
  (d) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
          (1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--Section 
        2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any 
        conveyance under this section.
          (2) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made under 
        this section shall hold the United States harmless from any 
        liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after 
        the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The 
        United States shall remain responsible for any liability with 
        respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the 
        real property conveyed.

SEC. 5081. HAGERMAN'S RUN, WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The Secretary may rehabilitate the pumps at the project for flood 
damage reduction, Hagerman's Run, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, at a 
total Federal cost of $225,000.

SEC. 5082. NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ``and Monroe'' and inserting 
``Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour''.

SEC. 5083. SUSQUEHANNOCK CAMPGROUND ACCESS ROAD, RAYSTOWN LAKE, 
                    PENNSYLVANIA.

  (a) Improvement of Access Road.--The Secretary may make improvements 
to the Susquehannock Campground access road at Raystown Lake, 
Pennsylvania.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.

SEC. 5084. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.

  Section 567 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3787-3788; 114 Stat. 2662-2663) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ``$10,000,000.'' and 
        inserting the following: ``$20,000,000, of which the Secretary 
        may utilize not more than $5,000,000 to design and construct 
        feasible pilot projects during the development of the strategy 
        to demonstrate alternative approaches for the strategy. The 
        total cost for any single pilot project may not exceed 
        $500,000. The Secretary shall evaluate the results of the pilot 
        projects and consider the results in the development of the 
        strategy.'';
          (2) in subsection (c)--
                  (A) in the subsection heading by striking 
                ``Cooperation'' and inserting ``Cooperative''; and
                  (B) by striking ``cooperation'' and inserting 
                ``cooperative''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of design and 
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 
date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
determines that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) the cost 
of in-kind services and materials provided for the project by the non-
Federal interest.''.

SEC. 5085. WASHINGTON, GREENE, WESTMORELAND, AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, 
                    PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 219(f)(70) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by striking ``$8,000,000'' and 
inserting ``$13,300,000''.

SEC. 5086. CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.

  The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-Federal 
interest concerning flood protection and environmental restoration for 
Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and, if the Secretary 
determines that the report meets the evaluation and design standards of 
the Corps of Engineers and that the project is feasible, may carry out 
the project, at a total cost of $130,000,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $85,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $45,000,000.

SEC. 5087. BEAUFORT AND JASPER COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA.

  The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Navy, and may 
use, not to exceed $23,000,000 to assist the Beaufort Jasper Water and 
Sewage Authority, South Carolina, with its plan to consolidate civilian 
and military wastewater treatment facilities.

SEC. 5088. COOPER RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide technical and 
financial assistance for the removal of the Grace and Pearman Bridges 
over the Cooper River, South Carolina.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 5089. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

  Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$35,000,000''; and
          (2) by inserting ``wastewater treatment and'' before ``water 
        supply''.

SEC. 5090. UPPER BIG SIOUX RIVER, WATERTOWN, SOUTH DAKOTA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the project for flood 
damage reduction, Upper Big Sioux River basin, Watertown, South Dakota, 
as described in the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 31, 
1994, and entitled ``Watertown and Vicinity, South Dakota'' and, if the 
Secretary determines that the project is feasible, may carry out the 
project, at a total cost of $25,000,000.
  (b) Non-Federal Share.--
          (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
        review may be provided in the form of in-kind services and 
        materials.
          (2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
        Federal share of the cost of the review the cost of planning 
        and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
        the date of an agreement for the review if the Secretary 
        determines that such work is integral to the review.

SEC. 5091. FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE.

  The Secretary shall--
          (1) conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur 
        Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee 
        modifications that would be required to make the levee and 
        associated drainage structures consistent with Federal 
        standards;
          (2) design and construct such modifications; and
          (3) after completion of such modifications, incorporate the 
        levee into the project for flood control, Mississippi River and 
        Tributaries, authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act for the 
        control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, 
        and for other purposes'', approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534-
        539), commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of 1928''.

SEC. 5092. MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.

  The Secretary shall review the aquatic ecosystem restoration 
component of the Memphis Riverfront Development Master Plan, Memphis, 
Tennessee, prepared by the non-Federal interest and, if the Secretary 
determines that the component meets the evaluation and design standards 
of the Corps of Engineers and that the component is feasible, may carry 
out the component at a total Federal cost not to exceed $5,000,000.

SEC. 5093. TOWN CREEK, LENOIR CITY, TENNESSEE.

  The Secretary shall design and construct the project for flood damage 
reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the Town Creek, Lenoir City, 
Loudon City, Tennessee, feasibility report of the Nashville district 
engineer, dated November 2000, under the authority of section 205 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), notwithstanding section 
1 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a; 49 Stat. 
1570). The non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 
subject to section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)).

SEC. 5094. TENNESSEE RIVER PARTNERSHIP.

  (a) In General.--As part of the operation and maintenance of the 
project for navigation, Tennessee River, Tennessee, Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Kentucky, authorized by the first section of the 
Rivers and Harbors Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 927), the Secretary 
may enter into a partnership with a nonprofit entity to remove debris 
from the Tennessee River in the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by 
providing a vessel to such entity, at Federal expense, for such debris 
removal purposes.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.

SEC. 5095. CLEAR CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, HARRIS, GALVESTON, AND BRAZORIA 
                    COUNTIES, TEXAS.

  The Secretary shall expedite completion of the report for the project 
for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, 
Clear Creek and tributaries, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria Counties, 
Texas.

SEC. 5096. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

  Section 575(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended by inserting before the period at 
the end the following: ``, whether or not such works or actions are 
partially funded under the hazard mitigation grant program of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency''.

SEC. 5097. HARRIS GULLY, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

  (a) Study.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
        determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
        damage reduction in the Harris Gully watershed, Harris County, 
        Texas, to provide flood protection for the Texas Medical 
        Center, Houston, Texas.
          (2) Use of local studies and plans.--In conducting the study, 
        the Secretary shall use, to the extent practicable, studies and 
        plans developed by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary 
        determines that such studies and plans meet the evaluation and 
        design standards of the Corps of Engineers.
          (3) Completion date.--The Secretary shall complete the study 
        by July 1, 2004.
  (b) Critical Flood Damage Reduction Measures.--The Secretary may 
carry out critical flood damage reduction measures that the Secretary 
determines are feasible and that will provide immediate and substantial 
flood damage reduction benefits in the Harris Gully watershed, at a 
Federal cost of $7,000,000.
  (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, and 
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 
date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
determines that such work is integral to the project.
  (d) Nonprofit Entity.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a nonprofit entity may, with 
the consent of the local government, serve as a non-Federal interest 
for the project undertaken under this section.

SEC. 5098. ONION CREEK, TEXAS.

  In carrying out the study for the project for flood damage, 
reduction, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, Onion Creek, Texas, 
the Secretary shall include the costs and benefits associated with the 
relocation of flood-prone residences in the study area for the project 
during the 2-year period before the initiation of the feasibility study 
to the extent the Secretary determines such relocations are compatible 
with the project. The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project the cost of relocation of such flood-
prone residences incurred by the non-Federal interest before the date 
of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
determines that the relocation of such residences is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 5099. PELICAN ISLAND, TEXAS.

  (a) In General.--Section 108(a) of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act, 1994 (33 U.S.C. 59hh(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
        following:
          ``(1) Authority to convey.--The Secretary'';
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(2) Letter of intent.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may provide a letter 
                of intent to the city of Galveston for conveyance of 
                less than 100 acres of the parcel described in 
                subsection (a) for private development purposes if the 
                Secretary receives and approves a proposal by the city 
                designating the land which would be subject to such 
                development.
                  ``(B) Disposition of spoil.--If the Secretary issues 
                a letter of intent under subparagraph (A), no 
                additional spoil material may be placed on the land 
                designated for private development for a period of at 
                least 5 years from the date of issuance of the letter 
                to provide the city of Galveston with an opportunity to 
                secure private developers, perform appraisals, conduct 
                environmental studies, and provide the compensation to 
                the United States required for the conveyance.''; and
          (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) 
        (as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with 
        paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (2) of this subsection).
  (b) Expiration Date.--Section 108(e)(3) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
59hh(e)(3)) is amended by striking ``date of the enactment of this 
Act'' and inserting ``date of enactment of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2003''.

SEC. 5100. FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA.

  Section 591(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 378) is amended by striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting 
``$22,000,000''.

SEC. 5101. RICHMOND NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out bluff 
stabilization measures on the James River in the vicinity of Drewry's 
Bluff, Richmond National Battlefield Park, Richmond, Virginia.
  (b) Reimbursement.--The Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the 
Secretary of the Interior of any costs incurred by the Secretary in 
carrying out subsection (a).

SEC. 5102. BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation in Baker 
Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington, to determine if the siltation is the 
result of a Federal navigation project (including diverted flows from 
the Columbia River) and, if the Secretary determines that the siltation 
is the result of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall 
carry out a project to mitigate the siltation as part of maintenance of 
the Federal navigation project.

SEC. 5103. CHEHALIS RIVER, CENTRALIA, WASHINGTON.

  The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project for flood damage reduction, Chehalis River, Centralia, 
Washington, the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried 
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.

SEC. 5104. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON.

  The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct a 
campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island (also know as 
``Strawberry Island'') in Skamania County, Washington.

SEC. 5105. PUGET ISLAND, WASHINGTON.

  The Secretary is directed to place dredged and other suitable 
material along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of Puget 
Island, Washington, between river miles 38 to 47 in order to protect 
economic and environmental resources in the area from further erosion, 
at a Federal cost of $1,000,000. This action shall be coordinated with 
appropriate resource agencies and comply with applicable Federal laws.

SEC. 5106. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA.

  Section 547 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
2676-2678) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (b)(1)(A) by striking ``4 years'' and 
        inserting ``5 years'';
          (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B)(iii) by striking ``if all'' and 
        all that follows through ``facility'' and inserting ``assurance 
        project'';
          (3) in subsection (b)(1)(C) by striking ``and construction'' 
        and inserting ``, construction, and operation and 
        maintenance'';
          (4) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
          ``(3) Operation and ownership.--The Tri-Cities Power 
        Authority shall be the owner and operator of the hydropower 
        facilities referred to in subsection (a).'';
          (5) in subsection (c)(1)--
                  (A) by striking ``No'' and inserting ``Unless 
                otherwise provided, no'';
                  (B) by inserting ``planning,'' before ``design''; and
                  (C) by striking ``prior to'' and all that follows 
                through ``subsection (d)'';
          (6) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``design'' and inserting 
        ``planning, design,'';
          (7) in subsection (d)--
                  (A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting 
                the following:
          ``(1) Approval.--The Secretary shall review the design and 
        construction activities for all features of the hydroelectric 
        project that pertain to and affect stability of the dam and 
        control the release of water from Bluestone Dam to ensure that 
        the quality of construction of those features meets all 
        standards established for similar facilities constructed by the 
        Secretary.'';
                  (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
                  (C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
                (2) (as so redesignated) and inserting ``, except that 
                hydroelectric power is no longer a project purpose of 
                the facility. Water flow releases from the hydropower 
                facilities shall be determined and directed by the 
                Corps of Engineers.''; and
                  (D) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) Coordination.--Construction of the hydroelectric 
        generating facilities shall be coordinated with the dam safety 
        assurance project currently in the design and construction 
        phases.'';
          (8) in subsection (e) by striking ``in accordance'' and all 
        that follows through ``58 Stat. 890)'';
          (9) in subsection (f)--
                  (A) by striking ``facility of the interconnected 
                systems of reservoirs operated by the Secretary'' each 
                place it appears and inserting ``facilities under 
                construction under such agreements''; and
                  (B) by striking ``design'' and inserting ``planning, 
                design'';
          (10) in subsection (f)(2)--
                  (A) by ``Secretary'' each place it appears and 
                inserting ``Tri-Cities Power Authority''; and
                  (B) by striking ``facilities referred to in 
                subsection (a)'' and inserting ``such facilities'';
          (11) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (g) and 
        inserting the following:
          ``(1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the market 
        or to construct such transmission facilities as necessary to 
        market the power produced at the facilities referred to in 
        subsection (a) with funds contributed by the Tri-Cities Power 
        Authority; and'';
          (12) in subsection (g)(2) by striking ``such facilities'' and 
        all that follows through ``the Secretary'' and inserting ``the 
        generating facility''; and
          (13) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(i) Tri-Cities Power Authority Defined.--In this section, the `Tri-
Cities Power Authority' refers to the entity established by the City of 
Hinton, West Virginia, the City of White Sulphur Springs, West 
Virginia, and the City of Philippi, West Virginia, pursuant to a 
document entitled `Second Amended and Restated Intergovernmental 
Agreement' approved by the Attorney General of West Virginia on 
February 14, 2002.''.

SEC. 5107. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.

  (a) Cheat and Tygart River Basins, West Virginia.--Section 581(a)(1) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 113 
Stat. 313) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``flood control measures'' and inserting 
        ``structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank 
        protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and 
        modification measures''; and
          (2) by inserting ``with respect to measures that incorporate 
        levees or floodwalls'' before the semicolon.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 581(c) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended by 
striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting ``$90,000,000''.

SEC. 5108. LOWER KANAWHA RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a watershed and river basin assessment 
under section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2267a) for the Lower Kanawha River Basin, in the counties of 
Mason, Putnam, Kanawha, Jackson, and Roane, West Virginia.

SEC. 5109. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.

  Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
371) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``Nicholas,''; and
                  (B) by striking ``Gilmer,''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any project 
undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a 
nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.
  ``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of 
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 
100 percent Federal expense.''.

SEC. 5110. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

  (a) Corps of Engineers.--Section 340 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(h) Corps of Engineers.--Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to 
carry out this section for fiscal years 2003 and thereafter may be used 
by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under 
this section at 100 percent Federal expense.''.
  (b) Southern West Virginia Defined.--Section 340(f) of such Act is 
amended by inserting ``Nicholas,'' after ``Greenbrier,''.
  (c) Nonprofit Entities.--Section 340 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended by adding 
at the end the following:
  ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any project 
undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a 
nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.''.

SEC. 5111. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL 
                    INTERESTS.

  Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 
U.S.C. 701b-13) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(9) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood control, 
        Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
          ``(10) Halls bayou, texas.--The project for flood control, 
        Halls Bayou, Texas.
          ``(11) St. Paul downtown airport (holman field), st. paul, 
        minnesota.--The project for flood damage reduction, St. Paul 
        Downtown Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.''.

SEC. 5112. BRIDGE AUTHORIZATION.

  There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for the 
construction of the bridge referred to in section 1001(1).

SEC. 5113. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS.

  Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335-337; 114 Stat. 2763A-220-221) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
          ``(71) Plaquemine, louisiana.--$7,000,000 for sanitary sewer 
        and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana.
          ``(72) Charleston, south carolina.--$20,000,000 for 
        wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection 
        systems, Charleston, South Carolina.
          ``(73) Cross, south carolina.--$2,000,000 for water-related 
        environmental infrastructure, Cross, South Carolina.
          ``(74) Surfside, south carolina.--$8,000,000 for 
        environmental infrastructure, including stormwater system 
        improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, South Carolina.
          ``(75) North myrtle beach, south carolina.--$3,000,000 for 
        environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, North 
        Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
          ``(76) Tia juana valley, california.--$1,400,000 for water-
        related environmental infrastructure, Tia Juana Valley, 
        California.
          ``(77) Cabarrus county, north carolina.--$4,500,000 for 
        water-related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
          ``(78) Richmond county, north carolina.--$8,000,000 for 
        water-related infrastructure, Richmond County, North Carolina.
          ``(79) Union county, north carolina.--$9,000,000 for 
        wastewater infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina.
          ``(80) Washington, district of columbia.--$35,000,000 for 
        implementation of a combined sewer overflow long term control 
        plan, Washington, District of Columbia.
          ``(81) Southern los angeles county, california.--$15,000,000 
        for environmental infrastructure for the groundwater basin 
        optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles County, California.
          ``(82) Indianapolis, indiana.--$6,430,000 for environmental 
        infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana.
          ``(83) Henderson, nevada.--$5,000,000 for wastewater 
        infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada.
          ``(84) Sennett, new york.--$1,500,000 for water 
        infrastructure, Town of Sennett, New York.
          ``(85) Ledyard and montville, connecticut.--$7,113,000 for 
        water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, Connecticut.
          ``(86) Awendaw, south carolina.--$2,000,000 for water-related 
        infrastructure, Awendaw, South Carolina.
          ``(87) St. clair county, alabama.--$5,000,000 for water-
        related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Alabama.
          ``(88) East bay, san francisco, and santa clara areas, 
        california.--$4,000,000 for a desalination project to serve the 
        East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara areas, California.
          ``(89) Athens, tennessee.--$16,000,000 for wastewater 
        infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee.
          ``(90) Warwick, new york.--$1,200,000 for water storage 
        capacity restoration, Warwick, New York.
          ``(91) Kiryas joel, new york.--$20,000,000 for water-related 
        infrastructure, Kiryas Joel, New York.
          ``(92) Whittier, california.--$8,000,000 for wastewater and 
        water-related infrastructure, Whittier, California.
          ``(93) Anacostia river, district of columbia and maryland.--
        $20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure and resource 
        protection and development to enhance water quality and living 
        resources in the Anacostia River watershed, District of 
        Columbia and Maryland.
          ``(94) Duchesne, iron, and uintah counties, utah.--
        $10,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, Duchesne, Iron, 
        and Uintah Counties, Utah.
          ``(95) Hancock, harrison, jackson, and pearl river counties, 
        mississippi.--$5,824,300 for water and wastewater-related 
        infrastructure, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, and Pearl River 
        Counties, Mississippi.''.

SEC. 5114. USE OF FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGE FLEET.

  (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the appropriate 
use of the Federal hopper dredge fleet.
  (b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall--
          (1) obtain and analyze baseline data to determine the 
        appropriate use of the Federal hopper dredge fleet;
          (2) prepare a comprehensive analysis of the costs and 
        benefits of existing and proposed restrictions on the use of 
        the Federal hopper dredge fleet; and
          (3) assess the data and procedure used by the Secretary to 
        prepare the Government cost estimate for worked performed by 
        the Federal hopper dredge fleet.
  (c) Consultation.--The Secretary shall conduct the study in 
consultation with ports, pilots, and representatives of the private 
dredge industry.
  (d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the 
results of the study.

                         Purpose of Legislation

    The Water Resources Development Act of 2003 includes 
project authorizations, modifications, deauthorizations, 
studies, and policy initiatives for the Army Corps of 
Engineers' Civil Works Program--the nation's largest water 
resources program. Throughout its five titles, the bill 
authorizes and directs the Corps to carry out various studies, 
projects, and programs relating to navigation, flood damage 
reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, water supply, 
recreation, environmental restoration and protection.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Water Resources Development Act of 2003 demonstrates 
the continuing commitment of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure to the Nation's water resources 
infrastructure, and a regular authorization schedule for the 
Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 
which was instituted by the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986. The Committee believes that passage of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2003 is vitally important to 
fulfill commitments to non-Federal sponsors, to be responsive 
to new and emerging water resources needs, and to fine-tune the 
Corps' missions and responsibilities.

Value of the Civil Works Program

    The Committee recognizes the value of the Corps and the 
Corps' Civil Works missions to the Nation and the critical 
importance of maintaining these vital contributions. Over the 
years, the Corps has maintained flexibility in its Civil Works 
missions to meet the changing needs of the Nation. The Corps 
has an impressive history of helping to meet the Nation's water 
resources needs. For over 175 years, the Corps has supported 
navigation needs by maintaining and improving the Nation's 
waterways in 41 States. The Corps also maintains 300 commercial 
harbors, through which pass over 2 billion tons of cargo a 
year, and with more than 13 million American jobs dependent on 
our import and export trade, these ports are vital to our 
economic security. The ports and waterways maintained by the 
Corps also play a vital role in national defense.
    Corps flood damage reduction efforts range from small, 
local protection projects (levees or non-structural flood 
damage reduction measures) to major dams. Today, most Corps 
constructed flood protection projects are owned by sponsoring 
cities, towns, and agricultural districts, but the Corps 
continues to maintain and operate 383 dams and reservoirs for 
flood damage reduction. During the 10 years from 1991 through 
2000 the United States suffered $45 billion in property damage 
from floods. During that same period, however, Corps flood 
damage reduction measures prevented more than $208 billion in 
damage--82% of the damage that would have occurred if the 
protection was absent.
    Legislation passed in 1990 established environmental 
protection as one of the primary missions of the Corps--along 
with navigation and flood damage reduction. Since that time, 
ecosystem restoration projects have grown increasingly popular 
throughout the country, resulting in over $1.3 billion in 
Federal support for environmental activities. The Corps has 
provided leadership on large-scale ecosystem restoration 
projects, including restoring the hydrologic regime for the 
Everglades in Florida and addressing wetland losses of 
catastrophic proportion in Coastal Louisiana. In addition, the 
Corps carries out environmental and natural resource management 
programs at its projects, manages thousands of square miles of 
forest and wildlife habitat, monitors water quality at its 
dams, and in some cases restores the environment at projects 
built in earlier days.
    As the Corps program continues to evolve in service to the 
Nation, the Committee notes with interest the efforts of the 
Chief of Engineers to encourage a more holistic approach to 
water resources management. An increased emphasis on watershed 
and basin-wide planning, conducted in conjunction with State 
and local governments and non-public stakeholders, can lead to 
a more sustainable use of water resources that integrates water 
development, protection, and restoration. The Corps can play a 
particularly important role in facilitating planning when the 
issues affecting water resources concern multiple 
jurisdictions. The Corps is encouraged to pursue efforts to 
improve coordination and cooperation in the development of 
recommended approaches to address water resources problems and 
formulating plans to solve these problems.

Corps of Engineers Planning Process

    In recent years, there has been some controversy regarding 
the planning process used by the Corps of Engineers to develop 
water resources projects. The Civil Works program of the Corps 
of Engineers is an approximately $4.5 billion annual program. 
Of that amount, between $135 and $145 million is spent annually 
to study water resources needs, determine if there is a Federal 
interest in meeting those needs, and develop recommendations 
for water resources projects that are technically sound, 
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
    For certain small projects, Congress has authorized the 
Corps to participate in the development and construction under 
continuing authorities. The Federal participation in these 
small projects is limited to between $500,000 and $7 million 
per project, depending on the project type. For all other 
projects, the Corps must first receive authorization from 
Congress to proceed with a study, either by statute or, if the 
Corps previously has conducted a study in the same geographic 
area, in the form of a Committee resolution.
    Once authorized, a water resources study begins with a 
reconnaissance study. The reconnaissance phase is a relatively 
quick examination of the problem (generally costing no more 
than $100,000) during which the Corps of Engineers determines 
if there is a Federal interest and a potentially feasible 
project. Currently, there are 40 ongoing reconnaissance 
studies. If, based on the reconnaissance study, the Corps 
determines there is a potentially feasible water resources 
project, the Corps may seek the participation of a non-Federal 
interest willing to share in 50 percent of the study costs (for 
studies for projects other than inland navigation) and proceed 
to a full feasibility study. A feasibilitystudy is generally 
expected to take about 2 years. However, due to the complexity of the 
issues, controversy over proposed solutions, and budget constraints, 
feasibility studies often take longer than 2 years and in rare cases 
may take in excess of 15 years. Currently, there are 210 ongoing 
feasibility studies.
    To ensure that a project is technically sound, 
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified, the 
Corps must conduct a study in accordance with applicable laws, 
regulations, and policy, including the 1983 Principles and 
Guidelines issued by the Water Resources Council, Engineering 
Regulations issued by the Corps of Engineers (and most recently 
comprehensively revised in 1999), and other guidance 
periodically issued by the Chief of Engineers. Studies that 
result in a report of the Chief of Engineers recommending a 
water resources project are submitted to Congress for 
authorization. Other than projects constructed under continuing 
authorities, the Corps may not proceed to construction of a 
project until it is specifically authorized.
    All Corps of Engineers projects manage water resources in 
some fashion. In many cases, there may be competing demands on 
those water resources, leading to controversy and even 
opposition to a proposed project by some constituencies. In 
some cases, project opponents have carried out or obtained a 
careful review of a study for a Corps project and have 
uncovered examples of projects that do not comply with 
applicable guidance. In particular, there have been three 
projects where close scrutiny revealed that the projected 
benefits of the project might not exceed the projected costs, 
notwithstanding the requirement that most water resources 
projects be economically justified. (The requirement for 
economic justification does not apply to environmental 
projects; under the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, 
the benefits of environmental projects are deemed to be equal 
to their costs).
    Two of these three projects, the Chesapeake and Delaware 
Canal and the Delaware River Deepening, were already authorized 
by Congress at the time questions were raised about the project 
economics. In the case of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 
the project has been suspended. In the case of the Delaware 
River Deepening, notwithstanding mathematical errors made by 
the Corps in its original economic analysis, further analysis 
has demonstrated that the project remains economically 
justified and the project is continuing. In the case of the 
third project, the Upper Mississippi River Locks and Dams, 
questions were raised regarding the models to be used to 
analyze projected demand for barge traffic on the river before 
the study had been completed. The Corps of Engineers is 
continuing with this ongoing study and expects to make 
recommendations to Congress next year that will be economically 
justified.
    The problems with the economic analyses of these three 
projects has led to a call for the improvement of the Corps' 
process for developing water resources projects. The Committee 
believes that the Corps of Engineers employs experts in their 
fields who provide a tremendous service to the Nation. The 
Committee also holds these professionals to the highest 
standards and expects all work products generated by the Corps 
of Engineers to be able to withstand any level of scrutiny. 
Accordingly, this bill provides the Chief of Engineers with 
tools to ensure that project studies are carried out using high 
quality methods, models, and analyses. At the same time, the 
Committee also recognizes that many disputes over water 
resources projects are policy disputes. Accordingly, the bill 
also ensures that changes to the project planning process will 
not lead to delays in project delivery and provides the Chief 
of Engineers with tools to resolve policy disputes and minimize 
delays.

      Discussion of Committee Bill and Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title; table of contents

    (a) Short Title.--Establishes the short title of this Act 
as the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2003''.
    (b) Table of Contents.

Section 2: Definition of Secretary

    Defines the term ``Secretary,'' which is used throughout 
the bill, as the Secretary of the Army.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Section 1001. Project authorizations

    This section authorizes projects for water resources 
development and conservation to be carried out substantially in 
accordance with the reports of the Chief of Engineers cited for 
each project, except as otherwise provided.
    (1) American River Watershed, California.--
    The American River watershed lies northeast of Sacramento. 
It covers approximately 2,100 square miles and includes 
portions of Placer, El Dorado, and Sacramento Counties. Runoff 
from the American River drainage basin flows through Folsom 
Reservoir and passes through Sacramento in a channel controlled 
by a system of levees. The Folsom Dam and Reservoir are located 
about 29 miles upstream of Sacramento and are part of the 
Federal Central Valley Project (CVP), one of California's major 
water delivery systems.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Numerous 
floods, most notably in 1986 and 1997, underscore the continued 
high risk of catastrophic flooding in Sacramento. Currently, 
Sacramento has a 1-in-85 chance of flooding in any year. In 
1996 and 1999, Congress authorized improvements to the levees 
on the American River and modifications to the Folsom Dam to 
reduce this flood risk. Once these projects are completed, the 
risk of flooding will decrease to about a 1-in-164 chance in 
any one year.Even with improvements already authorized, flood 
protection will fall short of the community goal of reducing the risk 
of flooding to a 1-in-200 chance of catastrophic flooding in a given 
year.
    The combination of mining, development, flood plain 
constrictions (including bridges, levees, diversions, and the 
parkway system), dam construction, and flow modifications over 
the past 150 years has altered the physical processes that 
sustain the Lower American River ecosystem and have thereby 
contributed to its degradation. These changes will likely 
continue, further reducing riparian, wildlife, and related 
habitat values along the lower river. In addition, the 
construction of Folsom Dam has cut off most of the spawning 
areas historically used by the river's migratory steelhead 
trout and salmon. There are opportunities to restore lost 
resources through modification and replanting of remnant 
floodplain terraces. Lower American River in-stream habitat 
could be altered to improve fish spawning and rearing 
conditions, thus increasing the viability of salmon and 
steelhead populations.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Eight primary flood damage 
reduction alternatives were evaluated, not including the no-
action alternative. Four different downstream levee 
modifications were evaluated to address increases in objective 
releases from Folsom Dam and three Folsom Dam enlargement 
alternatives were evaluated to address increases in flood 
storage capacity at Folsom Dam. One alternative that addressed 
increased flood damage reduction through a new upstream 
detention dam was included for informational purposes.
    The study also considered 26 measures in formulating 
ecosystem restoration alternatives for the lower American 
River. From these measures, five alternatives were evaluated.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan 
consists of raising the height of Folsom Dam by 7 feet. The 
raise would include a combination of raising the concrete 
monolith and embankments and adding a 3.5-foot parapet wall, 
replacing the spillway radial gates, modifying the spillway 
bridge piers, and replacing the spillway bridge. With these 
modifications the top-of-flood-pool elevation at Folsom 
Reservoir would be increased from an elevation of 474 to 482 
feet above mean sea level and flood control storage capacity 
would be increased by 95,000 acre-feet. Significant work at 
Folsom Dam to address dam safety is avoided by also including 
modifications to the spillway at L. L. Anderson Dam. The L. L. 
Anderson Dam is owned by Placer County Water Agency and 
controls French Meadows Reservoir that is located on the Middle 
Fork of the American River. By including measures to widen the 
L. L. Anderson Dam spillway, the probable maximum flood inflows 
to Folsom Dam would be lowered, thereby avoiding more costly 
dam safety work at Folsom Dam. The recommended flood damage 
reduction improvements would remedy the existing safety 
deficiency at Folsom Dam and reduce the annual probability of 
flooding in Sacramento from an estimated 1-in-164 chance to a 
1-in-213 chance in any year.
    The recommended plan also includes ecosystem restoration 
components that would provide for approximately 620 acres of 
wildlife habitat including wetlands, riparian, and native 
vegetation at the Woodlake and Bushy Lake sites along the lower 
American River parkway. In addition, temperature control 
shutters for the inlets to the Folsom Dam penstocks would be 
mechanized to better regulate the American River water 
temperature to increase native salmon and steelhead populations 
downstream of the dam.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    (a) Raise Folsom Dam.
    (1) Replace Existing Spillway Gates. All eight spillway 
radial gates at Folsom Dam would be replaced with larger gates. 
The new gates would be approximately 66 feet high, 16 feet 
taller than the gates under the without-project condition. The 
top-of-gate elevation would be 484 feet.
    (2) Modify Spillway Bridge Piers. The piers would be raised 
and extended downstream to anchor the new larger radial gates. 
Additionally, the piers would be strengthened by installing 
post-tensioned tendons to anchor the piers to the mass concrete 
of the overflow section.
    (3) Replace Spillway Bridge. The existing eight-span 
spillway bridge would require replacement.
    (4) Raise Concrete Dam. The concrete portions of Folsom Dam 
including the spillway area would be raised to accommodate the 
higher flood control pool. The raise would be accomplished 
through a combination of raising the dam crest and spillway 
bridge deck, and constructing a short crest/parapet wall. The 
new top-of-dam elevation in the concrete section would be 487.5 
feet (top of crest/parapet wall), and the top of the roadway 
and bridge deck would be 487.0 feet elevation.
    (5) Extend Stilling Basin. Extension of the spillway 
stilling basin and side walls by approximately 60 feet is 
required to ensure proper stilling basin function and adequate 
energy dissipation of the larger flows and higher heads of the 
new design flood and probable maximum flood.
    (6) Construct Temporary Construction Bridge. A temporary 
construction bridge approximately \1/4\ mile in length may be 
constructed downstream of the left wing dam to mitigate short-
term traffic effects during construction of the dam 
modifications. The bridge would be aligned to provide an 
alternate route of transportation across the American River to 
ensure that no conflicts occur with existing Folsom Dam 
operations. The Secretary is authorized to construct a 
permanent bridge, in lieu of a temporary construction bridge, 
if the additional costs of such a bridge, in excess of the $36 
million provided in the recommended plan for the temporary 
construction bridge, are provided by other entities, including 
State and local governments and other Federal agencies.
    (7) Widen L. L. Anderson Dam Spillway. L. L. Anderson Dam 
(French Meadows Reservoir) spillway would be widened so that 
Folsom Dam would safely pass the probable maximum flood.
    (8) Mitigation. Mitigation for project construction 
includes approximately 82.6 acres of oak woodland/blue oak-gray 
pine woodland, 10.3 acres of riparian woodland and 0.3 acre of 
seasonal wetland habitat. In addition, an adaptive management 
plan would be implemented by the non-Federal sponsor to 
mitigate unforeseen effects on vegetation and wildlife due to 
the enlarged flood pool from 474 to 482 feet elevation.
    (b) Ecosystem Restoration.
    (1) Woodlake. The restoration plan at this 283-acre site 
includes the eradication of nonnative invasive plant species; 
modification of flood plain terraces to increase frequency of 
natural flooding; seeding to reestablish native grasslands; and 
grading to appropriate flood plain elevations and planting 
reconstructed areas with riparian forest oak woodland, and oak 
savanna plant species.
    (2) Bushy Lake Restoration Site. The 347-acre Bushy Lake 
site is upstream from Woodlake. The conceptual restoration plan 
includes the eradication of nonnative invasive plant species 
and the construction of a pump and delivery system and 
meandering channel to carry local drainage water to Bushy Lake. 
The new channels would be planted with emergent wetland plant 
species. Restoration also includes the creation of an ephemeral 
channel to convey flows from the lake to the river; terracing 
steep banks; and planting riparian forest, oak woodland, and 
oak savanna plant species on newly graded site areas.
    (3) Folsom Dam Temperature Shutter Mechanization. Folsom 
Dam restricts salmon and steelhead life cycles to the 23-mile 
Lower American River precluding the fish from migrating to 
their upstream natal spawning grounds. Cold water is necessary 
to sustain existing spawning and rearing salmon and steelhead 
populations below the dam. To manage Lower American River water 
temperature, cold water from varying depths in Folsom Lake is 
withdrawn via shutters located at different elevations on the 
penstock inlet. The restoration feature would modify and 
automate the temperature shutters to allow for the flexibility 
and timeliness needed to optimize management of the coldwater 
pool to sustain the downstream fishery.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The State of California and the Sacramento Area Flood Control 
Agency (SAFCA) both support a high level of flood protection 
for Sacramento and support improvement of the American River 
ecosystem. They are willing to cost share and perform other 
sponsor duties.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Agencies commenting 
on the draft report either support or are neutral to the 
proposed project. In its Coordination Act Report, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service has provided recommendations on avoidance 
of, and compensation for, environmental impacts directly 
related to raising Folsom Dam. The Service is neutral towards 
the Folsom Dam raise plan and supports the Woodlake, Bushy 
Lake, and Folsom Dam temperature shutter modification plans.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Impact 
Statement was filed with EPA on May 3, 2002.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 2002 price levels)

                                                            Cost Sharing
Federal (Agency/Purpose):
    Corps of Engineers/Flood Damage Reduction...........     $86,900,000
    Bureau of Reclamation/Dam Safety....................      95,900,000
    Corps of Engineers/Ecosystem Restoration............      18,400,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................     201,200,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Non-Federal (Agency/Purpose):
    The Reclamation Board/SAFCA Flood Damage Reduction..      46,200,000
    SAFCA/Ecosystem Restoration.........................       9,900,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal..........................................      56,100,000
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     257,300,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: For the 
flood damage reduction features the non-Federal sponsors will 
provide 5 percent of the initial construction cost in cash 
during construction, and all required lands, easements, rights-
of-way, relocations, and disposal areas. Additionally, the non-
Federal sponsor will provide any additional cash amount 
required to produce a total non-Federal contribution of at 
least 35 percent of the total flood damage reduction project 
cost. The Reclamation Board and SAFCA are the prospective non-
Federal sponsors for the proposed flood damage reduction 
project features. For the flood damage reduction project 
features, the Federal share of project costs would be about 
$86,900,000 and the non-Federal share would be about 
$46,200,000. For the environmental restoration features the 
non-Federal sponsor will provide 35 percent of the initial 
construction cost allocated to these features. Included in this 
35 percent are all required lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
relocations, and disposal areas. Additionally, the non-Federal 
sponsor will provide any additional cash amount required to 
produce a total non-Federal contribution of at least 35 percent 
of the total environmental restoration project cost. SAFCA is 
the prospective non-Federal sponsor for the proposed 
environmental restoration project features. For the 
environmental restoration project features, the Federal share 
of project costs would be about $18,400,000 and the non-Federal 
share would be about $9,900,000. All dam safety costs have been 
allocated to the Bureau of Reclamation, although it is 
acknowledged that the non-Federal sponsor for the original 
Folsom Dam project may be required to share in 15 percent of 
the dam safety costs in accordance with the cost sharing in 
effect at the time of initial construction of the project.
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs: (October 2002 price levels):

                                                            Cost sharing
Federal: Corps of Engineers...................................         0
Non-Federal: The Reclamation Board/SAFCA:
    Flood Damage Reduction....................................  $207,000
    Ecosystem Restoration.....................................   580,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................   787,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Operation and 
maintenance costs are for the additional amount above the 
existing, without-project O&M cost. Operation, maintenance, 
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs of 
improvement features would normally be the responsibility of 
the non-Federal sponsor. However, since Folsom Dam is owned and 
operated by the Federal government, the OMRR&R would continue 
to be performed by the Bureau of Reclamation, but a cost-
sharing agreement would be negotiated between the non-Federal 
sponsors and Bureau of Reclamation to pay the portion of the 
OMRR&R costs related to the new flood control features. For the 
ecosystem restoration components of the selected plan, OMRR&R 
of the project will be the responsibility of the non-Federal 
sponsor, SAFCA. Estimated annual OMRR&R cost for ecosystem 
restoration include activities to operate and maintain the 
mechanized temperature control shutters on Folsom Dam in 
addition to landscape maintenance activities on the Bushy Lake 
and Woodlake sites that include the application of herbicides 
and excavation of seed banks to eradicate non-native invasive 
plant species, the replacement of wetland and riparian plant 
species during the period of plant community establishment, and 
other adaptive management activities that may be deemed 
necessary to ensure the successful restoration of riverine 
habitat on these two sites.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average annual
             Account                    equivalent        Average annual
                                    beneficial effects   adverse effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED..............................  $19,200,000.........       $7,800,000
NER..............................  894 AAHU's (Average        $2,481,000
                                    Annual Habitat
                                    Units).
  Project economic life years: 50 years.
Benefit-cost ratio: 2.5 (current discount rate: 6.125%).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NED plan recommended--No. It was determined that the 
545,000 acre-foot upstream detention, flood control-only dam 
originally studied in the 1991 American River Watershed 
feasibility report would continue to provide greater net 
National Economic Development (NED) benefits than the 
recommended plan. The first cost of the NED plan would be about 
$777 million. The average annual cost would be $64.1 million 
and the average annual flood damage reduction benefits would be 
approximately $71 million. Because an upstream detention dam 
would reduce flood storage requirements at Folsom Dam, this 
alternative would also generate substantial water resource-
related benefits. These additional benefits were estimated at 
$12 million in the 1996 American River Supplemental Information 
Report. Although this estimate has not been updated, it is 
likely that the net benefits of an upstream detention dam would 
exceed those of any other alternative presented and thus would 
remain the NED Plan. Consequently, the 545,000 acre-foot 
upstream detention flood-control-only dam was identified as the 
NED plan. However, the non-Federal sponsors have selected the 
recommended plan as their preferred alternative since the 
recommended plan is smaller and less comprehensive, is of 
lesser cost than the NED Plan, and provides the highest net 
flood damage reduction benefits compared to all Folsom Dam 
enlargement and downstream levee modification alternatives 
considered.
    Direct Beneficiaries: Immediate beneficiaries include the 
City and County of Sacramento and commercial, public, 
industrial, and residential development within the flood plain 
and surrounding urbanized areas that rely upon the public 
facilities in the study area. The larger Sacramento community 
is a beneficiary of more viable fish and wildlife habitat 
within the metropolitan area.
    Relationship to Other Plans: The recommended plan is 
compatible with other water resources development projects in 
the study area. These include the North Area Local Project, 
Common Features project, Folsom Dam Modifications project, and 
recently authorized Lower American River flood control 
improvements.
    (a) Rebuilding or replacing the Folsom Dam spillway bridge 
would negate the need for a planned reconstruction or major 
overhaul of the bridge by the Bureau. Also, construction of 
new, larger spillway gates would negate the need for the 
currently on-going Folsom modifications project to replace 
gates. This would result in a cost savings to the Federal 
project of about $38 million.
    (b) Section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999 also directed that the Folsom Dam Flood Management Plan be 
updated to take advantage of improved weather forecasting. 
Three possible scenarios were developed to illustrate the 
possible impacts of the addition of prerelease to the without-
project condition damages. The first scenario is that advance 
release would not occur, possibly because of currently 
unanticipated problems. The second or most likely scenario 
anticipates that advance release could create 100,000 acre-feet 
of additional flood space. The third scenario of advance 
release could create 140,000 acre-feet of additional flood 
space.
    Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 
Project(s):

Federal.................................................     $85,000,000
Non-Federal.............................................      31,400,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     116,400,000

    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed 
November 5, 2002.
    (2) Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.--
    Location of Study Area: The project area is located at Pine 
Flat Dam on the Kings River in central California, 25 miles 
east of Fresno.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 
construction of Pine Flat Dam on the Kings River has altered 
the natural hydraulics and temperatures of the river, affected 
the vegetation, restricted native coldwater fish movements, 
which resulted in the decline of the fishery, affected fish and 
wildlife resources and aquatic wetland habitats, and further 
accelerated the decline of the riverine ecosystem habitat.
    Due to the design and operation of Pine Flat Dam, the 
reservoir can experience a significant increase in water 
temperature at certain times of the year. When there is 
adequate water, water temperatures are well within the optimal 
range for the survival of both coldwater and warmwater fish. In 
low-water years, however, the availability of coldwater habitat 
for native fisheries in the reservoir and lower Kings River can 
decrease dramatically.
    Water release from Pine Flat Lake influence the fishery 
downstream in the lower Kings River. During dry and below 
average precipitation years, with below average carryover 
storage, the coldwater reserves may be depleted from the 
reservoir by late summer and early fall, causing water 
temperatures in the reservoir and lower Kings River to exceed 
levels acceptable for coldwater fish growth and survival. In 
addition, low instream flows can adversely affect food supply, 
spatial habitat, and access to shaded riverine aquatic (SRA) 
habitat, and provide favorable habitat for nonnative warmwater 
fishery growth, which further declines the native coldwater 
fishery survival rate. Finally, various land use activities 
have resulted in some loss of riparian, SRA, and oak-woodland 
habitat, which has depleted the food source to the associated 
wildlife and special-status species along the river.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The eight alternative plans 
included: (1) No action; (2) constructing a multilevel intake 
structure on the upstream face of the dam to manage the 
temperature of downstream water releases to preserve the 
coldwater in the reservoir and promote downstream water 
temperatures suitable to sustain the native coldwater fishery 
throughout the year; (3) reestablishing historic floodplain 
riparian, SRA, and wildlife habitat at Byrd Slough along the 
Kings River immediately south of the Friant-Kern Canal siphon; 
and (4) a combination of alternatives 2 and 3.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan, 
alternative 4, will include a multilevel intake structure on 
the upstream face of Pine Flat Dam. This structure would allow 
for temperature-controlled releases through the power plant at 
the base of the dam. The plan would also include the 
restoration of 143.5 acres of historic floodplain, shaded 
riverine aquatic habitat, and wildlife habitat at Byrd Slough 
along the Kings River.
    Physical Data on Project Features: (a) Multilevel Intake 
Structure: A multilevel intake structure would be constructed 
on the upstream face of Pine Flat Dam. This multilevel intake 
structure would consist of three separate steel (space frame) 
structures which extend from elevation 953.46 feet, mean sea 
level (msl), downward to elevation 616.5 feet, msl. The three 
separate steel structures would fit over the three existing 
power penstock intakes. Each of the three structures would have 
three port openings and gates. There would be a hoist and cable 
unit (including a motor) for each of the nine openings. The 
three port openings would be 25 feet high and 42 feet wide and 
would be staggered at seven different elevations that would 
permit selective withdrawal of water from a wide range of 
levels in the reservoir.
    Steel gates measuring 27 feet high by 44 feet wide would be 
constructed to close off each of the new port openings. One 
gate on all three of the structures would be at the same 
elevation, and two gates on each of the structures would be at 
different elevations. The gates would open in the downward 
direction and would sit in a structural channel when completely 
open. This design would take the gate loadings off the hoist 
cable. Cladding would be placed on the space frame to enclose 
each of the structures. Steel plates would be put on the bottom 
of each of the space frame structures to prevent water from 
leaking into each structure. A trash rack would be placed on 
the front face of each of the structures to prevent any large 
debris from entering the port openings and to protect the 
structure.
    (b) Byrd Slough Habitat Restoration: About 143.5 acres of 
Fresno County land downstream of the dam and immediately south 
of the Friant-Kern Canal siphon would be acquired by 
conservation easement to reestablish riparian and SRA habitat 
for fish and wildlife along the Kings River. The restoration 
work would involve repairing perimeter fences to exclude cattle 
from the restoration area, installing revegetation signs at the 
fishing access parking area, planting restoration species (250 
plants per acre), designing an irrigation system to the planted 
areas, and installing wildlife habitat enhancement structures. 
In order of priority, these structures could include brush 
piles, bluebird boxes, bat boxes, raptor perches, wood duck 
boxes, and/or songbird perches.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The sponsor, Kings River Conservation District, has continued 
to express support for the project, understands the cost 
sharing requirements during preconstruction engineering and 
design and is prepared to execute a cost sharing agreement upon 
completion of the feasibility study.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Kings River 
Conservation District strongly supports the recommended multi-
level intake structure and the Byrd Slough Habitat Restoration 
plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports the 
recommended plan as indicated in its findings in the 
Coordination Act Report. EPA is not adverse to the project as 
stated in their review of the draft report.
    Status of NEPA Document: The final Environmental Impact 
Statement and the Environmental Impact Report were completed 
December 2001.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 2002 price levels)

                                                            Cost-Sharing
Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................     $24,930,000
Non-Federal: Kings River Conservation District..........      13,550,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     $38,480,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
Federal implementation costs include $341,000 for land 
acquisition and the rest will be cash.
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs: (October 2002 price levels)

                                                            Cost-Sharing
Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................              $0
Non-Federal: Kings River Conservation District..........          58,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         $58,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The operation, 
maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs for 
the multilevel intake structure consist of routine maintenance 
and replacement of parts over the life of the project. The 
OMRR&R costs for the Byrd Slough Habitat area include 
monitoring and periodic maintenance of fencing.
    Estimated Effects: Construction of the multi-level intake 
structure would adversely affect about 2.07 acres of 
agricultural land/chenopod scrub vegetation at the staging 
area. These effects would be temporary (approximately 24 
months). Wildlife may experience temporary disturbance and/or 
displacement due to construction noise and activity. The 
operation and maintenance of the multi-level structure would 
not adversely affect vegetation or wildlife. The Friant-Kern 
Canal riparian restoration site would improve conditions for 
vegetation and wildlife recovery.
    Project life: 50 years.
    The National Ecosystem Restoration plan was recommended.
    Direct Beneficiaries: The long-term benefit is an increase 
in the survival of coldwater species in the lower Kings River 
downstream from Pine Flat Dam.
    Relationship to Other Plans: The Pine Flat Dam Fish and 
Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project is related to the Pine 
Flat Turbine Bypass Project, for which physical construction 
was completed in April 2003. The turbine bypass improves the 
flexibility of the multi-level intake structure by allowing 
release of water when the power plant turbines are not 
operating, thus providing cooler water than would be available 
from the flood control sluiceways. The multi-level intake 
structure allows the release of water from higher reservoir 
elevations early in the year, thus conserving cold water that 
can be released in the fall when lower water temperatures are 
most beneficial for the downstream fishery.
    Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 
Projects: Funds in the amount of $4,961,000 (Federal) have been 
expended on Pine Flat 1135 Turbine Bypass for the total project 
to date. Construction is complete except for project closeout. 
Project closeout should be completed by January 2004.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed July 
19, 2003.
    (3) South Platte River, Denver, Colorado.--
    Location of the Study Area: The project is located on the 
Zuni/Sun Valley Reach of the South Platte River, between 8th 
Avenue and Lakewood Gulch.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The City 
and County of Denver has accomplished much towards restoring 
the environmental assets of Denver's South Platte River 
corridor. Only the Zuni to Sun Valley reach, which includes the 
Zuni Power Plant and the Sun Valley housing development, 
remains in a severely degraded condition. A low head Fabridam 
that is used to store water for cooling purposes by the Zuni 
Power Plant dominates this area by backing up water for over 
one mile and blocking upstream movement of aquatic organisms to 
an additional 13 miles of river habitat. Ecosystem problems 
include restricted fish mobility (100 percent blockage during 
low river flows); low dissolved oxygen levels upstream of the 
Fabridam; harmful sediment deposition in areas downstream of 
the Fabridam following periodic flushing of sediment trapped 
above the dam; no protective cover for aquatic species 
downstream of the dam; minimal riparian habitat; virtually no 
wetland habitat; extremely low stream flow depth to width 
ratios; elevated stream temperatures from power plant 
discharged water and from stagnant upstream pools heated by 
sunlight; bank stabilization problems caused by the Fabridam 
backwater; elimination of wildlife mobility due to the presence 
of the Fabridam, significant invasion by non-native plant 
species; minimal river accessconstraining recreational use of 
the river corridor; and safety problems due to steep banks and deep 
pools behind the dam.
    Opportunities exist to restore this last river reach in 
metropolitan Denver, resulting in unrestricted mobility through 
aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat and substantial 
increases in wetlands and quality aquatic habitat. Once the 
Fabridam is removed and aquatic and riparian habitat is 
restored, an unobstructed South Platte greenway will exist 
through the entire 35-mile reach from Chatfield Dam through the 
Denver metropolitan area.
    Weir Gulch, a west bank tributary entering the South Platte 
River a few thousand feet upstream of the Fabridam, also 
presents significant opportunity for restoration and 
reconnection of aquatic and riparian habitat with the South 
Platte River.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Measures considered included 
re-vegetation, bank modifications, Weir Gulch restoration, 
removal of the Fabridam, development of a low flow channel, and 
no action. Also, the potential for abandonment of the dam was 
considered at some future point in time; however, the power 
plant, which relies on the dam for necessary cooling water, is 
expected to operate indefinitely into the future. Combinations 
of these measures were evaluated for cost-effectiveness and 
``best buy'' (incremental analysis) using the Institute for 
Water Resources IWR-Plan model to define the National Ecosystem 
Restoration plan.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is 
the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan. This plan 
consists of the removal of the Fabridam, construction of a 250 
cfs low flow channel, site utility relocations, and full site 
restoration including bank modifications, revegetation with 
native plants, and Weir Gulch restoration. With removal of the 
Fabridam, a new alternative cooling water supply (a within-
channel infiltration gallery system) will be constructed to 
allow continued operation of the Zuni Power Plant.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended NER plan 
will restore 15 acres of fish and wildlife habitats along one 
mile of the stream corridor of the South Platte River. Bank 
modifications will include removal of existing riprap, 
stripping of vegetation, excavation of soil material, and use 
of excavated west bank soil material to build out and stabilize 
the east bank. A 250 cfs low flow channel excavated into the 
channel will concentrate flows in a slight meandering pattern, 
creating aquatic and wetland habitat through the formation of 
riffles, pools and bars. The stream corridor throughout the 
project area will be fully vegetated with native species. Weir 
Gulch restoration will consist of clearing, grading and 
revegetation for approximately 600 feet upstream from its 
mouth.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
This project is strongly supported locally by the Greenway 
Foundation, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, and the 
City and County of Denver, the study's non-Federal sponsor. A 
letter from the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife dated 
March 9, 2001, and a letter from the Denver Board of Water 
Commissioners dated 20 February 2001 provided extensive support 
for this project, including support for the removal of the 
Fabridam and for the established goals for restoration of the 
South Platte River downstream of 8th Avenue to Lakewood Gulch. 
There is broad community support for South Platte River 
restoration, as reflected in letters of concurrence from the 
Colorado Historical Society and support from nongovernmental 
organizations, including the Audubon Society and Sierra Club. 
Approximately 40 letters of support have been received from 
agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. A State 
of Colorado letter dated December 2, 2002, had a few minor 
concerns that have been formally addressed by the Omaha 
District in a letter dated February 25, 2003.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service letter dated February 14, 2001, states 
directly that the proposed project would not negatively impact 
any threatened and endangered species. The Environmental 
Protection Agency provided two letters, dated March 15, 2001, 
and February 26, 2003, supporting the project.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Finding of No Significant 
Impact under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was 
signed on August 7, 2002, following public review, which ended 
on February 8, 2002. No opposing or negative responses were 
encountered or submitted.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (October 2002 price level)

Federal: Corps of Engineers--Environmental Restoration..     $11,698,000
Non-Federal.............................................       6,299,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total First Cost..................................     $17,997,000
    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The City 
and County of Denver will be responsible for acquiring all real 
estate necessary for project construction, including relocation 
of all utilities, as well as construction of the infiltration 
gallery and acquisition of all consumptive water rights. In 
accordance with report recommendations, the Federal government 
will execute and/or reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for all 
activities that exceed their 35% total project cost obligation.
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs: (October 2002 price level) Non-
Federal Sponsor will be responsible for all operation, 
maintenance, replacement, repair, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) 
costs, estimated at approximately $20,000.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: At the end of the 
monitoring period, and upon receipt of the OMRR&R manual, the 
local sponsor will assume normal operation and maintenance 
responsibility for the project. Future operation and 
maintenance requirements will be funded entirely by the local 
sponsor.
    Estimated Effects: The recommended NER plan will restore 15 
acres of fish and wildlife habitats along one mile of the 
stream corridor of the South Platte River. A morenatural flow 
regime will be restored by removal of the Fabridam. Negative downstream 
impacts associated with sediment flushing at the Fabridam every 3-4 
months will be eliminated. The project area will experience improved 
water temperatures and water quality, a significant increase in native 
plants and fish habitat, a decrease in non-native plants and noxious 
weeds, and a net gain of approximately 3 acres of wetland. A productive 
and biologically diverse fish and wildlife community, including 
migratory waterfowl and fish-eating birds, riparian songbirds and 
mammals, and native fish, will develop. Unrestricted movement by mobile 
aquatic and riparian species will be possible along a 35-mile reach of 
the South Platte River, since restoration of river reaches both 
upstream and downstream of the proposed project through Denver has 
previously been completed by local interests.
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: Not applicable. Single purpose 
ecosystem restoration plans are formulated and evaluated in 
terms of their net contributions to increases in ecosystem 
value, expressed in non-monetary units. The Denver County Reach 
project contributes to national ecosystem restoration.
    NED plan recommended? No. The National Ecosystem 
Restoration plan is recommended.
    Direct Beneficiaries: Fish and wildlife using the South 
Platte River and the residents of the Denver metropolitan area 
and the rest of the nation will benefit from the improved fish 
and wildlife habitat quality and quantity.
    Relationship to Other Plans: The City and County of Denver 
has spent over $35 million of local funds on numerous projects 
upstream and downstream of Denver County Reach to create a more 
environmentally sound South Platte River through metropolitan 
Denver. As the last major river restoration project in 
metropolitan Denver, the proposed Denver County Reach project 
completes the transformation of the South Platte River from one 
long-abused as solely a means of providing storm drainage and a 
water delivery system for residential, agricultural and 
commercial interests to a river corridor recognized as having 
great environmental value. The project location is upstream and 
contiguous to the Colfax Reach Project, being carried out under 
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
    Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 
Projects: Over $35 million on South Platte River restoration 
efforts within metropolitan Denver.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed on May 
16, 2003.
    (4) Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.--
    Location of Study Area: The study is located in south 
Louisiana between the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. Bayou 
Lafourche forms the western study boundary and Bayou du Large 
and Louisiana Highway 311 form the eastern boundary. The 
eastern and western boundaries form an apex at Thibodaux, 
Louisiana. The southern boundary is the Gulf of Mexico.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Hurricanes 
and tropical storms cause widespread flooding of residential 
and commercial property in the study area. Residential 
communities, commercial and agricultural developments, and 
industries in the study area are generally located along 
alluvial ridges at elevations ranging from 4 or 5 feet to less 
than 1 foot above sea level. The Terrebonne Levee and 
Conservation District maintains about 20 miles of forced 
drainage levees in various communities, including flood control 
structures and drainage pumping stations. The existing levees 
have a maximum elevation of 7 feet above sea level and protect 
against weak tidal and rainfall events, but not hurricanes. 
Following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Terrebonne Parish residents 
qualified for more than $23 million in FEMA claim settlements. 
Hurricane Andrew caused an estimated $55 million in losses to 
crops and other uninsured property in Terrebonne Parish alone, 
destroying over 360 homes and damaging about 2,900 more. Over 
90 percent of the damage occurred in Terrebonne Parish south of 
Houma, with up to 6 feet of water in residential and commercial 
structures.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Eight alternative plans were 
evaluated. A preliminary screening focused detailed efforts on 
the plans that provided the most benefit. Two structural 
alternatives and various non-structural alternatives were 
evaluated in detail. The structural alternatives, known as the 
Reconnaissance and the Highway 57 Alignments, involved raising 
existing levees and constructing new levees to provide reliable 
protection against 
50-, 85-, 100- and 500-year flood frequency events. The 
structural plans included earthen levees, sector-gated 
floodgate structures, and environmental water control 
structures to maintain tidal ebb and flow. The non-structural 
plans involved relocating, purchasing and elevating structures.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is 
the 100-year Highway 57 Alignment. Features include 
approximately 72 miles of earthen levees with 12 sector-gated 
floodgate structures, 12 environmental water-control 
structures, road closure structures, numerous pipeline 
relocations, several minor pump station discharge realignments 
and other minor features.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan 
would protect Terrebonne Parish against storm events with a one 
percent and greater chance of exceedence. In general, many 
existing levees will be raised approximately three to seven 
feet and widened with an impervious earthen material excavated 
from nearby borrow sites. The floodgates and road closure 
structures will provide a reliable and efficient means to close 
vulnerable gaps in the levee system. A total of six pump 
station discharge pipes will be relocated to maintain interior 
drainage. Numerous oilfield pipelines will either be relocated 
over the levee or buried below the levee.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 
(lead sponsor), Terrebonne Parish, City of Houma, Terrebonne 
Levee and Conservation District, and 
Congressionalrepresentatives strongly support the project. The sponsor 
has indicated a strong desire to cost-share in the design and 
construction of this project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) raised concerns about induced floodplain development 
resulting from the Federal project that may have cumulative 
environmental effects on aquatic and terrestrial resources. 
However, these concerns are not significant enough to prevent 
this project from proceeding. Development is still regulated by 
the existing permit process. The project will mitigate for all 
direct adverse impacts resulting from construction. The Corps 
will continue to coordinate with NMFS, USFWS and EPA to ensure 
that adequate compensatory mitigation is provided.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report was filed 
with the EPA on April 26, 2002.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: (based on October 2002 
price levels)

                                                            Cost-sharing
Federal (65%): Corps of Engineers.......................    $467,000,000
Non-Federal Sponsors (35%): Louisiana Department of 
    Transportation and Development, and Terrebonne Levee 
    and Conservation District...........................     252,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................    $719,000,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The 
sponsor would be responsible for acquiring all necessary lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal sites for 
the project worth an estimated $49,241,000. The sponsor would 
also provide work-in-kind and cash worth $202,759,000.
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs: (October 2002 price levels)

                                                            Cost-sharing
Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................        $976,500
Non-Federal Sponsor: Terrebonne Levee & Conservation 
    District............................................         420,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      $1,396,500

    Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: This cost covers the 
general operation and maintenance of floodgate structures, 
environmental water control structures and levees including 
levee inspections, mowing and erosion control. Note that the 
Corps would assume operation of the floodgates along the Gulf 
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) and the lock to be located in the 
Houma Navigation Canal as part of the Federal operation and 
maintenance of the GIWW and Houma Navigation Canal.
    Estimated Effects (October 2002 price levels):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Average annual
                                           equivalent     Average annual
           Account/purposes                beneficial    adverse effects
                                        effects ($1000)      ($1000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development:                  $80,772              N/A
 Hurricane Protection.................
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................          $80,772              N/A
 Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.72 (Discount Rate: 5.875%).
NED plan recommended? Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Direct Beneficiaries: This project will directly benefit 
the residents and businesses of Terrebonne Parish, and help 
preserve the Louisiana ecosystem.
    Relationship to Other Plans: This plan is consistent with 
the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act 
program and other coastal restoration projects in the study 
area.
    Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 
Project(s): Approximately $6.6 million has been expended since 
January 2000 for dual preliminary engineering and design 
efforts on the detailed design of the Houma Navigation Canal 
Lock and Reach G-1 levee contract of the Morganza project.
    Credit for in-kind services: The Secretary also is directed 
to credit toward the non-Federal share the cost of work carried 
out by the non-Federal interest for interim flood protection 
after March 31, 1989, if integral to the project. This is 
consistent with the supplemental report of the Chief of 
Engineers issued July 22, 2003, under which the State of 
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development may 
design, construct, and manage the construction of several 
project features at an estimated cost of $113,851,000 as in-
kind services in lieu of part or all of the cash portion of the 
non-Federal cost share. The features that may be designed, 
constructed, or managed during construction by the sponsor with 
in-kind services include:
           A 56-foot-wide floodgate on Bayou Pointe au 
        Chien;
           A 56-foot-wide floodgate on Bush Canal;
           A 14-foot-high and 12-mile-long levee from 
        the Bayou Pointe au Chien floodgate to Humble Canal 
        floodgate, and the structures therein;
           A 14-foot-high and 6.5-mile-long levee from 
        Bayou Petite Caillou floodgate to the Bush Canal 
        floodgate, and the structures therein; and
           A 14-foot-high and 3-mile-long levee from 
        the Bush Canal floodgate to the Bayou Terrebonne 
        floodgate, and the structures therein.
    All features to be designed and implemented through in-kind 
services must be integral to the project. Any credit afforded 
to the sponsor for approved in-kind services will be auditable, 
allowable, and allocable to the project and will be limited to 
the lesser of the Corps' estimate of the value of the work 
allocable to the project had the Corps performed the work, or 
the actual costs incurred by the sponsor.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed August 
23, 2002. A supplemental Chief of Engineers Report addressing 
the sponsor's request for credit for in-kind services was 
signed on July 22, 2003.
    (5) Smith Island, Maryland.--
    Location of the Study Area: The project is located in 
Chesapeake Bay on Smith Island, Somerset County, Maryland, 
which is 12 miles west of Crisfield, Maryland, 95 miles south 
of Baltimore. The island straddles the Maryland-Virginia state 
line, but all of the project features are in Maryland. The Non-
Federal sponsors are Somerset County and the State of Maryland 
Departments of the Environment and Natural Resources.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Smith 
Island is part of a chain of islands that form the border 
between Chesapeake Bay and Tangier Sound, and is comprised of 
97 percent emergent wetlands. The study area is within the 
largest contiguous submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) bed in 
the Bay. Although SAV coverages have been rebounding for more 
than a decade throughout the Bay, the Tangier Sound area has 
seen continual decreases in coverage. There are many factors 
that determine whether or not SAV flourishes, some factors are 
local and some are larger-scale. SAV experts have determined 
that the likely overriding factor in the study area is the 
effect of erosion. As the landmasses that make up Smith Island 
erode, it allows increased wave and current action into 
shallow-water areas that were previously protected, quiescent, 
and suitable for SAV growth. The eroded material also adds 
turbidity and nutrients to the water column that further 
inhibit SAV colonization and growth. Additionally, the 
landmasses themselves are extremely high quality emergent 
wetlands. These wetlands are even more valuable than most since 
they are part of a remote island with little human disruption. 
In its entirety, Smith Island has lost over 3,300 acres of 
wetlands in the last 150 years, and, in the identified project 
areas alone, it lost almost 2,400 acres of SAV between 1992 and 
1998.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Investigations during this 
study involved understanding and quantifying the impact of the 
ongoing process of erosion on habitat degradation. It was 
determined that the tremendous loss of SAV around parts of 
Smith Island could be stopped and, to an extent, reversed by 
protecting and restoring lost wetlands in the Martin National 
Wildlife Refuge. A number of structural means were investigated 
including stone revetment, groins, non-traditional bulkheads 
and walls, proprietary erosion control measures, artificial 
beach nourishment, breakwaters/sills, and geotextile 
breakwaters. The study team concluded that the most cost-
effective and reliable way to accomplish this was to construct 
offshore, segmented breakwaters to protect or recreate 
strategic areas along the coastline of the Refuge. In many 
areas, the breakwaters would be back-filled using borrow 
material from the Chesapeake Bay bottom west of the Island. 
This back-fill would create additional wetland habitat and 
greatly increase the effectiveness of the structures. Four main 
areas of analysis were identified in the reconnaissance effort 
and were carried through the feasibility process, the Western 
Shoreline, Fog Point Cove, Back Cove and Terrapin Sand Cove. 
Each of these areas has been seriously degraded over time due 
to erosion. Of the four, no plan at Terrapin Sand Cove was 
recommended for implementation due to the exorbitant cost. 
Plans at the other three areas that form the recommended 
project are estimated to protect 216 acres of wetlands and 504 
acres of SAV over a 50-year life span, while at the same time 
creating 24 acres of wetlands and 1,440 acres of SAV habitat. 
Minimal adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of 
construction including temporary and localized turbidity and 
impacts related to offshore borrow sites, if utilized. The 
project will require 68,000 cubic yards of material for back-
fill.
    Recommended Plan: The selected plan includes construction 
of segmented offshore breakwaters located from 30 to 100 feet 
offshore, depending upon water depth and shoreline 
configuration. The breakwaters would have a top elevation of 
+3.5 feet MLLW. Areas behind the breakwaters would be 
backfilled and wetlands enhanced through plantings. The 
following four components are included in the plan:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Project area                   Location              Structure       Length (ft)       Height            Backfill               Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Shoreline.................  Offshore from Swan    Offshore breakwaters        9,420  +3.5 MLLW......  15,000 CY/7.5 acres.  Spartina
                                     Island to Fog Point                                                                             alternaflora.
                                     Cove.
Fog Point Cove....................  Offshore, 600 ft.     Off shore                   1,800  +3.5 MLLW......  5,000 CY/3.8 acres..  Spartina
                                     extension from        Breakwaters and                                                           alternaflora.
                                     western shore,        sill.
                                     1,200 ft. from
                                     eastern shore.
Back Cove NW Shoreline............  Offshore, along NW    Off shore                   5,950  +3.5 MLLW......  28,000 CY/5.5 acres.  Spartina
                                     shoreline of Back     Breakwaters.                                                              alternaflora.
                                     Cove with extension
                                     into cove shore.
Back Cove SE Shoreline............  Offshore, along SE    Off shore                   2,950  +3.5 MLLW......  12,000 CY/6.7 acres.  Spartina
                                     shoreline of Back     Breakwaters.                                                              alternaflora.
                                     Cove with extension
                                     into cove shore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
This project is supported at the State and local level by 
Somerset County, the State of Maryland, and the Chesapeake Bay 
community.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service has provided a letter of support for the 
project.
    Status of NEPA Document: The public review period for the 
draft feasibility study and environmental assessment was 
initiated on March 15, 2001, and concluded on April 18, 2001. 
No opposition or negative responses were encountered or 
submitted.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: Baseline costs for the 
recommended plan in October 2002 dollars are shown below:

Federal Cost............................................      $5,200,000
Non-Federal Cost........................................       2,800,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Project Estimated Cost......................      $8,000,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The State 
of Maryland and Somerset County will be responsible for 
acquiring all real estate necessary for project construction, 
which is estimated at $2,000.
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs: Pre-construction monitoring 
will cost $7,000, and there will be 5 years of monitoring at a 
total of $40,000 (estimated).
    Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: State of Maryland 
Department of Natural Resources will assume responsibility for 
O&M at an estimated annual cost of $16,000.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chiefs 
Report was issued on October 29, 2001.
    (6) Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.--
    Location of Study Area: The Corpus Christi Ship Channel 
(CCSC) provides deep-water access from the Gulf of Mexico to 
the Port of Corpus Christi, via Aransas Pass, through Redfish 
Bay and Corpus Christi Bay. Access points include the La Quinta 
Channel, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), and the Rincon 
Canal.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The CCSC 
was the first waterway in Texas to be completed to a depth of 
45 feet. This channel ranks fifth in the Nation for tonnage 
shipped on deep-draft vessels, and in Texas only the Houston 
Ship Channel handles more tonnage. Since the completion of the 
45-foot project, the size of ships using the waterway has 
steadily increased so that many vessels currently have to be 
light-loaded to traverse the waterway. The current channel 
depth also requires that large crude carriers remain offshore 
and transfer their cargo into smaller crude tankers for the 
remainder of the voyage. Widening the Upper Bay reach and 
installing barge lanes would increase the safety factor for 
this area and would reduce the shipping delays for the project, 
especially since shipping trends indicate a movement toward the 
use of larger vessels. Development of the La Quinta extension 
would allow benefits to be achieved while enhancing the economy 
of the region.
    Alternative Plans Considered: A general screening process 
was first used to determine which structural plan would result 
in the objective of providing safe and efficient navigation at 
the least cost while minimizing environmental impacts. A total 
of 23 alternatives were initially evaluated for more detailed 
consideration. These alternatives included widening portions of 
the CCSC, deepening the CCSC, construction of barge lanes, 
deepening of the La Quinta Channel, and extending the La Quinta 
Channel. The reporting officers recommend a plan to modify the 
existing projects for Corpus Christi and La Quinta channels and 
provide ecosystem restoration to areas near the navigation 
channel.
    Description of Selected Plan: Based on the economic, 
engineering, and environmental factors considered, the 
recommended plan consists of the following improvements:
    (a) Deepen the CCSC from Viola Turning Basin to the end of 
the jetties in the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 34 miles) to 
-52 feet mean low tide (MLT); deepen the remainder of the 
channel into the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 2 miles) to -54 
feet MLT; and widen the Upper Bay and Lower Bay reaches 
(approximately 20 miles) to 530 feet.
    (b) Construct barge shelves (channels) 200-foot-wide and 
12-foot-deep MLT on both sides of the CCSC from it's junction 
with the La Quinta Channel to the entrance of the Inner Harbor 
(approximately 10 miles).
    (c) Extend the La Quinta Channel approximately 1.4 miles 
beyond its current limit at a depth of -39 feet MLT. The 
channel will measure 400 feet wide and include a second turning 
basin. The turning basin will be constructed at the end of the 
proposed channel extension with a diameter of 1200 feet, to a 
depth of -39 feet, MLT. The existing La Quinta Channel will 
remain at the existing 45-foot depth. The creation of 15 acres 
of sea grass adjacent to the La Quinta extension will mitigate 
for project impacts to approximately 5 acres of sea grass.
    (d) Construct two ecosystem restoration features, including 
rock breakwaters and geo-tubes to protect 1,200 acres of an 
existing high quality, complex wetland ecosystem that is 
comprised of a valuable mix of subtidal habitat, salt marsh, 
blue-green algae flats, sand flats and associated uplands. 
Additionally, protect 40 acres of highly productive sea grass. 
Both components are adjacent to the CCSC in the Lower Bay reach 
of the channel.
    Physical Data on Project Features: Deepening of the CCSC to 
-52 feet will allow vessels with deeper draft to access port 
facilities without first lightering/lightening theirloads. 
Widening of the CCSC will allow for two-way traffic in the channel, 
increasing safety and reducing delays. Barge lanes will allow the 
smaller, slower barges to transit the bay without the increased concern 
of collisions with larger ships. This will reduce delays and increase 
safety. Extension of the La Quinta Channel will allow benefits to be 
achieved while enhancing the economy of the region. Ecosystem 
restoration components will protect and enhance several important 
habitats including estuarine marsh, submerged aquatic vegetation, and 
endangered species habitat.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The selected beneficial use plan is the least costly plan that 
is implementable and has the support of the State and Federal 
resource agencies. The non-Federal sponsor for the existing 
project, the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, has actively 
participated throughout the planning process. The Port of 
Corpus Christi Authority is supportive of the selected plan and 
has indicated an interest in beginning construction as soon as 
possible. There are no known significant issues.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Extensive 
coordination was performed with the State and Federal resource 
agencies through the development of a Regulatory Agency 
Coordination Team. No outstanding issues remain.
    States of NEPA Document: The Final Feasibility Report and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement were filed in the Federal 
Register on April 18, 2003.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: Based on October 2002 
prices, the estimated total first cost of the project are about 
$153,808,000 with the Federal cost of $73,554,000 and a non-
Federal cost of $80,254,000. This total first cost includes 
about $128,658,000 for cost-shared general navigation features; 
$7,852,000 for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and 
relocations; $13,016,000 for non-Federal share of deep draft 
utility relocations; and $4,282,000 for two cost-shared 
ecosystem restoration features. Total project implementation 
costs of approximately $203,480,000 include total project cost, 
plus $49,672,000 in non-Federal costs associated with dredging 
of berthing areas and development of other local service 
facilities.
    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal share of the first cost for navigation features is 
$78,755,000, and for ecosystem restoration is $1,499,000.
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs: The incremental annual cost for 
operation and maintenance (O&M) of the recommended plan is 
estimated at $2,247,000. In accordance with Section 101(b) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the non-Federal 
interest will be responsible for 50 percent of the costs 
attributable to maintenance dredging to a depth in excess of 
-45 feet below MLT. Annual O&M costs for the CCSC are estimated 
to be $1,670,000. Annual O&M costs for the barge shelves are 
expected to be $27,000. Annual O&M costs for the La Quinta 
extension are expected to be $550,000.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: The non-Federal 
sponsor will cost-share O&M for the CCSC at the same ratio as 
construction for the increment below 45 feet in depth. O&M for 
the barge shelves, and La Quinta extension will be paid 100% by 
the Federal interest. The non-Federal sponsor will also be 
responsible for 100% of O&M costs associated with mitigation 
and ecosystem restoration.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Average annual
                                           equivalent     Average annual
            Account effects                beneficial    adverse effects
                                            effects          ($1,000)
                                            ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED:
    CCSC..............................          $32,607          $12,305
    Barge Shelves.....................              134               85
    La Quinta.........................            9,264            5,000
    Ecosystem Restoration.............            (\1\)              267
 Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-cost ratio:
    CCSC--2.6
    Barge Lanes--1.6
    La Quinta--1.8
Current discount rate: 5.875%.
NED plan recommended? Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Average annual costs for ecosystem restoration at sites L and P are
  estimated at $160,600 and $106,400, respectively. It is estimated that
  the two sites will generate 144 and 16 average annual habitat units
  (AAHU), respectively, resulting in average annual costs of $1,120 and
  $6,650 per AAHU, respectively. The combination of breakwater/geo-tubes
  construction, represents the most cost-effective measures in
  protecting these valuable resources.

    Direct Beneficiaries: Benefits were identified for ships 
carrying both import and export petroleum products and grain, 
as well as barge traffic and container ship traffic.
    Current State of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of 
Engineers Report was signed on June 2, 2003.
    (7) Matagorda Bay, Texas.--
    Location of Study Area: The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 
(GIWW) parallels the Gulf of Mexico's coastline from 
Brownsville, at the southern tip of Texas, to St. Marks, 
Florida. The man-made channel is maintained by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers at a minimum bottom width of 125 feet and a 
minimum depth of 12 feet. This shallow draft channel is an 
integral part of the total inland transportation system of the 
United States. The GIWW is a necessary link in the 
transportation network that moves commodities throughout the 
United States, as well as foreign markets. The Matagorda Bay 
reach of the GIWW extends from Channel Mile 454 to 473, a 
distance of about 19 miles.The GIWW leaves the landlocked 
portion on the eastern side of Matagorda Bay near Mile 454 and turns in 
a southwesterly direction before turning west and running parallel to 
Matagorda Peninsula. At Mile 471, the GIWW intersects with the deep-
draft Matagorda Ship Channel (MSC). The GIWW enters the landlocked 
portion again at Port O'Connor near Mile 473.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 
proximity of the GIWW to the natural pass of Pass Cavallo and 
the construction of the jettied entrance channel and deep-draft 
MSC has created maintenance dredging problems and a navigation 
hazard. The influences of the natural and man-made channels 
have created a dangerous crosscurrent at the intersection with 
the GIWW. One-way traffic has been self-imposed from mile 
marker 469 to the Port O'Connor jetties at mile 473. To the 
south of the GIWW is Sundown Island, a National Audubon Society 
bird sanctuary. To the north is the dredged material placement 
site for the maintenance dredging operations. This has 
effectively limited the ability of barge traffic to maneuver to 
compensate for the crosscurrents and shoaling. The Feasibility 
Report offers an opportunity to relocate and widen the existing 
channel to avoid the strong crosscurrents and allow for safe 
two-way vessel passage.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The process for this study 
began with several alternative solutions that were considered 
reasonable and practical for the Matagorda Bay reach of the 
GIWW. Additional alternatives and changes to current 
alternatives were added as the study progressed. The non-
structural and structural alternative plans were presented and 
developed to the level of detail needed to evaluate each plan 
alternative. The ultimate goal of the study was to identify the 
National Economic Development Plan and the selected plan. Non-
structural alternatives, other than no-action, included the 
utilization of alternate modes of transportation such as the 
use of rail, truck, ocean-going barge, or combinations of these 
alternatives. The typical ratio of tonnage per movement between 
rail and inland barges is about 15 to 1, and with truck the 
ratio is about 60 to 1. Another non-structural alternative of 
additional tugs to assist barges across the high-current area 
was considered but eliminated because the alternative did not 
fully address the problems. Structural alternatives included 
dredging exchange outlets across the Matagorda barrier island 
to reduce the strong currents at the MSC, or realigning the 
existing route to avoid the existing current.
    Description of Selected Plan: The selected plan involves a 
Southern Realignment utilizing the existing GIWW route on the 
eastward end for approximately 3.9 miles before turning 
westward. The alignment is approximately 6,000 feet north of 
and parallel to the existing route. As the channel approaches 
the MSC, it is aligned towards the north, approximately 7,500 
feet from the existing GIWW at its farthest point. The channel 
intersects the MSC approximately 6,000 feet north of the 
existing GIWW. The alignment then reconnects with the existing 
GIWW just before entering the jetties at Port O'Connor. A flare 
at the intersection allows the tows to realign in the GIWW 
before passing through the jetties. The total length of this 
alignment is 13 miles and divided into three reaches. Reach 1 
is from station 0+00 to 160+00. Reach 2 is from 160+00 to 
452+00. Reach 3 is from 452+00 to 704+59. The proposed channel 
depth is 12 feet, plus 2 feet of overdepth and 2 feet of 
advanced maintenance. The bottom width remains at 125 feet from 
station 0+00 to 550+00. It continues westward to station 703+00 
with an average bottom width of 300 feet. The Southern 
Realignment results in 2.5 million cubic yards of dredged 
material and avoids impacts to oyster reefs. Future maintenance 
dredging is estimated at 77,000 cubic yards per year.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    (a) Several ecosystem restoration features and beneficial 
use of dredged material features are included in the selected 
placement plan.
    (b) The area south of the shoreline east of Palacios Point 
is suitable for marsh creation using the material dredged from 
Reach 1. The water depth near the shoreline quickly drops to 2 
feet and increases to 5 feet approximately 700 feet from the 
water's edge. The bottom sediment is sandy clay with large 
amounts of shell material, although no live oysters were 
present. Some 7,000 feet east of Palacios Point, soil 
conditions and water depths are considered more suitable for 
establishment of oyster beds, therefore this would represent 
the limit of the marsh. The sandy clay material has sufficient 
bearing strength to easily support a geotextile tube that would 
be used as the perimeter levee of the marsh site. A marsh 
between 58 and 78 acres would be sufficient to contain the 
dredged material from Reach 1.
    (c) For Reach 3, an acceptable marsh creation site was 
found in the bay, south of Broad Bayou and north of Port 
O'Connor. The area along the shore is prime habitat for oyster 
beds and sea grass is plentiful. However, some 900 feet from 
shore the depth of water is 4 feet and varies between 4 feet 
and 5 feet for approximately another 1,500 feet farther from 
shore. Maintaining this distance from shore ensures that the 
marsh avoids impacting this habitat. Approximately 108 acres of 
marsh can be created from the dredged material. The foundation 
material in this area is a silty sand with considerable shell 
fragments. The bearing capacity is easily sufficient for the 
geotextile tube that would be required to achieve the necessary 
levee height.
    (d) Sundown Island in Matagorda Bay is situated 
approximately one mile southeast of the intersection of the 
existing GIWW and the MSC. This island was created entirely 
from dredged material and consists of 60 acres, not including 
an existing bird island of 16 acres enclosed by one 8-foot-high 
geotextile tube on the east end of the island. The site is a 
designated National Audubon Sanctuary (NAS) and serves as a 
nesting site for several endangered and threatened species. Due 
to the strong currents in the area, the island undergoes severe 
erosion. The NAS has requested that dredged material be placed 
on the perimeter of the island to offset the effects of erosion 
and help preserve the site. This existing bird island has a 
remaining capacity that can utilize the more sandy material 
from the western portion of Reach 3. An additional levee can be 
constructed off the north shore of Sundown Island, using 8-
foot-high tubes. Thenorthwestern leg of the existing bird 
island's tube can serve as one of the boundaries in the new enclosure. 
With geotextile tubes placed out to distances of between 450 and 700 
feet, in water depths suitable for avoiding stacking of tubes, an 
additional 31 acres would provide a storage capacity of 414,752 cubic 
yards of material. It will be necessary to construct a 2-foot berm 
under the tube's scour pad to raise the levee height in the deeper 
water. The western portion of Reach 3 consists of, on average, 74.3% 
loose sand. There is sufficient suitable sandy material for both the 
placement at Sundown Island and at Port O'Connor beach.
    (e) The beach at Port O'Connor was originally constructed 
as a beneficial use site using material dredged from the GIWW. 
The area north of the existing geotextile tube jetty that 
extends from the beach has experienced some erosion. This area 
could benefit from placement of the sandy material from 
dredging the western portion of Reach 3. The area would extend 
from the shore to approximately 300 to 400 feet into the water. 
The sand quality of this material, mostly between 37% and 14% 
fines, is sufficient for this purpose. The material could be 
pumped onto the beach from an average depth of between -2 feet 
and +1 feet (MLLW). This restoration could yield a disposal 
capacity for approximately 200,000 cubic yards of dredged 
material. The use of this beach as a beneficial use site may be 
considered once or twice during the 50-year maintenance dredge 
plan.
    (f) The application of ecosystem restoration and beneficial 
uses of dredged material for both new work and maintenance 
material for the selected plan is summarized below.
    --In Reach 1, dredged material would be used to create a 
10-acre marsh at Palacios Point. The remainder of the material 
would be deposited in the offshore surf zone. Material from 
each 10-year maintenance-dredging event would be used to create 
an additional 25-acre marsh at Palacios Point.
    --For Reach 2, all of the new work and maintenance material 
would be placed in the offshore surf zone.
    --In Reach 3, new work material would be used to create a 
20-acre marsh at Port O'Connor, nourish the Port O'Connor 
beach, provide material to Sundown Island, and offshore 
placement in the surf zone. Maintenance material from each 3-
year dredging event would be used to create an additional 20-
acre marsh at Port O'Connor for the first 21 years or 7 cycles. 
After 21 years, the maintenance material would be placed 
offshore in the surf zone.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The non-Federal sponsor for the existing navigation project, 
the Port of Corpus Christi Authority, has actively participated 
throughout the planning process. The Port of Corpus Christi 
Authority is supportive of the selected plan and has indicated 
an interest in beginning construction as soon as possible. 
There are no known significant issues.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The local sponsor 
for the existing navigation project, the Texas Department of 
Transportation, has actively participated throughout the 
planning process. Their primary concern has been about the 
potential interruption of navigational traffic on the waterway 
and the economic impacts to the region and to the State. The 
Texas Department of Transportation supports the Matagorda Bay 
Re-Route and the continuation of shallow draft navigation of 
the State's coastal waters. Extensive coordination was 
performed with the State and Federal resource agencies through 
the development of the NED plan and no outstanding issues 
remain.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Feasibility Report and 
Final Environmental Assessment have been approved by all 
necessary Environmental Agencies. An Environmental Impact 
Statement was not required for this report.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: At October 2002 prices, the 
estimated total project cost is $14,515,000. Fifty percent of 
the project cost is from general revenues and fifty percent is 
derived from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: One-half 
of project costs will come from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs: Annual operation and 
maintenance costs for the GIWW across Matagorda Bay are 
estimated to be $630,000.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: There are no non-
Federal costs.
    Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Average annual
                                           equivalent     Average annual
            Account effects                beneficial    adverse effects
                                            effects          ($1,000)
                                            ($1,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED:
    Re-Route..........................           $1,553           $2,185
    Ecosystem Restoration.............            (\1\)            (\1\)
 Project Economic Life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.4.
Current Discount Rate: 5.875%.
NED Plan Recommended? Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Environmental benefits are not quantified monetarily and therefore
  environment specific costs are not included in the project benefit/
  cost ratio. Restoration efforts include benefits to diverse and
  sensitive habitats including a marsh creations and beach nourishment.

    Direct Beneficiaries: Benefits were identified for ships 
carrying both import and export petroleum products and grain, 
as well as barge traffic and container ship traffic.
    Current State of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of 
Engineer's Report was signed on December 24, 2002.
    (8) Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas.--
    Location of Study Area: The study area is located within 
the corporate limits of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 
Riverside Oxbow and surrounding area has experienced both 
direct and indirect environmental degradation as a result of 
the construction and implementation of Benbrook Lake, Eagle 
Mountain Lake, Lake Worth, the Fort Worth Floodway project, and 
subsequent flood control projects and development activities. 
According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
(1985), the indirect downstream effects of large flood control 
projects and reservoir construction on natural bottomland 
ecosystems are often more destructive, albeit not as immediate, 
as the direct impacts. Adverse impacts observed downstream 
include: (1) An unnatural bottomland hydro-period causing major 
vegetational changes toward more xeric species as a result of 
the reduction in flooding; (2) the reduction of associated 
nutrient inputs to downstream bottomlands; (3) the loss of 
aquatic flora and fauna; (4) the loss of bank-stabilizing 
vegetation as a result of excessive bed and bank scour from 
irregular reservoir releases; (5) disruption of normal feeding 
and spawning cycles of fish which use floodplains; (6) 
elimination of high flows into bottomlands which prevents the 
input of bottomland nutrients into the aquatic system; and (7) 
potential negative effects to plant communities as a result of 
prolonged water releases during the growing season.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in 
detail included three plans; the no-action, the National 
Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan and the Locally Preferred Plan 
(LPP).
    Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan is 
the locally preferred plan (LPP). In total, the recommended 
plan would restore ecosystem values on 512.2 acres of 
floodplain lands, approximately 2 miles of Oxbow river channel, 
56.5 acres of wetlands, and 112 acres of uplands. It would also 
provide 25,700 feet of mixed surface linear recreation trails.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The Recommended Plan 
consists of reestablishing flows through the old West Fork of 
the Trinity River Oxbow including replacing the existing Beach 
Street Bridge; creation of 69.6 acres of emergent wetlands, 
open water, and vegetative fringe habitat; habitat improvement 
of 179.7 acres of existing forested areas, including 
establishment of a 150-foot-wide riparian buffer along the West 
Fork from Riverside Drive to East 1st Street; establishment of 
a buffer of native grasses and forbs on approximately 45.6 
acres of land; reforestation of roughly 66.9 acres using a 
variety of native hard and soft mast trees and shrubs; 
preservation and habitat improvements to approximately 206.9 
acres of native floodplain grassland; and eradication of 80 
acres of invasive species and reestablishment of native species 
and creek bed protection on 112 acres within the Tandy Hills 
Nature Preserve. The plan also includes compatible linear 
recreation along a 9,000-feet by 10-feet wide concrete trail 
including one vehicular bridge, 1,400 feet of crushed agregate 
trail, 7,600 feet of wood mulch equestrian trail, three 
observation areas, a new Gateway Park entrance road and bridge 
and other associated facilities (access points, parking lot, 
and restroom facilities), and 7,743 feet of crushed agregate 
trail and associated facilities (access points and parking lot) 
in the Tandy Hill Nature Preserve.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) is the local 
sponsor. The TRWD strongly supports the project and will fund 
the local share of the project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 
support the recommended plan as it would have substantial 
positive benefits to fish and wildlife resources of the project 
area. There are no outstanding issues.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment 
has been included as part of the Final Feasibility Report, 
dated May 2003. These documents were released for public review 
and comment on April 14, 2003, and minor comments were received 
by the close of the public comment period on May 14, 2003.
    Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended LPP Plan: The 
estimated first cost for construction of the recommended 
project is $22,198,000 (October 2002 price level), with a 
Federal cost of $9,178,500 and a non-Federal cost of 
$13,019,500.

                                                     Cost-sharing
 Federal: Corps of Engineers:
    Flood Damage Reduction................  0 (0%)
    Ecosystem Restoration (ER)............  8,680,000 (65% of ER portion
                                             of NER Plan)
    Recreation............................  498,500 (50% of recreation
                                             portion of NER Plan)
      Subtotal............................  9,178,500
Non-Federal: Tarrant Regional Water
 District:
    Flood Damage Reduction................  0 (0%)
    Ecosystem Restoration (ER)............  4,675,500 (35% of ER portion
                                             of NER Plan)
    Recreation............................  498,500 (50% of recreation
                                             portion of NER Plan)
    Additional Local Features (ALF).......  7,845,500 (100% of ALF
                                             components)
      Subtotal............................  13,019,500
      Total...............................  $22,198,000
     Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
Federal implementation costs for the Recommended Plan consist 
primarily of the cost related to the acquisition of lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposals (LERRDs), 
and additional local features (ALF). The estimated cost of the 
LERRDS is $11.8 million. Non-Federal cash for the NER is 
approximately $581,000, and for the LPP, approximately 
$1,222,500.
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs: There are no Federal annual 
operation and maintenance costs. The local sponsor, the Tarrant 
Regional Water District will be responsible for all operation 
and maintenance costs for the NER plan estimated at $72,500 
annually, and for the LPP, approximately $87,500 annually.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: Operation and 
maintenance responsibilities include mowing, trash collection 
and, as needed, replacements or rehabilitation of any of its 
components.
    Estimated Effects of the NER Plan (Effects for the LPP were 
not calculated):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Average annual
                                           equivalent     Average annual
           Account purposes                beneficial    adverse effects
                                            effects         (1,000's)
                                           (1,000's)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Ecosystem Restoration Plan
 (NER):
    NER...............................              N/A           $969.1
    Recreation........................            805.1             78.9
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................           $805.1         $1,048.0
 Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-cost ratio: 10.0 (current discount rate: 5-7/8%).
NED plan recommended? No.
NER plan recommended? No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NER plan would restore approximately 568.7 acres and 
would produce approximately 305 average annual habitat units 
(AAHU). The LPP would restore an additional 112 acres and 25.83 
AAHU's. The restoration will benefit the trail system and the 
habitat for songbirds and migratory wading birds. Environmental 
benefits are not quantified monetarily and therefore 
environment specific costs are not included in the project 
benefit/cost ratio.
    Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area 
are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
    Relationship to Other Plans: N/A.
    Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 
Project(s): N/A.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of 
Engineers Report was signed on May 29, 2003.
    (9) Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.--
    Location of the Study Area: The Norfolk District Corps of 
Engineers operates a Federally owned highway bridge over which 
U.S. Route 17 (George Washington Highway) crosses the Dismal 
Swamp Canal (DSC), a part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 
(AIWW). The bridge was constructed in 1934 and is located in 
the community of Deep Creek in the city of Chesapeake, 
Virginia. Chesapeake is part of the large metropolitan area of 
Hampton Roads, at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The city is 
located in southeastern Virginia, approximately 150 miles 
southeast of Washington, D.C. The non-Federal sponsor is the 
City of Chesapeake, VA.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 
existing Deep Creek Bridge is a two lane, single-leaf Bascule 
Bridge that was constructed in 1934 at a cost of $64,000. The 
bridge is now outdated and while structurally sound it is 
functionally obsolete in that it does not conform to existing 
standards for traffic load limits and roadway geometry. Traffic 
congestion and delays are commonplace. Potential adverse 
impacts to vessel traffic on the AIWW could result due to 
malfunction of the bridge, which has been used for almost twice 
its originally estimated useful life. The city of Chesapeake 
operates and maintains four moveable highway bridges over 
navigable waterways, has experience in operating to meet the 
needs of navigation, and is willing to take over operation and 
maintenance of the improved bridge.
    In a letter dated March 21, 1996, the city of Chesapeake 
requested that the Norfolk District consider the need for and 
feasibility of modifying or replacing this structure in 
conjunction with City and Commonwealth of Virginia plans to 
improve the road system in this area. The City has already 
begun improvements to the area's roadways, and the Commonwealth 
is currently contracting the design for a 10-mile stretch of 
U.S. Route 17 improvements from the North Carolina line to the 
proposed Dominion Boulevard. These improvements are needed to 
accommodate the rapidly increasing development in this area of 
Chesapeake. The sponsor's letter also stated that, the City 
would assume ownership and subsequent operation and maintenance 
of a replacement bridge.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The possible solutions 
examined in the feasibility study included: (1) Abandonment of 
the existing bridge in favor of relocating highways; (2) 
abandonment of the waterway; (3) rerouting the waterway to 
consolidate or minimizehighway crossings; (4) bridge 
replacement with adequate structures that will accommodate existing and 
future traffic conditions and minimize delays for highway uses and 
navigation traffic; and (5) continued use of the existing low-level 
bridge. Bridge replacements included high-level fixed-span bridges, 
low-level bridges, and tunnels under the Dismal Swamp Canal.
    Description of the Recommended Plan: The recommended plan, 
which is the National Economic Development (NED) plan, consists 
of replacing the existing bridge with a 5-lane, low-level, 
split-leaf, pit bascule bridge aligned south of and parallel to 
the existing bridge's centerline, and approach roadways.
    (a) Structural:
    (1) The selected plan consists of a separate 2-lane leaf 
(eastbound) and 3-lane leaf (westbound). The eastbound leaf 
would be 75 feet long, 40 feet wide, and have two vehicle lanes 
and a pedestrian sidewalk. The westbound lane would have 3 
vehicle lanes and be approximately 48 feet wide. The two spans 
would be separated by a space of approximately 1.5 feet. The 
new deck elevation would be at approximately 16.9 feet National 
Geodetic Vertical Datum, which is approximately 5.5 to 7 feet 
above average ground elevation in the vicinity and over one 
foot higher than the existing bridge deck. The roadway 
centerline would be approximately 100 feet south of the 
existing bridge centerline.
    (2) Approach Roadways--The higher deck would require 
modifications to the approach roads on either side of the 
bridge to tie into existing road elevations on Cedar Road and 
Old Mill Road, as well as tying into the intersecting portions 
of George Washington Highway and Route 17. The recommended 
south parallel alignment was developed for a 5-lane roadway 
width. This south alternative alignment is less likely to 
disturb existing utilities. The provision of a fifth lane 
allows smooth traffic movement at the intersection without 
unreasonable stacking of traffic onto the bridge. In 
particular, the fifth lane will provide a dedicated through 
lane to Old Mill Road and a left turn lane for southbound 
traffic on Mill Creek Parkway. These movements are projected to 
increase substantially over the life of the project. The 
location of the proposed south alignment was set to allow 
continued operation of the existing bridge during new bridge 
construction. The approach roadway design speed for this 
alignment is 35 mph.
    (3) Lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations--
Property impacts resulting from the horizontal and vertical 
alignment changes require the acquisition of rights-of-way, the 
demolition of three commercial buildings, and the relocation of 
businesses in two of those buildings. This alignment will not 
require relocation of major utilities as the preponderance of 
these utilities is located north of the existing bridge.
    (b) Environmental Features: There would be no net loss of 
aquatic habitat resulting from the relocation of the fender 
system in the canal or from any activities associated with 
construction of the replacement bridge. Loss of wetland and 
aquatic habitat (estimated at less than one-tenth of an acre) 
will be mitigated on existing lands at a 2-1 ratio. Water 
quality would be disturbed temporarily during construction but 
would return to normal after completion of the project.
    The selected plan described above is a design refinement of 
the bridge described in the Feasibility Report, which consisted 
of a 5-lane, low-level, fast acting (Scherzer rolling lift), 
single-leaf bascule bridge located south of and parallel to the 
existing bridge. The design change resulted from ongoing 
coordination by the Project Delivery Team including two design 
charrettes to refine the bridge design and roadway tie-ins. The 
results of these efforts are provided in an Addendum to the 
Feasibility Report dated April 23, 2002. The refined design has 
several advantages over the initial design presented in the 
feasibility report including improving the sequence of 
construction, provides a better alignment which reduces real 
estate needs and impacts to adjacent properties, and allows 
better maintenance of traffic during construction. The new 
design does not change the estimated OMRR&R costs. The new 
design involves both cost savings and increased costs for 
various project features. There is a net increase in cost; 
estimated first costs are $21.8 million for the split-leaf 
bridge design compared to $21.5 million for the single leaf 
design (after updating to October 2001 price levels and 
applying a discount rate of 6.125%). The increase is largely 
due to increased work resulting from additional information on 
site conditions and to increases in materials costs. These 
costs would be associated with any bridge plans; therefore, the 
new design remains the NED plan.
    The plan initially preferred by the non-Federal sponsor was 
a four-lane bridge. However, the studies have shown that in 
addition to providing greater overall benefits the addition of 
the fifth lane provides for a through lane to Old Mill Road and 
a left turn lane for southbound traffic on Mill Creek Parkway. 
These improvements allow for smooth traffic flow without 
backing traffic onto the bridge. The sponsor concurred with the 
selection of the NED plan.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental 
Quality, responded by letter dated August 20, 2001. This letter 
forwarded a copy of the Commonwealth's January 29, 2001, 
comments on the draft report, which stated they had no 
objection to the project as long as it is constructed in 
accordance with all applicable State and Federal laws and 
regulations. There were no additional comments.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Department 
of the Interior (DOI), Office of the Secretary, responded by 
letter dated August 8, 2001. DOI had no comments to offer and 
did not object to the proposed project. The Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3 and Department of 
Transportation, responded by phone conversation on February 26, 
2002, and August 21, 2001, respectively, that each had no 
comments to offer.
    Status of NEPA Document: Because there were no significant 
issues affecting the natural and human environment, an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI) were prepared for this project. The FONSI was 
signed by the Norfolk District Engineer on April 25, 2001. The 
final Feasibility Report and EAwith the signed FONSI were 
circulated for State and agency review on July 10, 2001. The State and 
Agency review period ended on August 9, 2001.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: The NED plan estimated 
implementation costs are shown below in October 2001 price 
levels.

                                                                     NED
                                                      (recommended plan)
Federal: Corps of Engineers.............................     $22,178,000
Non-Federal: City of Chesapeake.........................               0
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     $22,178,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The city 
of Chesapeake has no costs associated with the recommended 
plan.
    Estimated Annual O&M Costs: The NED plan estimated 
operation and maintenance costs are shown below in October 2002 
price levels.

                                                                     NED
        O&M                                           (recommended plan)
Federal.......................................................        $0
Non-Federal...................................................   222,130
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

      Total...................................................  $222,130

    Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The city of 
Chesapeake will assume ownership of the bridge and be 
responsible for all operations and maintenance (O&M) activities 
associated with this movable bridge. O&M responsibilities for 
the project include operator's labor, maintenance materials, 
equipment and labor, bridge inspection reports, utilities, and 
major replacements.
    Estimated Effects: 
    (a) Economic Effects--See Table 1.
    (b) NED Plan recommended? Yes. The NED plan for the 
existing bridge replacement is the recommended plan and LPP. It 
consists of a 5-lane, split-leaf, rolling-lift bascule bridge. 
Refer to the proposed bridge description in section 9a.
    The NED Plan is implementable and economically justified 
and the city of Chesapeake, as local cost-sharing sponsor, is 
willing to assume all costs associated with the operations and 
maintenance of this project.

Table 1.--Economic Summary NED Plan\1\

Investment Costs:
    Project Cost\2\.....................................     $20,823,000
    Lands and Damages...................................       1,355,000
    Interest During Construction........................       1,373,860
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Investment Cost.............................     $23,551,860
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Average Annual Costs:
    Annualized First Cost...............................      $1,468,220
    Annual O&M Costs O&M................................         222,130
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Subtotal Annualized Cost............................       1,690,350
    Subtotal Vehicle User Costs.........................       5,301,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total Average Annual Costs\3\.....................      $6,991,350
                    ========================================================
                    ____________________________________________________
Average Annual Benefits.................................     $15,652,000
Benefit/Cost Ratio......................................            2.24
Net Remaining Benefits..................................      $8,660,650

\1\ October 2002 price levels; discount rate @ 5-7/8 percent, 50-year 
planning period.
\2\ M-CACES estimate dated April 2002.
\3\ Including highway user costs.

    (c) Environmental Quality--There are no major or long-term 
adverse environmental effects that would result from the 
implementation of the selected plan. Water quality would be 
temporarily disturbed during the construction phase of the 
project but would return to normal once construction is 
completed.
    Petroleum contamination was discovered east of the existing 
bridge. The site will be remediated by the City and verified 
clean under all Federal and State standards prior to the 
government's purchase of that real estate and before 
commencement of any construction activities associated with 
that area.
    (d) Regional Economic Development Effects--The regional 
economic development account indicates that there is a positive 
impact of the NED plan on employment and income in the regional 
economy from construction and operation, maintenance, 
replacement, repair, and rehabilitation activities. The 
construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of the 
new bridge would provide regional gains in output, earnings, 
and employment.
    In addition, there would be both positive and negative 
impacts associated with the new bridge on businesses located 
along the improved roadway. Such impacts are related to 
parking, visibility, access, traffic flow, and location.
    (e) Other Social Effects--The most significant negative 
social effect would be the displacement of businesses that 
would be necessary with all of the alternatives, except for a 
replacement of the existing structure with another two-lane 
bridge in the same location. The 5-lane bridge on the southern 
alignment would require the demolition of three commercial 
buildings and the relocation of two businesses.
    Some short-term disruption of the internal traffic patterns 
within the community may occur during construction of the new 
bridge, the approach improvement, and removal of the old 
bridge. The long-term provision to the community of increased 
safety and improved traffic flow would help to offset this 
temporary effect.
    Direct Beneficiaries: Highway users.
    Relationship to Other Plans: The recommended plan is 
commensurate with the connecting roadways and will improve 
traffic flow and reduce delays in the heavily congested area at 
peak traffic hours. In addition, navigation along the AIWW will 
not be adversely impacted.
    Cumulative Funds Expended to Date on Previous/Related 
Projects: In excess of an estimated $15,000,000 has been 
expended on the Norfolk District project for the Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway between Norfolk, VA, and the St. John's 
River, FL.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final Chief 
of Engineers report was signed on March 3, 2003.

Section 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction

    Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for 
flood damage reduction under the authority of section 205 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1948 at the following locations:
    (1) Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
    (2) Santa Ana River Basin and Orange County Streams, 
California.
    (3) Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois.
    (4) Olive Hill and vicinity, Kentucky.
    (5) Nashua River, Fitchburg, Massachusetts.
    (6) Saginaw River, Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan.
    (7) Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
    (8) Roseau River, Minnesota.
    (9) South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
    (10) Twin Valley Lake, Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
    (11) Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.
    (12) McKeel Brook, New Jersey.
    (13) East River, Silver Beach, New York City, New York.
    (14) Ramapo River, Town of Monroe and Villages of Monroe, 
Kiryas Joel, and Harriman, New York.
    (15) Little Mill Creek, Southampton, Pennsylvania.
    (16) Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
    (17) Surfside Beach, South Carolina.

Section 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection

    Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for 
streambank erosion control under section 14 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1946 at the following locations:
    (1) Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas.
    (2) Melvina Ditch, Chicago Ridge, Illinois.
    (3) Middle Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri.
    (4) Shrewsbury River, Rumson, New Jersey.
    (5) Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New 
York.

Section 1004. Small projects for navigation

    Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for 
navigation, under the authority of section 107 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1960 at the following locations:
    (1) Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas.
    (2) Evanston, Illinois.
    (3) Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Boat Harbor, 
Buffalo, New York.
    (4) Woodlawn Marina, Lackawanna, New York.
    (5) Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.

Section 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the 
        environment

    Directs the Secretary to study and carry out a project for 
improvement of the environment under the authority of section 
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for 
Smithville Lake, Missouri.

Section 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration

    Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects for 
aquatic ecosystem restoration under the authority of section 
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 at the 
following locations:
    (1) Colorado River, Yuma, Arizona.
    (2) Chino Valley, California.
    (3) New and Alamo Rivers, Imperial County, California.
    (4) San Diego River, California.
    (5) Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and Lower San Joaquin 
River, California.
    (6) Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California.
    (7) Biscayne Bay, Florida.
    (8) Destin Harbor, Florida.
    (9) Chattahoochee River, Columbus, Georgia and Phenix City, 
Alabama.
    (10) Chattahoochee River and Ocmulgee River Basins, 
Georgia.
    (11) Snake River, Jerome, Idaho.

Section 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection

    Directs the Secretary to study and carry out a project 
under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
publicly owned property,'' approved August 13, 1946, at Nelson 
Lagoon, Alaska.

Section 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal

    Directs the Secretary to study and carry out a project 
under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 at 
Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 2001. Annual passes for recreation

    Amends section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 to extend the authority for alternative annual 
passes to December 31, 2004.

Section 2002. Non-Federal contributions

    Amends section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 by placing a prohibition on the solicitation of excess 
contributions from the non-Federal sponsor for water resources 
development projects. This provision does not affect the 
ability of non-Federal interest to make additional 
contributions in order to implement a project as provided in 
section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

Section 2003. Harbor cost sharing

    Amends sections 101 and 214 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 by striking ``45 feet'' each place it 
appears and inserting ``53 feet'' and provides that such 
amendments shall only apply to the project, or separable 
element thereof, on which a contract for physical construction 
has not been awarded before the date of enactment of this Act.

Section 2004. Funding to process permits

    Amends section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000 to extend the period of funding to process permits to 
2005.

Section 2005. National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and 
        Demonstration Program

    Amends sections 5(a) and 5(b)(1)(A) of the Act entitled 
``An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of 
protecting the shores of publicly owned property'', to extend 
the program to 10 years and to continue the planning, design, 
and construction phase to 6 years, provide for cost-sharing, 
allow removal of some projects, and to increase the 
authorization level from $21,000,000 to $31,000,000.

Section 2006. Written agreement for water resources projects

    This section amends section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act 
of 1970, to rename project cooperation agreements as 
partnership agreements, allow District Engineers to enter into 
partnership agreements, and to include a provision for 
liquidated damages. This section also amends section 912(b) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to eliminate civil 
penalties in partnership agreements and allow the use of 
liquidated damages instead. The purpose of this section is to 
encourage a new culture of partnership among the Corps of 
Engineers and its non-Federal project sponsors, and to 
substantially increase the efficiency of Corps project 
implementation.
    The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 significantly 
increased the roles and responsibilities of project sponsors. 
Non-Federal interests were required to act in cohort and 
partnership with the Federal Government in carrying out 
projects. Non-Federal interests found themselves responsible 
for providing a substantial portion of the cost of the project.
    As a result of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 
project cooperation agreements (PCAs) required under Section 
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 and Section 912 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 assumed significant 
importance in defining non-Federal responsibilities for 
providing items of local cooperation. Unfortunately, since 
1986, the administration of PCAs has evolved into a layered 
bureaucracy that frustrates non-Federal interests and 
unnecessarily slows progress toward ultimate project 
construction.
    Non-Federal interests frequently express concern that PCAs 
serve only the interests of the Federal government and often 
impose binding conditions on them that are inconsistent with 
their non-Federal constitutional powers, creating an 
adversarial atmosphere of mistrust that frustrates the 
essential partnership needed for effective project 
implementation. Non-Federal project partners also find 
frustration in the multiple layers of review and approval 
imposed upon the execution of PCAs within the Department of the 
Army. Projects are delayed for long periods, some for years, 
awaiting approval and execution of the project agreement.
    This section adopts a structure under which the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) develops broad policy to 
govern the content of partnership agreements to comply with law 
and policy; the Chief of Engineers provides specific policy 
guidelines governing the content of these agreements; and 
District Commanders review and execute partnership agreements. 
These changes reflect favorably on the capability of 
Divisionsand Districts to accomplish as much review and approval as 
possible. The Committee does not expect all partnership agreements to 
undergo a Washington level review. However, agreements that address 
novel issues may continue to be reviewed and the Chief of Engineers or 
the Assistant Secretary may choose to audit a representative sample of 
partnership agreements to ensure compliance with law and policy.
    Through these changes, the Committee expects to address the 
concerns of non-Federal interests, improve efficiency by 
streamlining the process for approving partnership agreements, 
and to foster a culture of true partnerships that will improve 
projects and their implementation.

Section 2007. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide assessment, planning, 
and design assistance to State and local governments for 
remediation, environmental restoration, and reuse of areas that 
will contribute to improvement in water quality or to 
conservation of water and related resources. The non-Federal 
share is 50%. Authorizes $30,000,000 a year for fiscal years 
2004-2008. Under the authority provided by this section, the 
Secretary may help the city of Norwich, Connecticut, carry out 
an environmental assessment of the Seders property at Norwich 
Harbor, Connecticut.

Section 2008. Compilation of laws

    Directs the Secretary to produce a compilation of water 
resources development laws enacted after November 8, 1966, and 
before January 1, 2004. The Committee included similar language 
in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which the 
Secretary has not implemented. The Committee strongly supports 
public availability and consolidation of laws related to water 
resources development, and expects the Secretary to promptly 
comply with this section using existing, internal resources.

Section 2009. Dredged material disposal

    Amends section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 to ensure that the Secretary has the authority to 
address dredged material disposal on a regional, as well as a 
project-by-project basis, and may combine funding from separate 
projects to do so.

Section 2010. Wetlands mitigation

    Requires the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable 
and where appropriate, to give preference for use of wetlands 
mitigation banks that meet certain criteria, when carrying out 
wetlands mitigation for a water resources project. Nothing in 
this section affects the responsibility of the Corps of 
Engineers to apply the guidelines developed under section 
404(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Section 2011. Remote and subsistence harbors

    Allows the Secretary to recommend a project for harbor and 
navigation improvements without the need to demonstrate that 
the project is justified solely by national economic 
development benefits if (1) the community served by the project 
is at least 70 miles from the nearest surface accessible 
commercial port with no direct rail or highway link to another 
serviceable community or located in the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, or 
American Samoa; (2) the harbor is economically critical such 
that over 80 percent of the goods transported would be consumed 
within the community served by the harbor and navigation 
improvement; and (3) the long term viability of the community 
is dependent on the harbor, including access to resources and 
facilities designed to protect public health and safety.

Section 2012. Beneficial uses of dredged material

    Amends section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 to allow cost-sharing of the use of dredged material at 
any water resources project (not just aquatic ecosystem 
restoration projects), to allow nonprofit entities to serve as 
the non-Federal interest for a project under specified 
conditions, to increase the authorization of appropriations to 
$30,000,000 annually, and to allow the Secretary to develop 
regional sediment management plans at full Federal expense. 
Also allows the Secretary to use this dredged material to carry 
out, at full Federal expense, aquatic ecosystem restoration 
projects located in a disadvantaged community if the project 
cost is not greater than $750,000, not to exceed a total of 
$3,000,000 in any fiscal year. Directs the Secretary to give 
priority to beneficial use projects in the vicinity of Smith 
Point Park Pavilion and TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, 
New York, and Morehead City, North Carolina.

Section 2013. Cost sharing provisions for certain areas

    Amends section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 to increase from $250,000 to $500,000 the exemption 
from cost-sharing for the initial costs of studies and projects 
in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, United States 
Virgin Islands and on land in the State of Alaska conveyed to 
an Alaska Native Village Corporation under the Alaskan Native 
Claims Settlement Act.

Section 2014. Revision of project partnership agreement

    Directs the Secretary to revise the partnership agreement 
for the project to take into account the change in Federal 
participation in the project, when Congress increases the 
authorization ceiling for a project.

Section 2015. Cost sharing

    Provides that in any case in which Congress increases the 
maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a 
project or increases the total cost of a project, such increase 
shall not affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to the 
project.

Section 2016. Credit for work performed before cooperation agreement

    Requires the Secretary to enter into an agreement with a 
non-Federal sponsor for the performance of work eligible for 
credit against the non-Federal sponsor's costs, thereby 
ensuring that Federal standards for the construction of public 
works will apply to these projects.

Section 2017. Recreation user fee revenues

    Amends section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 to make permanent the provision of law that allows the 
Secretary to retain recreation user fee revenues for use at 
Corps recreation facilities.

Section 2018. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction

    Directs the Secretary to expedite planning, design, and 
construction of a project for flood damage reduction for an 
area that, within the preceding 5 years, has been subject to 
flooding that resulted in the loss of life and caused damage 
sufficient to warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the 
President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act.

Section 2019. Watershed and river basin assessments

    Amends section 729(f)(1) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 to provide a 75% Federal share for watershed and 
river basin assessments carried out under that section to 
encourage States and local governments to engage in regional 
planning. This section also adds Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 
California, to the list of priority basins in section 729(d).

Section 2020. Tribal Partnership Program

    Amends section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000 to make Oklahoma tribes eligible for assistance under 
the Tribal Partnership Program.

Section 2021. Treatment of certain separable elements

    Authorizes the Secretary, during construction of a project, 
to identify opportunities to achieve benefits relating to a 
primary mission of the Corps as a separable project element, 
and carry out that separable element at full Federal expense, 
up to the lesser of $1 million or 3% of project costs, if that 
element would be carried out more cost-effectively in 
conjunction with the ongoing project and can be carried out 
within existing authorization levels.

Section 2022. Prosecution of work

    Authorizes the use of continuing contracts by the Corps of 
Engineers.

Section 2023. Wildfire firefighting

    Adds the Secretary to the existing list of Federal agencies 
authorized to enter into contracts with State and local 
governmental entities, including local fire districts, for 
procurement of services in the presuppression, detection, and 
suppression of fires on any units within their jurisdiction.

Section 2024. Credit for non-construction services

    The Committee has included language in the bill that 
provides generic authority to the Secretary to allow, under 
certain conditions, credit toward the non-Federal share of 
project costs for design and management work performed by a 
non-Federal interest that is compatible with and necessary to 
implement the project. This authority does not apply to 
construction. The Committee has received numerous requests from 
proponents of specific projects to allow non-Federal interests 
to obtain credit for work they perform that advances the 
project. Where a non-Federal interest has an established 
capability, it can often accomplish work faster and at less 
cost than if undertaken by the Corps of Engineers, thus freeing 
the Corps to expedite other aspects of the project. While 
requests for credit have received favorable consideration in 
this legislation and prior water resources legislation, the 
Committee concluded that a general provision allowing credit 
under specified conditions would minimize the need for future 
project-specific provisions and, at the same time, assure 
consistency in considering future proposals for credit. The 
authority to approve such credit applies to any authorized 
water resources development project, regardless of the date of 
project authorization, provided the limitations of this section 
are applied.
    Several limitations are included in this provision to 
assure compatibility with the project, control costs, and 
safeguard the Federal interest. The credit amount cannot exceed 
the non-Federal share of project costs; and allowing credit 
does not obviate the normal requirement that the non-Federal 
interest provide necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way and 
dredged material disposal area. Furthermore, the value of the 
credited amount cannot exceed the Secretary's determination of 
actual and reasonable costs of materials or in-kind services 
that are provided by the non-Federal interest. The non-Federal 
interest may, however, provide such materials and services with 
in-house capabilities or through consultants or other third-
party entities. Finally, while prior approval from the 
Secretary is not required, the non-Federal interest shall not 
be allowed credit for materials and services that are not 
determined by the Secretary to be compatible with and necessary 
for the project.

Section 2025. Technical assistance

    Authorizes the Secretary, upon request of a governmental 
agency or non-Federal interests, to provide technical 
assistance at Federal expense. This assistance may include 
hydrologic, economic and environmental data and analyses and 
may not exceed $5,000,000 a year. This authority will allow the 
Corps of Engineers to participate with State and local 
governments in watershed planning, instead of maintaining a 
narrow focus on individual project areas. Of the amount 
authorized, $2 million may be used for cooperative agreements 
with nonprofit entities to provide assistance to rural and 
small communities. The Committee notes that State rural water 
associations have the capability to carry out these activities. 
Assistance under this section to State rural water associations 
may be combined with assistance provided under the Farm 
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and other authorities 
to maximize the ability to provide watershed technical 
assistance to rural and small communities.

Section 2026. Centers of specialized planning expertise

    This section authorizes the Secretary to establish regional 
offices to enhance capabilities of the districts of the Army 
Corps of Engineers and provide technical and managerial 
assistance to district engineers for project planning, 
development, and implementation.
    The Committee supports the Corps of Engineers' continuing 
efforts to transform into an agency that can meet the Nation's 
water resources needs in the 21st Century. The strengthening of 
the Corps planning capabilities is one of the cornerstones of 
this transformation. The Committee endorses the rigorous 
training curriculum the Corps has developed to ensure that 
Corps planners are highly qualified to formulate and evaluate 
project proposals. In cooperation with major universities, the 
Corps has sponsored staff pursuing graduate degrees in water 
resources planning, and has re-instituted the Planning 
Associates Program to ensure an effective planning workforce. 
The Committee also urges the Corps to train planners in multi-
stakeholder planning emphasizing negotiation, consensus 
building, and dispute resolution.
    The Corps should continue the initiatives to improve the 
models used in project evaluations, to strengthen economic 
analysis and the assessment of environmental benefits, and to 
intensify organizational commitments to objective and thorough 
reviews, ensuring that the concept becomes integral to the 
culture of project planning. This section supports the effort 
of the Corps to establish regional centers of expertise that 
will provide state-of-the-art planning expertise for highly 
specialized missions.

Section 2027. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local 
        actions

    This section authorizes the Secretary to assist in 
consolidation and streamlining of all agency environmental 
assessments, project review, and issuance of permits for the 
construction of non-Federal water supply, wastewater, flood 
control, environmental restoration, and navigation projects 
that require the Secretary's approval, if reimbursed by the 
non-Federal interest. Under this section, if the Secretary is 
responsible for reviewing and issuing an approval for a non-
Federal project, the Secretary may provide a coordinating role 
to facilitate other necessary reviews and approvals. This 
provision is based on the Corps' existing authority under 
section 205 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to 
coordinate Federal, State, and local reviews for non-Federal 
navigation projects.

Section 2028. Project streamlining

    This section authorizes the Secretary to coordinate and 
expedite environmental reviews of proposed water resources 
projects with schedules and early dispute resolution to 
streamline project studies. To achieve this, this section 
directs the Secretary to develop and implement a coordinated 
review process under which all environmental reviews, analyses, 
opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals would be completed 
within a period of time established by the Secretary, in 
cooperation with the agencies participating in the coordinated 
environmental review process. Participation by non-Federal 
agencies is voluntary. If deadlines are not met, this section 
requires the Secretary to notify the Committee, as well as the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the 
Council on Environmental Quality, and the agency, Indian tribe, 
or non-Federal interest involved in the failure to meet the 
deadline. This section also requires the participating agency, 
Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest that has failed to meet a 
deadline to prepare a report explaining the reasons for the 
failure and what remedial actions will be taken. This report is 
to be submitted to the Secretary, the Committee, the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Council 
on Environmental Quality.
    Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 
the Corps of Engineers is the lead Federal agency for the water 
resources projects that it carries out. As such, the Corps of 
Engineers is responsible for defining the purpose and need for 
the proposed water resources project and for determining which 
alternatives for carrying out the project are reasonable and 
may be reasonably anticipated to meet project purposes and 
needs. As the lead Federal agency, the Corps of Engineers also 
has authority under the NEPA regulations issued by the Council 
on Environmental Quality to bring other Federal agencies with 
jurisdiction over the project into the project development 
process early, to resolve issues and disputes in a timely 
fashion. Unfortunately, the Corps of Engineers does not 
regularly use this authority and other Federal agencies often 
do not raise objections until a project study is nearly 
complete, leading to needless delay if the objections must be 
addressed through reformulation of the project. The Committee 
intends that the authority under this section to develop a 
coordinated review process for water resources projects be 
carried out in a fashion that is consistent with these NEPA 
authorities. Nothing in this section preempts or interferes 
with any obligation of the Corps of Engineers to comply with 
NEPA or the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, or any other 
practice of seeking public comment, or any other power, 
jurisdiction, or authority with respect to carrying out a water 
resources project.
    Finally, this section directs the Chief of Engineers to 
establish benchmarks for determining the length of time it 
should take to complete various elements of a feasibility 
study. The Committee recognizes that not all projects are 
uniform and studies may takevarying lengths of time, depending 
on the scope and complexity. At the same time, much of what the Corps 
of Engineers does is not novel, and each project should not be 
developed as a completely new endeavor, as if no similar project had 
ever been developed before. Benchmarks established under this section 
are not binding, but should be used as a management tool to encourage 
efficiency at all Corps districts.

Section 2029. Lakes program

    Adds the following lakes to the list of lakes at which the 
Secretary is authorized to carry out programs for the removal 
of silt and other material under Section 602 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986.
    (1) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
    (2) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey.
    (3) Greenwood Lake, New York.
    (4) Lake Rogers, North Carolina.

Section 2030. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses

    This section amends section 906(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 to require completion of all mitigation 
no later than one fiscal year after completion of the project 
where such mitigation is not undertaken in advance or 
concurrently. This section also amends section 906(d) to 
identify the elements to be included in the specific mitigation 
plan that already is required under that section. The specific 
mitigation plan must include a description of the physical 
action to be undertaken. The plan also must include a 
description of the lands or interests in lands to be acquired 
for mitigation, and the basis for a determination that such 
lands are available. This description is not intended to be a 
description of the specific property interests. The Committee 
expects the mitigation plan to identify the quantity and type 
of lands needed, and include a determination that lands of such 
quantity and type are available for acquisition. The plan also 
must include the type, amount, and characteristics of the 
habitat to be restored. The plan must include success criteria 
based on replacement of lost functions and values of the 
habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative characteristics. 
Finally, if monitoring is necessary to determine success of the 
mitigation, the plan must include a plan for monitoring and to 
the extent practicable, identification of the entities 
responsible for monitoring. As monitoring is part of operation 
and maintenance of a project, in most cases the entity 
responsible for any monitoring will be the non-Federal sponsor. 
If such person is not identifiable at the time the mitigation 
plan is prepared under this section, such person must be 
identified in the partnership agreement entered into with the 
non-Federal interest.
    The Committee supports more specificity in Corps reporting 
documents concerning expected mitigation efforts. Such 
increased specificity will better inform the Congress, the non-
Federal sponsor, and the public as to planned mitigation 
efforts and the likely success of these efforts. This section 
also directs the Secretary to submit to Congress a report on 
the status of mitigation concurrent with the submission of 
reports on the status of project construction, as part of the 
President's budget submission.

Section 2031. Cooperative agreements

    Authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative 
agreements with nonprofit organizations to carry out wetlands 
restoration at authorized projects, limited to $1 million per 
project and $5 million per year.

Section 2032. Project planning

    Subsection (a) of this section establishes the Federal 
objective for economic, ecosystem restoration, and multi-
purpose projects. For economic projects (flood control, 
navigation, and hurricane and storm damage reduction) the 
Federal objective is to maximize net national economic 
development benefits, consistent with protecting the Nation's 
environment. This objective is consistent with the Economic and 
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related 
Land Resources Implementation Studies, issued by the Water 
Resources Council in 1983.
    For ecosystem restoration projects the Federal objective is 
to maximize net national ecosystem restoration benefits 
associated with the project, consistent with net national 
economic development. This objective is consistent with 
existing Corps policy for identifying a National Ecosystem 
Restoration (NER) plan. The requirement that an NER plan be 
consistent with net national economic development does not 
change existing law under which the costs of ecosystem 
restoration are deemed to be equal to the benefits. Rather, 
this subsection codifies existing policy that requires the 
Corps of Engineers to develop NER plans that are cost-effective 
and justified incrementally such that additional increments 
added to the plan increase the nonmonetary values gained.
    For multi-purpose projects, each purpose shall be evaluated 
based on the relevant Federal objective, with the economic 
element meeting the objective for economic projects and the 
ecosystem restoration element meeting the objective for 
ecosystem restoration projects.
    Subsection (a) also authorizes the Secretary to select 
project alternatives that do not maximize net benefits 
associated with the primary project purpose if there is an 
overriding reason based on other Federal, State, local or 
international concerns. This flexibility also is found in the 
Principles and Guidelines, however, the Secretary rarely uses 
it. To encourage consideration of project alternatives that are 
feasible but may not maximize net benefits, this subsection 
specifically authorizes the Secretary to select an alternative 
for an economic project that the Secretary determines, and the 
non-Federal interest agrees, provides greater ecosystem 
restoration benefits. Similarly, this subsection specifically 
authorizes the Secretary to select an alternative for an 
ecosystem restoration project that the Secretary determines, 
and the non-Federal interest agrees, provides greater economic 
development benefits.
    Subsection (b) of this section authorizes the Secretary to 
study and identify additional benefits when formulating a water 
resources project beyond the primary project purpose. However, 
the scope of the study must still be consistent with the study 
authorization. In addition, the Secretary must obtain the 
willing participation of a cost-sharing non-Federal interest 
both for the expanded study, as well as any construction, if a 
separable project or project element is subsequently 
authorized. The Secretary may not require a non-Federal 
interest to participate as a cost-sharing partner in the study 
or construction of a separable project or project element as a 
condition of participation in a water resources project.
    Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to calculate residual 
flood risks and upstream or downstream impacts when studying a 
project for flood damage reduction, and requires equitable 
treatment of structural and nonstructural alternatives. This 
subsection also directs the Secretary to ensure that there is 
no bias when evaluating structural and nonstructural 
alternatives.

Section 2033. Independent peer review

    The Committee has considered carefully the views of 
interested parties on the application of peer review to Corps 
of Engineers studies and projects. There have been many calls 
for independent peer review as a means of ensuring that Federal 
agency decision-making is based on sound science and economics. 
These recommendations have been developed by agencies 
themselves, by scientific organizations such as the National 
Academy of Sciences, and by interest groups. In addition, the 
Office of Management and Budget recently has placed an 
increased emphasis on peer review.
    On March 5, 2003, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
the Environment held a hearing on ``Independent Peer Review of 
Products that Support Agency Decision-Making.'' The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, a representative of the National 
Research Council, a representative of waterways users (MARC 
2000), a representative of the American Enterprise Institute, a 
representative of American Rivers, and a representative of a 
consulting group that conducts peer reviews. This testimony 
disclosed that Federal agencies conduct peer reviews in 
different ways and view it as a useful tool appropriate for 
some, but not all circumstances. The testimony from other 
stakeholders disclosed divergent views over whether peer 
reviews of Corps of Engineers studies would be beneficial or 
harmful to water resources projects and how such reviews should 
be carried out.
    As a result, the Committee has proceeded cautiously on the 
issue of peer review of Corps of Engineers studies and has 
established in this section a peer review process that will 
apply to certain studies that are initiated within 4 years 
after the date of enactment of this section, as well as certain 
ongoing studies that are early in the study process. After four 
and a half years, the Chief of Engineers must submit a report 
to Congress on the experience with peer reviews under this 
section. This report will allow the Committee to evaluate the 
merits of peer review based on actual information and 
experience and determine if additional legislative action 
should be taken.
    Under the peer review process established under this 
section, the Chief of Engineers must subject a project study to 
independent peer review if the project has an estimated total 
cost of more than $50,000,000, at the time of the completion of 
the reconnaissance study. Some stakeholders have expressed 
concern that a monetary threshold is an arbitrary basis for 
determining what studies would benefit from peer review and 
could create additional delays and costs by subjecting to peer 
review studies that are routine or otherwise noncontroversial. 
Based on previous authorizations, the $50,000,000 cost 
threshold may include as many as 30% of project studies. 
However, a far smaller percentage of studies have been 
controversial, and even fewer studies have been found to have 
significant problems.
    To address these concerns, this section authorizes the 
Chief of Engineers to exempt certain studies from review. 
Specifically, the Chief of Engineers may exclude a study from 
review if the Chief determines that the study is for a project 
that is not controversial; has no more than negligible adverse 
impacts on scarce or unique cultural, historic, or tribal 
resources; has no substantial adverse impacts on fish and 
wildlife species and their habitat prior to implementation of 
mitigation measures; and has, before implementation of 
mitigation measures, no more than a negligible adverse impact 
on a species listed as endangered or threatened species under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, or the critical habitat of 
such species. By using the adjective ``substantial'' for 
determining the scope of the adverse impact on fish and 
wildlife species, the Committee intends to establish a 
threshold that is higher than the existing threshold of 
``significant'' impact used under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 for determining whether an environmental 
impact statement is necessary. By using the phrase ``more than 
a negligible adverse impact'' for determining the scope of the 
impact on an endangered species, the Committee intends to 
establish a threshold that is higher than the existing 
threshold of ``likely affect'' used under section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 to trigger consultation. In 
addition, all studies for projects pursued under one of the 
Corps of Engineers' continuing authorities may be excluded from 
peer review.
    Other stakeholders have expressed concern that a monetary 
threshold may exclude a study from review that is below the 
cost threshold, but may benefit from a peer review. To address 
this issue, the Chief retains the discretion to subject any 
study to independent peer review that the Chief determines is 
controversial. In addition, the Governor of a State that would 
be affected by a project, and the head of a Federal or State 
agency that determines the project is likely to have a 
significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other 
resources within the jurisdiction of the agency after the 
implementation of mitigation, may request that a project study 
be subject to peer review by an independent panel. A decision 
by the Chief of Engineers whether to agree to a request to peer 
review a study may be appealed to the Secretary of the Army.
    The Committee heard concerns from some stakeholders that 
peer reviews could have the unintended consequence of delaying 
a project study, because of the time neededto address any 
concerns raised by reviewers. To address this matter, this section 
gives the Chief of Engineers substantial discretion regarding when 
during the course of a study a peer review should take place. The Chief 
may initiate the peer review at any time following completion of the 
reconnaissance study for the project. As a result, a peer review under 
this section may be a review of the models and methods to be used to 
evaluate project alternatives, rather than a review of a completed 
analysis. If problems are discovered at this stage of the study, they 
may be corrected before significant time and resources are expended on 
using flawed models or methods to analyze project alternatives.
    Generally, a review shall take no longer than 180 days and 
shall not exceed $500,000, but the Chief is given the 
discretion to allow a longer period of time for the review and 
to waive the cost limitation. If a study is subject to review, 
and no review has yet taken place when one of the following 
milestones is reached, the Chief must consider whether to 
initiate the peer review at that time: (1) when the Corps 
identifies the conditions that will occur if the project is not 
built (the without project conditions), (2) when the array of 
alternatives to be considered is identified, and (3) when the 
preferred alternative is identified. If a review has already 
been initiated when one of these milestones is reached, the 
Chief has no obligation to consider any additional peer review. 
No matter when it is initiated, in all cases a peer review 
under this section must be completed no later than 90 days 
after the date a draft study is made available for public 
review.
    Under this section a peer review panel must be established 
by the National Academy of Sciences, a similar independent 
scientific technical advisory organization, or a non-profit 
organization that is free from conflicts of interest and has 
experience in establishing and administering peer review 
panels, pursuant to a contract with the Chief of Engineers. The 
members of the panels must be independent, free from conflict 
of interest and must represent a balance of expertise suitable 
for the review being conducted.
    A panel shall review a study for technical and scientific 
sufficiency and, consistent with the scope of the referral for 
review and the stage of the study at which the review takes 
place, shall assess the adequacy and acceptability of the 
economic and environmental methods, models, and analyses used 
in the study. The panel must provide timely written and oral 
comments, as requested, and must submit a report to the Chief 
of Engineers at the conclusion of the peer review. The Chief of 
Engineers must respond to the peer review report and both the 
report and the Chief's response must be made available to the 
public and transmitted to Congress.
    With this section, the Committee intends to provide the 
Chief of Engineers with a tool that will improve the Corps' 
planning process and result in a greater number of successful 
water resources projects. The Committee does not intend peer 
review to be used as a tool to delay or halt projects.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Section 3001. Cook Inlet, Anchorage Harbor, Alaska

    Modifies the project for navigation, Cook Inlet, Anchorage 
Harbor, Alaska, to authorize the Secretary to deepen the harbor 
and the navigation channel at a total cost of $8,175,000 (for 
the harbor) and $21,525,000 (for the channel), and to maintain 
both.

Section 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska

    Provides that the maximum Federal expenditure for the King 
Cove Harbor navigation project shall be $8,000,000.

Section 3003. Sitka, Alaska

    Modifies the Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, element of the 
project for navigation, Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, to 
direct the Secretary to correct design deficiencies at a total 
Federal cost of $6,300,000.

Section 3004. Tatilek, Alaska

    Provides that the maximum Federal expenditure for the 
Tatilek navigation project shall be $10,000,000.

Section 3005. Nogales Wash and Tributaries, Arizona

    Modifies the project for flood control, Nogales Wash and 
Tributaries, Arizona, to direct the Secretary to use the Mexico 
Plan, 1st Added Increment to allocate costs.

Section 3006. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas

    Directs the Secretary to review the general reevaluation 
report for the Bayou Meto basin element of the project for 
Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas, to 
determine if the project is feasible.

Section 3007. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas

    Modifies the project for flood control, Saint Francis 
Basin, Arkansas, to authorize the Secretary to construct 
improvements constituting of a culvert through the levee.

Section 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California

    Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, American 
and Sacramento Rivers, California, to increase the 
authorization ceiling to $205,000,000.

Section 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California

    Modifies the project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, 
California, to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of 
the new south levee of the settling basin on the city of 
Woodland's storm drainage system and to restore the City's pre-
project capacity to release water to the Yolo Bypass, when the 
Bypass is in a low flow condition.

Section 3010. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California

    Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California, to direct the 
Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed by 
the non-Federal interest before the project cooperation 
agreement is signed, if an integral part of the project. Also 
allows the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration 
benefits when determining whether the project is justified.

Section 3011. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, 
        California

    Modifies the project for navigation, John F. Baldwin Ship 
Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, California, to allow the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project to be provided in 
the form of in-kind services and to direct the Secretary to 
provide credit for the cost of planning and design work 
performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of 
the project.

Section 3012. Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California

    Modifies the project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, 
Los Angeles, California, to direct the Secretary to provide 
credit for the cost of planning and design work performed by 
the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project.

Section 3013. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California

    Modifies the project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry 
Channel, California, to direct the Secretary to prepare a 
reevaluation report to determine whether or not maintenance of 
the project is justified, and carry out such maintenance, if 
justified.

Section 3014. Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa River, California

    Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa and Sonoma Counties, to 
direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work 
performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of 
the project.

Section 3015. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California

    Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California, to authorize the 
Secretary to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public access to the 
project.

Section 3016. Pinole Creek, California

    Modifies the project for improvement of the quality of the 
environment, Pinole Creek Phase I, California, to direct the 
Secretary to provide credit for work performed by the non-
Federal interests, if an integral part of the project.

Section 3017. Prado Dam, California

    Ensures that the agreement between the Corps of Engineers 
and the Orange County Water District, which requires the 
District to pay specific costs associated with operating and 
maintaining Prado Dam for seasonal water conservation, shall 
remain in effect after reconfiguration of the Dam for volumes 
of water up to the maximum amount provided for water 
conservation prior to the reconfiguration of the Dam.

Section 3018. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California

    Modifies the project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water 
Ship Channel, California, to direct the Secretary to provide 
credit for work performed by the non-Federal interests before 
the project cooperation agreement, if an integral part of the 
project.

Section 3019. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California

    Modifies the project for flood control, Sacramento River, 
Glenn-Colusa, California, to direct the Secretary to provide 
the non-Federal interest a credit of up to $4,000,000 toward 
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for costs 
incurred by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the 
project.

Section 3020. San Lorenzo River, California

    Modifies the project for flood control, San Lorenzo River, 
California, to direct the Secretary to provide the non-Federal 
interest a credit not more than $2,000,000 toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project for costs incurred by 
the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project.

Section 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California

    Modifies the project for flood damage reduction and 
recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California, to ensure that 
the project is carried out as authorized by Congress.

Section 3022. Walnut Creek Channel, California

    Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
Walnut Creek Channel, California, to direct the Secretary to 
provide credit for the cost of work performed by the non-
Federal interest, if an integral part of the project, and to 
authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest.

Section 3023. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California

    Modifies the project for improvement of the quality of the 
environment, Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, to 
direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work 
performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of 
the project.

Section 3024. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California

    Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California, to direct the 
Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work performed by 
the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project, 
and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest.

Section 3025. Brevard County, Florida

    Amends section 310 of the Water Resources Act of 1999, 
authorizing mitigation of damage to a project for shore 
protection, to authorize credit for costs incurred by the non-
Federal interest to respond to damages to Brevard County 
beaches that are the result of a Federal navigation project, as 
determined in a final report of a study of such damages.

Section 3026. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida

    Modifies the project for shore protection, Broward County 
and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, to direct the Secretary to 
provide credit for the removal of derelict structures carried 
out by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project.

Section 3027. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida

    Amends the project for shore protection, Gasparilla and 
Estero Islands, Florida, to authorize credit for the cost of 
work performed by the non-Federal interest that is integral to 
the project.

Section 3028. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida

    Amends the project for shore protection, Lido Key Beach, 
Sarasota, Florida, to increase the authorization ceiling to 
$12,926,000.

Section 3029. Manatee Harbor, Florida

    Amends the project for navigation, Manatee Harbor, Florida, 
to authorize extension of the south channel, to authorize in-
kind and other credit for costs incurred by the non-Federal 
interest for work that is integral to the project, and to 
increase the authorization ceiling to $61,500,000.

Section 3030. Tampa Harbor, Florida

    Modifies the project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, 
to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of work 
performed by the non-Federal interest, if an integral part of 
the project.

Section 3031. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida

    Modifies the project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend 
Channel, Florida, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for 
the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest, if an 
integral part of the project.

Section 3032. Miami Harbor, Florida

    Modifies the project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, 
Florida, to include as a project purpose mitigation for 
dredging outside the authorized channel.

Section 3033. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho

    Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Little 
Wood River, Idaho, to authorize in-kind contributions and the 
use of funds from other Federal programs to be used toward the 
non-Federal share if a permissible use of the funds under the 
other program, and to direct the Secretary to make a 
determination of the non-Federal interest's ability to pay the 
non-Federal costs.

Section 3034. Hennepin-Hopper Lakes, Illinois

    Modifies the project for flood control, Hennepin-Hopper 
Lakes, Illinois, to add environmental restoration as a project 
purpose; increase the authorized cost of the project for the 
improvement of the quality of the environment being carried out 
under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 to $7,500,000; and ensure that eligibility of the project 
for emergency repair is not affected.

Section 3035. Mississippi River and Big Muddy River, Illinois

    Modifies the project for flood control, Mississippi River 
and Big Muddy River, to authorize the Secretary to repair and 
rehabilitate the project at a total cost of $22,600,000.

Section 3036. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois

    Modifies the project for flood control, Spunky Bottoms, 
Illinois, to add environmental restoration as a project 
purpose; increase the authorized cost of the project for the 
improvement of the environment being carried out under section 
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to 
$7,500,000; and provide that these changes do not affect 
eligibility of the project for emergency repair.

Section 3037. Emiquon, Illinois

    Increases the authorization for the project for aquatic 
ecosystem restoration, being carried out under section 206 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, to $7,500,000. 
Ensures that nothing affects eligibility of the project for 
emergency repairs.

Section 3038. Little Calumet River, Indiana

    Modifies the project for flood control, Little Calumet 
River, Indiana, to authorize the Secretary to complete the 
project in accordance with the post authorization change report 
dated August 2000, at a total cost of $186,300,000.

Section 3039. White River, Indiana

    Modifies the project for flood control, Indianapolis, Fall 
Creek Section, on West Fork of White River, Indiana, to 
authorize the Secretary to carry out the Fall Creek Reach 
feature, at a total cost of $28,545,000, and to provide credit 
for work carried out by the non-Federal interest, if integral 
to the project.

Section 3040. Wolf Lake, Indiana

    Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
Wolf Lake, Indiana, to direct the Secretary to provide credit 
for the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest, if 
an integral part of the project.

Section 3041. Prestonsburg, Kentucky

    Directs the Secretary to provide 100-year level of flood 
protection for the city of Prestonsburg at the Prestonsburg, 
Kentucky, element of the project for flood control, Levisa and 
Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland River, West Virginia, 
Virginia, and Kentucky.

Section 3042. Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge 
        Parish Watershed

    Modifies the project for flood damage reduction and 
recreation, Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton 
Rouge Parish Watershed, to direct the Secretary to carry out 
the project with cost-sharing in accordance with section 103(a) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as in effect on 
October 11, 1996.

Section 3043. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana

    Modifies the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System project to 
authorize the Secretary to construct a Type A Regional Visitor 
Center.

Section 3044. Public Access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, 
        Louisiana

    Modifies the public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin 
Floodway System project to authorize the Secretary to purchase 
an additional 20,000 acres of land from willing sellers at a 
total cost of $4,000,000.

Section 3045. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to 
        Shreveport, Louisiana

    Modifies the project for mitigation of fish and wildlife 
losses, J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to 
Shreveport, Louisiana, to authorize the purchase and 
reforesting of lands, which have been cleared or converted to 
agricultural uses.

Section 3046. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana

    Modifies the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake 
Pontchartrain, Louisiana, to direct the Secretary to provide 
credit for costs incurred in relocating oyster beds in the 
Davis Pond project area, if integral to the project.

Section 3047. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana

    Authorizes the Secretary to carry out work on the St. Jude 
to City Price, Upper Reach A back levee, at a 70% Federal cost 
share, consistent with the rest of the project.

Section 3048. West Bank of the Mississippi River (east of Harvey 
        Canal), Louisiana

    Makes technical corrections to the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 modification of the project to prevent 
flood damage-hurricane damage reduction, West Bank of the 
Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana.

Section 3049. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine

    Increases the authorization of Federal funds for the 
project being carried out under section 111 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1968 to $10,000,000.

Section 3050. Union River, Maine

    Modifies the project for navigation, Union River, Maine, to 
redesignate a portion of the navigation channel as an anchorage 
area.

Section 3051. Cass River, Spaulding Township, Michigan

    Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Cass 
River, Spaulding Township, Michigan, to incorporate flood 
control works constructed by the non-Federalinterests and to 
direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-Federal share of 
the cost of the project for work the Secretary determines is integral 
to the project.

Section 3052. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan

    Modifies the project for emergency streambank and shoreline 
protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan, to 
include measures to enhance public access at the maximum 
Federal amount of $3,000,000.

Section 3053. Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, Michigan

    Modifies the project for emergency streambank and shoreline 
protection, Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, Michigan, to 
provide for completion in accordance with the approved plans 
and specifications for Grand Valley State University, Lake 
Michigan Center and directs the Secretary to provide credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
work the Secretary determines is integral to the project.

Section 3054. Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan

    Modifies the project for emergency streambank protection, 
Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan, to increase the maximum 
Federal expenditure to $2,000,000.

Section 3055. Ada, Minnesota

    Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice 
River, Minnesota, to authorize the Secretary to consider 
national ecosystem restoration benefits; to exclude 
consideration of an emergency levee as a pre-project condition 
and to allow the local sponsor to contribute a larger non-
Federal share, if necessary to implement the project.

Section 3056. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota

    Modifies the project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, McQuade 
Road, Minnesota, to authorize the Secretary to provide access 
and recreational facilities as described in the Detailed 
Project Report and Environmental Assessment dated August 1999, 
at a maximum Federal cost of $5,000,000.

Section 3057. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota

    Directs the Secretary to provide the Secretary credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
work the Secretary determines is integral to the project.

Section 3058. Granite Falls, Minnesota

    Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Granite 
Falls, Minnesota, to increase the maximum Federal expenditure 
to $8,000,000; authorize the non-Federal interest to contribute 
a larger share, if necessary to implement the project; and 
authorize credit toward the non-Federal share for work carried 
out by the non-Federal interest that the Secretary determines 
is integral to the project.

Section 3059. Minneapolis, Minnesota

    Modifies the project for environmental restoration and 
recreation for the Mississippi Whitewater Park by increasing 
the authorization to $25,000,000 and including Hennepin Island 
within the scope of the project.

Section 3060. Red Lake River, Minnesota

    Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Red Lake 
River, Minnesota, to increase the project authorization to 
$25,000,000.

Section 3061. Silver Bay, Minnesota

    Modifies the project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, 
to include operation and maintenance of the general navigation 
facilities as a Federal responsibility.

Section 3062. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota

    Modifies the project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, 
Minnesota, to include operation and maintenance of the general 
navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility.

Section 3063. Two Harbors, Minnesota

    Modifies the project for navigation, Two Harbors, 
Minnesota, to include construction of a dredged material 
disposal facility at a Federal cost not to exceed $5,000,000.

Section 3064. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi

    Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
Deer Island, Mississippi, to authorize the non-Federal share to 
be provided in the form of in-kind contributions.

Section 3065. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri

    Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Bois Brule 
Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, to increase the maximum 
Federal expenditure to $25,000,000.

Section 3066. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska

    Modifies the project for ecosystem restoration and flood 
damage reduction, Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, to 
direct the Secretary to provide credit or reimbursement toward 
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for work that 
isintegral to the project, and to direct the Secretary to 
accept advance funds from the non-Federal interest as needed to 
maintain the project schedule.

Section 3067. Alamogordo, New Mexico

    Directs the Secretary to carry out the flood control 
project by constructing a flood detention basin in lieu of the 
authorized channel improvements if the cost is not greater and 
the benefits are not less.

Section 3068. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York

    Modifies the project for shoreline protection, Orchard 
Beach, Bronx, New York, to increase the project authorization 
to $18,000,000.

Section 3069. Times Beach, Buffalo, New York

    Modifies the project for improvement of the quality of the 
environment, Times Beach, Buffalo, New York, to direct the 
Secretary to credit not more than $750,000 toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project for the cost of work 
by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project.

Section 3070. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey

    Modifies the project for navigation, Port of New York and 
New Jersey, New York and New Jersey, to authorize the Secretary 
to allow the non-Federal interest to construct a temporary 
dredged material disposal facility; to require the potential 
sites be submitted to Congress; to require 70% of dredged 
material generated by the project to be beneficially reused; 
and to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of 
the temporary storage facility, if integral to the project.

Section 3071. New York State Canal System

    Modifies section 553 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 to change the definition of the New York State Canal 
System.

Section 3072. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma

    Clarifies that payments made for water storage by the City 
of Acadia, Oklahoma, satisfy its obligations under its contract 
with the Corps of Engineers.

Section 3073. Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, 
        Oregon

    Modifies the project for environmental restoration, 
Willamette River Temperature Control, McKenzie Subbasin, 
Oregon, to direct the Secretary to compensate small businesses 
for losses attributable to unanticipated sedimentation 
resulting from project implementation.

Section 3074. French Creek, Union City Dam, Pennsylvania

    Modifies the project for flood control, French Creek, 
Pennsylvania, to include recreation as a project purpose.

Section 3075. Lackawanna River at Olyphant, Pennsylvania

    Modifies the project for flood control, Lackawanna River at 
Olyphant, Pennsylvania, to increase the project authorization 
to $20,000,000.

Section 3076. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania

    Modifies the project for flood control, Lackawanna River at 
Scranton, Pennsylvania, to increase the project authorization 
to $23,000,000.

Section 3077. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania

    Authorizes the Secretary to take such action as may be 
necessary to prevent shoreline erosion to protect recreational 
facilities located south of Pennsylvania Route 994 on the east 
shore of Raystown Lake.

Section 3078. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny 
        County, Pennsylvania

    Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania, to direct the Secretary to credit $400,000 for 
the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest 
determined by the Secretary to be an integral part of the 
project.

Section 3079. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

    Modifies the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, 
Pennsylvania, to include as a project element the project for 
flood control, Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Section 3080. South Central Pennsylvania

    Modifies the geographic scope of section 313 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992.

Section 3081. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania

    Modifies the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, 
Pennsylvania, to direct the Secretary to coordinate with non-
Federal interests to review options for increased public 
access.

Section 3082. Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee

    Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Little 
Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee, to direct the 
Secretary to allow the non-Federal interest to participate in 
the financing of evaluating and implementing the project for 
flood damage reduction in accordance with section 903(c) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986, if necessary to 
implement the project.

Section 3083. Cedar Bayou, Texas

    Modifies the project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, to 
authorize the Secretary to dredge the channel to a depth of 10 
feet by 100 feet along an 8-mile stretch if determined to be 
feasible. Also authorizes credit for planning and design work 
carried out by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the 
project.

Section 3084. Lake Kemp, Texas

    Directs the Secretary to forgo removing improvements from 
Lake Kemp before January 1, 2020, or the date ownership of the 
improvement is transferred, whichever is earlier.

Section 3085. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas

    Modifies the project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande 
Basin, Texas, to direct the Secretary to provide credit for the 
cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest determined 
by the Secretary to be an integral part of the project and, in 
calculating the non-Federal share, to make a determination on 
the non-Federal interest's ability to pay.

Section 3086. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas

    Modifies the project for ecosystem restoration and storm 
damage reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, 
Texas, to include recreation as a project purpose.

Section 3087. Proctor Lake, Texas

    Authorizes the Secretary to convert flowage easements to 
fee simple title for the flood control project at Proctor Lake, 
Texas, and purchase properties and pay relocation assistance 
benefits to qualified landowners.

Section 3088. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas

    Modifies the project for flood control, San Antonio 
Channel, San Antonio, Texas, to direct the Secretary to provide 
credit for the cost of work performed by the non-Federal 
interest determined by the Secretary to be an integral part of 
the project.

Section 3089. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia

    Amends section 358 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 to change the date of termination of a cooperation 
agreement for a navigation project.

Section 3090. Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia

    Modifies the project for flood control, Roanoke River Upper 
Basin, Virginia, to increase the project authorization to 
$64,300,000.

Section 3091. Blair and Sitcum Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington

    Modifies the project for navigation, Blair and Sitcum 
Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington, to direct the Secretary 
to review the locally prepared plan and determine whether the 
plan meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of 
Engineers, and to authorize the Secretary to carry out the 
plan, if properly designed and feasible, at a Federal cost not 
to exceed $4,240,000. Also directs the Secretary to provide 
credit or reimbursement for the cost of work performed by the 
non-Federal interest determined by the Secretary to be an 
integral part of the project.

Section 3092. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia

    Amends section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 to increase the authorization for a flood 
protection program for the Greenbrier River Basin, West 
Virginia, to $89,000,000.

Section 3093. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin

    Modifies the project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, 
Wisconsin, to direct the Secretary to deepen the upstream reach 
of the navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total 
cost of $300,000.

Section 3094. Mississippi Headwaters reservoirs

    Changes the levels of the Mississippi River Headwaters 
reservoirs and authorizes the Secretary to operate the 
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels 
established by the Water Resources Development Act of 1988, in 
accordance with water regulation control manuals that are 
transmitted to Congress.

Section 3095. Continuation of project authorizations

    Continues the authorization for an additional 7 years the 
following projects: (1) the project for navigation, Fall River 
Harbor, Massachusetts and (2) the project for flood control, 
Agana River, Guam.

Section 3096. Project reauthorizations

    Renews the authorizations for the projects for navigation 
in Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wisconsin and the 
south part of the outer harbor, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, 
that was deauthorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
Act of 1962.

Section 3097. Project deauthorizations

    Deauthorizes a portion of the following projects for 
navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, Norwalk Harbor, 
Connecticut, Chicago River and Harbor, Chicago, Illinois, 
Island End River, Massachusetts, City Waterway, Tacoma, 
Washington, and Anchorage Area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.
    Additional deauthorizations include:
    (1) Project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, Clear 
Lake Outlet Channel, California.
    (2) Project for flood control, Goleta and vicinity, 
California.
    (3) Project to modify the Central and South Florida 
Project, to improve water supply to the Everglades National 
Park, Florida.
    (4) Project for flood control, Central and Southern Florida 
Project, Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.
    (5) Project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield 
Bayou, Indiana.
    (6) Project for flood damage reduction, Lake George, 
Hobart, Indiana.
    (7) Project for flood damage reduction, Green Bay Levee and 
Drainage District No. 2, Iowa.
    (8) Project for flood damage reduction, Hazard, Kentucky.
    (9) Project for uncompleted recreation, Taylorsville Lake, 
Kentucky.
    (10) Project for flood control, West Kentucky Tributaries, 
Kentucky.
    (11) Project for flood damage reduction, Bayou Cocodrie and 
Tributaries, Louisiana.
    (12) Project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and South-
Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana.
    (13) Project for the Red River Waterway, Shreveport, 
Louisiana to Daingerfield Texas.
    (14) Project for flood damage reduction, Brockton, 
Massachusetts.
    (15) Project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan.
    (16) Project for navigation, Greenville Harbor, 
Mississippi.
    (17) Project for hydropower, Libby Dam, Montana.
    (18) Project for flood damage reduction, Platte River Flood 
and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska.
    (19) Project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New 
York.
    (20) Project for flood damage reduction, Sugar Creek Basin, 
North Carolina and South Carolina.
    (21) Project for flood control and recreation, Fairfield, 
Ohio.
    (22) Project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay, Lake 
Erie, Ohio.
    (23) Project for flood control and water supply, Parker 
Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma.
    (24) Project for Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, 
Hammond, Oregon.
    (25) Project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-
Davisville, Rhode Island.
    (26) Project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork Creek, 
Tennessee and Kentucky.
    (27) Project for flood damage reduction, Arroyo Colorado, 
Texas.
    (28) Project for flood damage reduction, Cypress Creek-
Structural, Texas.
    (29) Project for flood damage reduction, East Fork Channel 
Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River, 
Texas.
    (30) Project for flood damage reduction, Falfurrias, Texas.
    (31) Project for bank erosion, Kanawha River, Charleston, 
West Virginia.
    Also amends section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 to require the Secretary to submit a 
list of projects for deauthorization yearly, instead of 
biennially and to make projects eligible for the list if they 
received no funding during the previous five years, instead of 
seven years.

Section 3098. Land conveyances

    Conveys Federal property at, Milford, Kansas and Boardman, 
Oregon.

Section 3099. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use 
        restrictions

    Extinguishes reversionary interests and use restrictions in 
deeds conveying two properties in Nez Perce County, Idaho and 
at Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.

Section 3100. Land exchange, disposal and acquisition of lands, 
        Allatoona Lake, Georgia

    Authorizes the Secretary to exchange lands for wildlife 
management and protection of water quality and the overall 
environment of Allatoona Lake, Georgia.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Section 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program

    Amends section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 to authorize payment of the non-Federal share in the 
form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind 
contributions.

Section 4002. St. George Harbor, Alaska

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of providing navigation improvements at St. George, 
Alaska.

Section 4003. Susitna River, Alaska

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of constructing a hydropower project on the Susitna 
River, Alaska.

Section 4004. Searcy County, Arkansas

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of using Greers Ferry Lake as a source of water 
supply.

Section 4005. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway, Illinois, 
        Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin

    Directs the Secretary to transmit to Congress no later than 
July 1, 2004, a report on the results of the Upper Mississippi 
River and Illinois Waterways Restructured System Navigation 
Feasibility Study. The Committee believes that this project is 
vitally important to the economies of farming communities in 
the Midwest. Accordingly, the Committee encourages the 
Secretary to expedite completion of this study. In keeping with 
existing authorizations, the Committee urges the Secretary to 
proceed with modernized lock and other navigation improvements 
while simultaneously evaluating an enhanced environmental 
restoration program for the basin. The Committee appreciates 
the collaborative effort made to complete the Interim Report 
and endorses this approach among Federal agencies, State 
agencies and private stakeholder groups as a means of forging a 
basin-wide approach to managing this resource for multiple 
uses.

Section 4006. Hamilton, California

    Directs the Secretary to continue planning, 
preconstruction, engineering, and design efforts on the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study-
Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration 
Initial Project and modifies the study to include an area 2 
miles north and 4 miles south of State Highway 32.

Section 4007. Oceanside, California

    Amends section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000 to provide the Secretary with an additional 12 months 
to complete a study of plans to mitigate damages to beaches 
resulting from military measures.

Section 4008. Sacramento River, California

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of and alternatives for measures to protect water 
diversion facilities and fish protective screen facilities on 
the Sacramento River, California.

Section 4009. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 
        California

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged material from the 
San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 
California, including a review of using Sherman Island as a re-
handling site.

Section 4010. Tybee Island, Georgia

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of including the northern end of Tybee Island 
extending from the north terminal groin to the mouth of 
Lazaretto Creek as part of the project for beach erosion 
control, Tybee Island, Georgia.

Section 4011. Calumet Harbor, Illinois

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at Calumet 
Harbor, Illinois.

Section 4012. Paducah, Kentucky

    Authorizes the Secretary to complete the rehabilitation 
evaluation report for the project for flood damage reduction, 
Paducah, Kentucky, and to proceed to preconstruction 
engineering and design, if feasible.

Section 4013. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply at 
Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.

Section 4014. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for riverfront 
development, including enhanced public access, recreation, and 
environmental restoration, on the Mississippi River in West 
Feliciana Parish.

Section 4015. City of Mackinac Island, Michigan

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at the 
city of Mackinac Island, Michigan.

Section 4016. Chicago, Illinois

    Amends section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 to clarify that some of the specified shoreline 
protection study sites are on Lake Michigan.

Section 4017. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem 
restoration, at the South Fork of the South Branch of the 
Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.

Section 4018. Northeast Mississippi

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of modifying the project for navigation on the 
Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi, to 
provide water supply to northeast Mississippi.

Section 4019. Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico

    Directs the Corps to conduct a feasibility study of water 
resources projects for the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico, 
authorized under section 203 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000.

Section 4020. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey

    Directs the Secretary, in carrying out a study for 
environmental restoration, Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and 
New Jersey, to establish and utilize the watershed restoration 
teams composed of certain estuary restoration experts.

Section 4021. Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma

    Directs the Secretary to develop a water and related land 
resource conservation and management plan for the Sac and Fox 
Nation, authorized under section 203 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000.

Section 4022. Sutherlin, Oregon

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of water resources 
along Sutherlin Creek in the vicinity of Sutherlin, Oregon, to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project to restore 
and enhance aquatic resources using structural and 
bioengineering techniques.

Section 4023. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study under section 216 
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 to investigate hazardous 
conditions at a project for navigation, Tillamook Bay and Bar, 
Oregon.

Section 4024. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, 
        Oregon

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish 
passage improvements on rivers in Oregon, and authorizes up to 
$5,000,000 for pilot projects.

Section 4025. Northeastern Pennsylvania aquatic ecosystem restoration 
        and protection

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
protection in the counties of Lackawanna, Lycoming, 
Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, Bradford, 
Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour, Pennsylvania, 
relating to abandoned mine drainage abatement and 
reestablishment of stream and river channels.

Section 4026. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina.

Section 4027. Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas

    Authorizes the Secretary, in conducting the study for shore 
protection and related improvements between Sabine Pass and the 
entrance to Galveston Bay, to include any benefits related to 
the use of State Highway 87 as an emergency evacuation route.

Section 4028. Grand County and Moab, Utah

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
Grand County and the city of Moab, Utah.

Section 4029. Chehalis River Basin, Washington

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study for the Chehalis 
River basin, including a study of the use of the basin's water 
resources, to assist users in developing a fair and equitable 
distribution of such resources.

Section 4030. Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington

    Authorizes the Secretary to accept from the non-Federal 
interest funds provided under another Federal program to pay 
all or part of the non-Federal share of the cost of a 
feasibility study for flood control in the vicinity of Sprague, 
Lincoln County, Washington, if it is a permissible use of funds 
under the other Federal program.

Section 4031. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
protection projects in the watersheds of the Monongahela River 
basin within the counties of Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, 
Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, 
Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston,Tucker, Mineral, Grant, 
Gilmer, Brooke, and Ritchie, West Virginia, relating to abandoned mine 
drainage abatement.

Section 4032. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
reduction and environmental restoration, Menomonee River and 
Underwood Creek, Wisconsin.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels

    Authorizes the Secretary to maintain the following 
navigation channels, if feasible: (1) Pix Bayou Navigation 
Channel, Chambers County, Texas; (2) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, 
Pidgeon Industrial Park, Memphis Harbor, Tennessee; and (3) 
Racine Harbor, Wisconsin. Also directs the Secretary to remove 
sunken vessels and debris between miles 35 and 43 of the 
Channel to Orange, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas, for the 
purpose of improving navigation safety and reducing the risk to 
the public.

Section 5002. Watershed management

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical planning and 
design assistance to a non-Federal interest for carrying out 
watershed management, restoration and development projects in 
the following watersheds:
    (1) Spring Branch, Huntsville, Alabama.
    (2) Tuolumne County, California.
    (3) Cucamonga Basin, Upland, California.
    (4) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
    (5) Portions of the watersheds of Concord, Charles, 
Blackstone, Neponset, Taunton, Nashua, Shawsheen, and Merrimack 
Rivers, Massachusetts.
    (6) Jackson Brook, New Jersey.
    (7) Portions of the watersheds of Beaver, Upper Ohio, 
Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower 
Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers in 
Beaver, Butler, Lawrence and Mercer Counties, Pennsylvania.
    (8) Southampton Creek, Southampton, Pennsylvania.
    (9) Unami Creek, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
    (10) Amite River Basin, Louisiana.
    (11) Iberville Parish, East Atchafalaya River basin, 
Louisiana.
    (12) Genesee River watershed, New York.
    (13) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York.
    (14) Buffalo River watershed, New York.
    (15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County, New 
York.
    (16) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York.
    (17) Oswego River basin, New York.
    (18) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
    (19) Fountain Creek and Tributaries, Colorado.

Section 5003. Dam safety

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to enhance 
dam safety at the following locations:
    (1) Mountain Park Dam, Mountain Park, Georgia.
    (2) Barber Dam, Ada County, Idaho.
    (3) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
    (4) Lost Valley Dam, Adams County, Idaho.
    (5) Salmon Falls Dam, Twins Falls County, Idaho.
    (6) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
    (7) Lake Carl Blackwell Dam, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
    (8) Dams in Mountain Lakes Park, Princeton Township, New 
Jersey.
    (9) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
    (10) Candor Dam, Candor, New York.
    This section also states the sense of Congress that the 
Corps should remedy the deterioration of the Fern Ridge Dam, 
Oregon.

Section 5004. Structural integrity evaluations

    Authorizes the Secretary to evaluate the structural 
integrity and effectiveness of a project for flood damage 
reduction and to prevent project failure at the following 
locations:
    (1) Arkansas River Levees, Arkansas.
    (2) Marianna Borough, Pennsylvania.
    (3) Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee.

Section 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas

    Amends the flood mitigation and riverine restoration 
program in section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 to add the following to the list of priority areas for 
review by the Secretary: La Crosse County, Wisconsin; Crawford 
County, Wisconsin; Buffalo County, Wisconsin; Calhoun County, 
Illinois; Saint Charles County, Missouri; Saint Louis County, 
Missouri; Dubuque County, Iowa; Scott County, Iowa; Rock Island 
County, Illinois; Ascension Parish, Louisiana; East Baton Rouge 
Parish, Louisiana; Iberville Parish, Louisiana; and Livingston 
Parish, Louisiana.

Section 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects

    Amends section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 to increase the authorization ceiling for specific 
projects to allow ongoing work to continue.

Section 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for 
        certain projects

    Directs the Secretary to expedite completion of reports and 
construction for the following projects being carried out under 
existing authorities:
    (1) Welch Point, Elk River, Cecil County, Maryland.
    (2) West View Shores, Cecil County, Maryland.
    (3) Sylvan Beach, Breakwater, Verona, Oneida County, New 
York.
    (4) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York.
    (5) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York.
    (6) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York.
    (7) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York.
    (8) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New 
York.
    (9) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York.
    (10) Chenango Lake, Chenago County, New York.
    (11) Lucas Berg Pit, Worth, Illinois.

Section 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects

    Directs the Secretary to expedite completion of the reports 
and, if it is determined that a project is justified, proceed 
to project pre-construction, engineering, and design for the 
following:
    (1) Project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
restoration, Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, Hamilton, 
California.
    (2) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
    (3) Project for shoreline protection, Detroit River 
Greenway Corridor, Detroit, Michigan.
    (4) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, 
Florida.
    Also directs the Secretary to expedite completion of the 
study regarding the need for additional compensation for the 
city of Chesapeake, Maryland.

Section 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to a 
coordinated effort by Federal, State, and local agencies, non-
Federal and nonprofit entities, regional researchers, and other 
interested parties to assess the water resources and water 
resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the 
southeastern United States.

Section 5010. Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program

    Amends the Upper Mississippi River Environmental Management 
Program to allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-
Federal share of the project in the form of services, 
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.

Section 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement 
        Project

    Amends the Missouri and Middle Mississippi River 
Enhancement Project to extend the authorization period.

Section 5012. Membership of Missouri River Trust

    Amends the membership of the Missouri River Trust to 
include rural water systems.

Section 5013. Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration

    Amends the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration 
program to allow the non-Federal share to be provided in the 
form of in-kind contributions.

Section 5014. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins

    Makes the Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, an ex 
officio member of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact and the 
Delaware River Basin Compact and authorizes the Secretary to 
provide funding to interstate compacts, and authorizes the 
Secretary to enter into an agreement with the Delaware River 
Basin Commission to provide water from a Corps dam during a 
drought warning or drought emergency, at a cost to the 
Commission not to exceed the incremental operating costs 
associated with providing the storage.

Section 5015. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection 
        Program

    Amends section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 to increase authorization to $30,000,000.

Section 5016. Montgomery, Alabama

    Directs the Secretary to review the navigation and 
ecosystem restoration components of the Montgomery Riverfront 
and Downtown Master Plan, and authorizes the Secretary to 
expend up to $5,000,000 to carry out these components, if 
feasible.

Section 5017. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama

    Directs the Secretary to design and construct the flood 
protection project at Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama, and 
allow the non-Federal interest to increase its cost-share, if 
necessary to implement the project.

Section 5018. Alaska

    Amends section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 to increase the authorization level, allow non-profits 
to serve as non-Federal interests with the consent of the local 
government, and allow 10% of appropriated funds to be used for 
administrative expenses.

Section 5019. Akutan Small Boat Harbor, Alaska

    Directs the Secretary to expedite the study for the Akutan 
Small Boat Harbor, Alaska, and upon completion, design and 
construct the project if feasible.

Section 5020. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska

    Directs the Secretary to assume responsibility for the 
long-term maintenance and repair of the Lowell Creek Tunnel and 
also authorizes a study to determine whether alternative 
methods of flood diversion in Lowell Canyon are feasible.

Section 5021. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska

    The Committee has provided an authorization of $2 million 
to fund the removal of rubble, sediment, and debris from 
harbors at Kodiak, Alaska. The provision provides the Corps of 
Engineers with the authorization to spend the $1,500,000 
already appropriated in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 to dredge 
the St. Paul Harbor entrance channel and clear the St. Herman's 
Harbor entrance channel of rubble from the breakwater. The 
Committee is aware that the Corps is considering reprogramming 
the funds appropriated for this project due to the lack of 
authorization. The Committee directs the Corps to refrain from 
reprogramming funds appropriated for this action.

Section 5022. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas

    Authorizes the Secretary to perform operation, maintenance 
and rehabilitation of authorized and completed levees on the 
White River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. Requires 
the Secretary to seek reimbursement from the Secretary of the 
Interior for the share of the cost of performing such 
maintenance and repair allocated to benefits to a Federal 
wildlife refuge.

Section 5023. Loomis Landing, Arkansas

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if 
shore damage in the vicinity of Loomis Landing, Arkansas is the 
result of a Federal navigation project, and to mitigate any 
such damage that has occurred.

Section 5024. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project, 
        Arkansas and Oklahoma

    Modifies the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation 
project to authorize a channel depth of 12 feet in the States 
of Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Section 5025. St. Francis River basin, Arkansas and Missouri

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if 
increased siltation and streambank erosion are the results of a 
Federal flood control project, and to mitigate such siltation 
and erosion in the St. Francis River basin.

Section 5026. Cambria, California

    Amends section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary to provide 
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the work 
performed by the non-Federal interest, not to exceed 
$3,000,000, if an integral part of the project.

Section 5027. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; 
        Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California

    Amends sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 to ensure that all planning, study, 
design and construction of the flood damage reduction projects 
at Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California, and 
Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California are carried out by the 
district engineer in San Francisco, California.

Section 5028. East San Joaquin County, California

    Amends section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary to provide 
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the work 
performed by the non-Federal interest, if determined by the 
Secretary to be an integral part of the project and to allow 
the non-Federal share to be provided in the form of in-kind 
contributions.

Section 5029. Sacramento Area, California

    Amends section 219(f)(23) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization.

Section 5030. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California

    Authorizes the Secretary to transfer the title of the 
Bascule Bridge near the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, 
California, project to the city of West Sacramento, California, 
and authorizes $5,000,000 for replacement of the bridge.

Section 5031. San Francisco, California

    Authorizes the Secretary to remove a wharf and associated 
pilings and dredged material at Pier 70 in San Francisco, at a 
cost not to exceed $1,600,000, and to carry out repairs at 
Piers 94-96 in San Francisco, at a cost not to exceed 
$5,000,000. Also authorizes the Secretary to establish an 
office at the office of the district engineer, San Francisco, 
to coordinate permits and environmental reviews for the city's 
Capital Improvement Project, if the costs are reimbursed by the 
non-Federal interest.

Section 5032. San Francisco, California, waterfront area

    Declares a portion of the San Francisco, California, 
waterfront to be nonnavigable.

Section 5033. Stockton, California

    Directs the Secretary to evaluate the feasibility of the 
Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions on the 
Upper Calaveras River element of the project for flood control, 
Stockton Metropolitan Area, California, to determine the 
eligibility of such elements for reimbursement. Directs the 
Secretary to provide reimbursement if such elements of the 
project are technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and 
economically justified.

Section 5034. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, Connecticut

    Redesignates a breakwater in New Haven Harbor, Connecticut 
as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater.''

Section 5035. Everglades Restoration, Florida

    Amends the authorization of the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Plan to incorporate certain pre-existing projects 
into the Plan, to provide an authorization ceiling for outreach 
and assistance, and to increase the authorization ceiling for 
certain critical restoration projects.

Section 5036. Florida Keys water quality improvements

    Authorizes the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
share, the cost of project work carried out prior to the 
execution of the partnership agreement.

Section 5037. Lake Worth, Florida

    Authorizes the Secretary to carry out necessary repairs for 
the Lake Worth bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, 
Florida.

Section 5038. Lake Lanier, Georgia

    Authorizes the Secretary to assist with the planning, 
design and construction of the Lake Lanier Olympic Center, 
Georgia, at a total cost of $5,300,000.

Section 5039. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho

    Authorizes the Secretary to carry out the Riley Creek 
Recreation Area Master Plan for the Corps of Engineers project 
at Albeni Falls Dam, Bonner County, Idaho.

Section 5040. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects

    Authorizes $15,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in 
the reconstruction of certain levees on the Mississippi River 
if the Secretary determines that reconstruction is not required 
due to improper operation and maintenance.

Section 5041. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration

    Authorizes the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan 
for the purpose of restoring the Kaskaskia River basin.

Section 5042. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois

    Directs the Secretary to carry out a small project for 
flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1948 at Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, 
Illinois, if feasible, notwithstanding any policies relating to 
minimum flows.

Section 5043. Peoria riverfront development, Peoria, Illinois

    Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a project of 
riverfront development in Peoria, Illinois at a cost of 
$16,000,000.

Section 5044. Illinois River Basin restoration

    Extends the authorization for restoration of the Illinois 
River Basin until 2010. This section also modifies the existing 
authority that allows the non-Federal share to be met through 
in-kind services by specifying that such services must have 
taken place within five years of the project or activity begin 
carried out. In developing and implementing the computerized 
inventory and analysis system for the project, the Secretary is 
directed to consider the Illinois River Decision Support 
System.

Section 5045. Calumet Region, Indiana

    Amends section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization ceiling 
and change the geographic scope of the authorization.

Section 5046. Rathbun Lake, Iowa

    Directs the Secretary to provide water supply at to a 
regional water association with costs allocated pursuant to 
existing law, and to provide credit towards these costs for 
certain in-kind contributions.

Section 5047. Cumberland River Basin, Kentucky

    Directs the Secretary to continue to charge water storage 
fees that were in effect on October 1, 2002, at the reservoirs 
in the Cumberland River Basin, Kentucky.

Section 5048. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of flood damage 
along Mayfield Creek and tributaries between Wickliffe and 
Mayfield, Kentucky, to determine if the damage is the result of 
a Federal navigation project and to mitigate any such damage.

Section 5049. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky

    Directs the Secretary to rebuild a structure impeding high 
water flows on the North Fork of the Kentucky River in 
Breathitt County, Kentucky, to reduce flood damages at a cost 
of $1,800,000.

Section 5050. Southern and Eastern Kentucky

    Authorizes the Secretary to use 10% of amounts appropriated 
to administer projects under this section at 100% Federal 
expense.

Section 5051. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem protection and restoration

    Directs the Corps to develop a comprehensive plan for 
protecting, preserving and restoring the Coastal Louisiana 
Ecosystem.

Section 5052. Baton Rouge, Louisiana

    Amends section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources and 
Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization level.

Section 5053. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana

    Amends section 517 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 to make a technical correction to the description of a 
project.

Section 5054. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Maryland, Virginia, 
        Pennsylvania, and Delaware

    Authorizes the Secretary to undertake pilot projects during 
the feasibility study on shoreline erosion and related sediment 
management issues to protect land and water resources of the 
Chesapeake Bay.

Section 5055. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Maryland

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide technical assistance to 
the Secretary of Agriculture in carrying out projects under the 
Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program, and to coordinate 
and integrate activities of the Secretary of the Army with 
activities of the Secretary of Agriculture in such conservation 
corridor.

Section 5056. Detroit River, Michigan

    Amends shoreline protection project authorization in 
section 568(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999 to increase the authorization level.

Section 5057. Oakland County, Michigan

    Amends section 219(f)(29) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to expand the scope of authority.

Section 5058. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan

    Authorizes the Secretary to carry out feasible aquatic 
ecosystem restoration projects identified in the comprehensive 
management plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, 
Michigan, at a Federal cost not to exceed $5,000,000.

Section 5059. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota

    Amends section 219(f)(61) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to specify the entity to receive 
assistance, and to authorize the Secretary to use the 
contracting procedures developed under section 569 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999.

Section 5060. Northeastern Minnesota

    Amends section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 to change the geographic scope of the authorization, to 
authorize non-profit entities to serve as non-Federal sponsors, 
and to allow 10% of amounts appropriated to be used for 
administrative expenses. Directs the Secretary to reimburse the 
non-Federal sponsor of the environmental infrastructure project 
in Biwabik, Minnesota, for project costs that exceed the non-
Federal share of project costs.

Section 5061. Desoto County, Mississippi

    Amends section 219(f)(30) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization.

Section 5062. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi

    Authorizes the Secretary to accept any portion of the non-
Federal share of the cost of ecosystem restoration projects 
within Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi, in 
the form of in-kind contributions.

Section 5063. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois

    Authorizes the Secretary to conduct environmental 
restoration at the project for the Mississippi River 
(Regulating Works), between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers, 
Missouri and Illinois.

Section 5064. St. Louis, Missouri

    Amends section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization.

Section 5065. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey

    Amends ecosystem management project program authorized 
under section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 to change the non-Federal sponsor, expand the scope of the 
authorization, allow credit for in-kind services, and increase 
the authorization of appropriations.

Section 5066. Atlantic Coast of New York

    Amends monitoring program authorized under section 404(a) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to clarify the 
scope of the program, require annual reports, and extend the 
authorization.

Section 5067. College Point, New York City, New York

    Authorizes the Secretary to give priority to environmental 
dredging in College Point, Queens, New York.

Section 5068. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York

    Directs the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of 
work performed by the non-Federal interest for ecosystem 
restoration for Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New 
York, if an integral part of the project.

Section 5069. Little Neck Bay, Village of Kings Point, New York

    Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a navigation project 
at Little Neck Bay, Village of Kings Point, New York, to allow 
safe operation of the vessel T/V Kings Pointer and directs the 
Secretary to seek reimbursement from the United States Merchant 
Marine Academy.

Section 5070. Onondaga Lake, New York

    Increases the authorization for the environmental 
restoration program at Onondaga Lake, New York, to $30,000,000 
and allows nonprofit entities to be non-Federal sponsors.

Section 5071. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina

    Authorizes the Secretary to expedite, negotiate and execute 
a permanent contract for water supply storage at John H. Kerr 
Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.

Section 5072. Stanly County, North Carolina

    Amends section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to expand the scope of the authority.

Section 5073. Central Riverfront Park, Cincinnati, Ohio

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of a project at Central Riverfront, 
Cincinnati, Ohio, for design and construction work and lands 
provided by the non-Federal interest, if the project is 
subsequently authorized and if the work is integral to the 
project.

Section 5074. Piedmont Lake Dam, Ohio

    Directs the Secretary to upgrade the road on Piedmont Lake 
Dam, Ohio, to public use standards when reconstructing the road 
as part of a project for dam safety. Provides that any increase 
in cost, between the cost of a road the Secretary would 
otherwise build as part of the project, and the cost of a road 
that meets public use standards, shall be a local cost.

Section 5075. Ohio

    Amends section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act 
to increase the authorization.

Section 5076. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma

    Provides that the remaining obligation of the Waurika 
Project Master Conservancy District agreed to on June 3, 1986, 
payable to the U.S. Government, maynot be adjusted, altered, or 
changed without a specific, separate, and written agreement between the 
District and the United States Government.

Section 5077. Columbia River, Oregon

    Amends section 401(b)(3) of Public Law 100-581 to include 
Celilo Village, Oregon.

Section 5078. Eugene, Oregon

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the feasibility 
of restoring the millrace in Eugene, Oregon and, if feasible, 
carry out the restoration. Also directs the Secretary to 
include non-economic benefits when determining feasibility.

Section 5079. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and 
        Washington

    Directs the Secretary to pay $2,500,000 for research and 
curation support provided to the Federal Government as a result 
of the multi-purpose project and the several navigation and 
flood damage reduction projects constructed on the Columbia 
River and Lower Willamette River, Oregon and Washington.

Section 5080. Lowell, Oregon

    Authorizes the Secretary to convey land in Lowell, Oregon.

Section 5081. Hagerman's Run, Williamsport, Pennsylvania

    Authorizes the Secretary to rehabilitate pumps at a project 
for flood damage reduction, Hagerman's Run, Williamsport, 
Pennsylvania, at a total cost of $225,000.

Section 5082. Northeast Pennsylvania

    Amends section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to modify the geographic scope of the 
authorization.

Section 5083. Susquehannock Campground access road, Raystown Lake, 
        Pennsylvania

    Authorizes the Secretary to provide up to $500,000 for 
improvements to the Susquehannock Campground access road at the 
Corps of Engineers project at Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.

Section 5084. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York

    Amends the authorization for flood damage reduction and 
environmental restoration under section 567 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization 
and to authorize pilot projects not to exceed $500,000. The 
amendment also substitutes the word ``cooperative'' for the 
word ``cooperation'' in describing the agreements under which 
the Corps is able to obtain the assistance of non-Federal 
interests in carrying out the project. This will clarify that 
the Corps may work directly with public and non-profit 
organizations with expertise in wetland and stream restoration, 
including organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and local soil 
and water conservation districts. Finally, the amendment 
provides for credit against the non-Federal share of work done 
by local sponsors where such work is integral to the project 
and acceptance of in-kind services and materials provided by 
non-Federal interests.

Section 5085. Washington, Greene, Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties, 
        Pennsylvania

    Amends section 219(f)(70) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization ceiling.

Section 5086. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico

    Directs the Secretary to review a report prepared by the 
non-Federal interest concerning flood protection and 
environmental restoration for Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, 
Puerto Rico, and, if feasible, authorizes the Secretary to 
carry out the project at a total cost of $130,000,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $85,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $45,000,000.

Section 5087. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina

    Authorizes the Secretary to accept and use $23,000,000 from 
the United States Navy to assist Beaufort and Jasper Counties, 
South Carolina, with its plan to consolidate civilian and 
military wastewater facilities.

Section 5088. Cooper River, South Carolina

    Authorizes $5,000,000 for technical and financial 
assistance for the removal of the Grace and Pearman Bridges 
over the Cooper River, South Carolina.

Section 5089. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina

    Amends section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization ceiling.

Section 5090. Upper Big Sioux River, Watertown, South Dakota

    Directs the Secretary to review the project for flood 
damage reduction, Upper Big Sioux River Basin, Watertown, South 
Dakota, and construct the project, if feasible. Also authorizes 
credit toward planning and design work performed by the non-
Federal sponsor.

Section 5091. Fritz Landing, Tennessee

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the Fritz 
Landing Agricultural Spur Levee, Tennessee, to determine the 
extent of levee modifications that would be required to bring 
the levee and associated drainage structures up to Federal 
standards, to design and construct such modifications, and to 
incorporate the levees into the project for flood control, 
Mississippi River and Tributaries.

Section 5092. Memphis, Tennessee

    Authorizes the Secretary to review the aquatic ecosystem 
restoration component of the Memphis Riverfront Development 
Master Plan prepared by the non-Federal interest and, if the 
Secretary determines that the component meets the evaluation 
and design standards of the Corps of Engineers, authorizes the 
Secretary to carry out that component at a total Federal cost 
not to exceed $5,000,000.

Section 5093. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee

    Directs the Secretary to construct the project for flood 
damage reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the Town Creek, 
Lenoir City, Loudon City, Tennessee, in accordance with the 
feasibility report of the Nashville district engineer dated 
November 2000, at a total cost not to exceed $1,250,000, 
notwithstanding any policies relating to minimum flows.

Section 5094. Tennessee River Partnership

    Authorizes the Secretary to enter into a partnership with a 
nonprofit entity to remove debris from the Tennessee River in 
the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee.

Section 5095. Clear Creek and Tributaries, Harris and Galveston 
        Counties, Texas

    Directs the Secretary to expedite the report on the 
feasibility of the project for flood damage reduction, 
ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Clear Creek and 
tributaries, Harris and Galveston Counties, Texas.

Section 5096. Harris County, Texas

    Section 575(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 to ensure that measures funded in part by the hazard 
mitigation grant program of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency are considered measures taken by the non-Federal 
interest, for the purpose of evaluating the pre-project 
conditions.

Section 5097. Harris Gully, Harris County, Texas

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
reduction to protect the Texas Medical Center, Houston, Texas, 
using studies and plans developed by the non-Federal sponsor, 
to the maximum extent practicable. Also authorizes the 
Secretary to carry out critical flood damage reduction 
projects, at a Federal cost not to exceed $7,000,000, 
authorizes credit for work performed by the non-Federal 
interest if integral to the project, and authorizes a non-
profit entity to serve as the non-Federal interest.

Section 5098. Onion Creek, Texas

    Directs the Secretary to include costs and benefits 
associated with relocations occurring during the 2-year period 
of time before the feasibility study as project costs and 
benefits, and to provide credit toward the non-Federal share 
for the cost of relocations carried out before the date of the 
cooperation agreement if integral to the project.

Section 5099. Pelican Island, Texas

    Amends section 108(a) of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Act, 1994, to authorize the Secretary to provide 
a letter of intent to the city of Galveston, Texas, to convey 
property currently being used for management of dredged 
material, under certain terms and conditions.

Section 5100. Front Royal, Virginia

    Amends section 591 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 to increase the authorization for Front Royal, 
Virginia.

Section 5101. Richmond National Battlefield Park, Richmond, Virginia

    Authorizes the Secretary to carry out bluff stabilization 
measures on the James River to protect a Civil War battlefield 
known as Drewry's Bluff. Directs the Secretary to seek 
reimbursement from the Secretary of the Interior.

Section 5102. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine if 
increased siltation is the result of a Federal navigation 
project and, if so, to mitigate the siltation in the Baker Bay 
and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.

Section 5103. Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington

    Directs the Secretary to provide credit for the cost of 
work performed by the non-Federal interest for flood damage 
reduction if determined by the Secretary to be an integral part 
of the project.

Section 5104. Hamilton Island Campground, Washington

    Authorizes the Secretary to plan, design and construct a 
campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island in 
Skamania County, Washington.

Section 5105. Puget Island, Washington

    Directs the Secretary to place dredged and other suitable 
material along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of 
Puget Island, at a Federal cost not to exceed $1,000,000.

Section 5106. Bluestone, West Virginia

    Amends section 547 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000 to allow the hydroelectric power feature of the 
Bluestone, West Virginia, project to be privately constructed 
and owned.

Section 5107. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control

    Amends section 581 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 to expand the scope of the authority and to increase 
the authorization ceiling.

Section 5108. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia

    Directs the Secretary to conduct a watershed and river 
basin assessment for the Lower Kanawha River Basin, in certain 
counties in West Virginia.

Section 5109. Central West Virginia

    Amends section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 to modify the geographic scope of the authorization, to 
allow nonprofit entities to serve as non-Federal interests, and 
to allow 10% of appropriated amounts to be used for 
administrative expenses.

Section 5110. Southern West Virginia

    Amends section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 to modify the geographic scope of the authorization, to 
allow nonprofit entities to serve as non-Federal interests, and 
to allow 10% of appropriated amounts to be used for 
administrative expenses.

Section 5111. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
        interests

    Adds the following projects to the list of projects that 
may be constructed by non-Federal interests under Section 
211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996: (1) 
Buffalo Bayou, Texas; Halls Bayou, Texas; and (2) St. Paul 
Downtown Airport (Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.

Section 5112. Bridge authorization

    Authorizes $20,000,000 for construction of the permanent 
bridge referred to in Section 1001(1).

Section 5113. Additional assistance for critical projects

    Authorizes the Secretary to design and construct 
environmental infrastructure projects in the following 
locations:
    (1) Plaquemine, Louisiana.
    (2) Charleston, South Carolina.
    (3) Cross, South Carolina.
    (4) Surfside, South Carolina.
    (5) North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
    (6) Tia Juana Valley, California.
    (7) Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
    (8) Richmond County, North Carolina.
    (9) Union County, North Carolina.
    (10) Washington, District of Columbia.
    (11) South Los Angeles County.
    (12) Indianapolis, Indiana.
    (13) Henderson, Nevada.
    (14) Sennet, New York.
    (15) Ledyard and Montville, Connecticut.
    (16) Awendaw, South Carolina.
    (17) St. Clair County, Alabama.
    (18) East Bay, San Francisco and Santa Clara Areas, 
California.
    (19) Athens, Tennessee.
    (20) Warwick, New York.
    (21) Kiryas Joel, New York.
    (22) Whittier, California.
    (23) Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.
    (24) Duchesne, Iron, and Uintah Counties, Utah.
    (25) Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, and Pearl River Counties, 
Mississippi.

Section 5114. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet

    Authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study and issue a 
report to Congress on the appropriate use of the Federal hopper 
dredge fleet. The study shall determine the appropriate use of 
the fleet, analyze costs and benefits of existing and proposed 
restrictions, and assess the data and procedure used by the 
Secretary to prepare cost estimates for work performed by the 
Federal hopper dredge fleet.

                           Additional Matters

    The water levels of the Great Lakes are cyclical, rising 
and falling as temperature and precipitation patterns naturally 
change over the years. Currently, the level of Lake Huron is in 
a low period, exposing muck and vegetation that can be both 
unhealthy and unsightly. This exposed lake bottom also can 
serve as a breeding ground for mosquitoes. The Committee is 
aware that some owners of property on Lake Huron, in Saginaw 
Bay, have tried to clean up this muck and vegetation. As a 
result of these beach maintenance activities, the Corps of 
Engineers has issued cease and desist orders and threatened 
some landowners with penalties under section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. In 
fact, the Detroit District informed this Committee, ``[I]n an 
effort to keep such unauthorized work from spreading across the 
entire Saginaw Bay, we secured assistance from the US Attorneys 
Office to take action against three, randomly chosen parties,'' 
threatening criminal penalties.
    The Committee is concerned about how the Detroit District 
chose to address this situation. The Committee directs the 
Corps of Engineers to continue to examine its enforcement 
measures, and emphasize education and compliance assistance to 
carry out its regulatory responsibilities.
    The Committee is aware that in May 2003, the Secretary 
issued a regional permit concerning the leveling of sand. The 
Secretary has determined that certain other maintenance 
activities of these landowners are not regulated activities 
(such as mowing, debris removal, or other de minimis 
activities). Notwithstanding this progress, the Committee 
remains concerned about this issue. Where there are other beach 
maintenance activities that may be subject to regulation, the 
Committee directs the Corps of Engineers to work with the 
property owners to minimize the effects of such activities and 
bring them within the scope of a general or regional permit.
    In section 2027, discussed above, this legislation provides 
the Secretary with authority to coordinate Federal, State, and 
local approvals for certain water-related non-Federal projects. 
In section 2028, also discussed above, this legislation 
provides for a coordinated process for the review and approval 
of Corps of Engineers water resources projects. Under these 
sections, the Corps of Engineers is expected to demonstrate 
leadership and facilitate the coordination of the activities of 
many agencies. However, there are other projects that are not 
water projects and for which the Corps of Engineers must 
provide an approval, but is not the lead agency. For these 
projects, the Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to 
cooperate with other agencies and to help the lead agency 
streamline any necessary reviews and approvals. Unfortunately, 
the Committee is aware of circumstances where the Corps of 
Engineers has not done so.
    For example, where a permit application is subject to a 
rigorous and comprehensive State environmental review process 
that includes adjudicatory hearings, a parallel Federal process 
may be duplicative, time consuming and unnecessary. This is 
especially true in cases where a State environmental review 
process substantially meets or exceeds the scope of issues that 
would be reviewed under Federal law. In such cases, the Corps 
of Engineers should consider using existing, credible 
documentation and expeditiously conclude the environmental 
review of publicly noticed applications. For example, in the 
case of a permit application for a cement supply-loading 
terminal in Hudson, New York, the State of New York has 
conducted a 3-year comprehensive environmental review of the 
proposed project. The Corps' decision on the permit application 
could be based on the information provided in the State's 
review thus avoiding duplicative studies and expediting the 
decision.
    The Committee also is aware of a permit application that is 
pending for the Islander East Interstate Natural Pipeline from 
Connecticut to Long Island. After an extensive review, this 
project has received approval from the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (FERC). The New England District of the 
Corps of Engineers, however, has said that it will use a 
different definition of the project purpose in its analysis of 
the project, even though FERC is the lead Federal agency for 
this project and extensively reviewed this issue during their 
approval process. The Corps' actions are contrary to the 
Committee's objective to streamline approvals of needed 
infrastructure. The Corps should defer to the project purpose 
as determined by the lead Federal agency, in this case FERC.
    Finally, the Committee also is aware of problems with an 
invasive aquatic species known as tamarisk, or salt cedar, that 
is using 2 to 4.5 million acre-feet of water in reservoirs on 
the West Coast. The Corps of Engineers has a great deal of 
expertise in aquatic plant control through its Aquatic Plant 
Control Research Program. The Committee encourages the Corps to 
look for opportunities to use this program to assist with the 
control of tamarisk.

            Legislative History and Committee Consideration

    The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held 
three days of hearings on projects, programs and policies 
during the development of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2002 on March 7, 2002; April 10, 2002; and April 17, 2002. 
During these hearings, testimony was received from 30 
witnesses, including Members of Congress, the Administration, 
project sponsors, national water resources development and 
environmental organizations, and State and local officials. 
Chairman Young, Ranking Democratic Member Oberstar, 
Subcommittee Chairman Duncan and then Ranking Democratic Member 
DeFazio introduced H.R. 5428, the ``Water Resources Development 
Act of 2002 on September 23, 2002. The Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and Environment marked up H.R. 5428 on September 24, 
2002. On September 25, 2002, the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure marked up H.R. 5428, and on October 2, 2002, 
reported it favorably to the House. No further action was taken 
on that legislation.
    On February 27, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
the Corps of Engineers' Budget and Priorities for FY 2004, 
receiving testimony from the Acting Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Civil Works. Additionally, the Subcommittee held 
ahearing on independent peer review of products that support agency 
decision-making on March 5, 2003.
    H.R. 2557, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2003,'' 
was introduced on June 23, 2003, by Chairman Don Young and 
Subcommittee Chairman John J. Duncan, Jr. H.R. 2557 is largely 
based on H.R. 5428 from the 107th Congress.
    On July 17, 2003, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment marked up H.R. 2557, approved by voice vote a 
manager's amendment offered by Mr. Duncan, and reported the 
bill, as amended, favorably to the Full Committee by voice 
vote. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee met in 
open session on July 23, 2003, and adopted by voice vote a 
manager's amendment, offered by Mr. Duncan. The Committee 
ordered the bill, H.R. 2557, as amended, favorably reported to 
the House by voice vote.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report to include the total number of 
votes cast for and against on each roll call vote on a motion 
to report and on any amendment offered to the measure or 
matter, and the names of those members voting for and against. 
There were no recorded votes taken in connection with ordering 
H.R. 2557 reported. A motion to order H.R. 2557 reported 
favorably to the House, with an amendment, was agreed to by 
voice vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee 
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office 
included below.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are the 
improvement of navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline 
protection, dam safety, water supply, recreation, and 
environmental restoration and protection.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 
2557 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                 Washington, DC, September 3, 2003.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2557, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2003.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel 
Milberg.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2557--Water Resources Development Act of 2003

    Summary: H.R. 2557 would authorize the Secretary of the 
Army, acting through the Army Corps of Engineers, to conduct 
water resource studies and undertake specified projects and 
programs for flood control, inland navigation, shoreline 
protection, and environmental restoration. The bill would 
authorize the Secretary to conduct studies on water resource 
needs and feasibility studies for specified projects and to 
convey ownership of certain federal properties. Finally, the 
bill would extend, terminate, or modify existing authorizations 
for various water projects and would authorize new programs to 
develop water resources and protect the environment.
    Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, including 
adjustments for increases in anticipated inflation, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 2557 would cost about $2.6 
billion over the 2004-2008 period and an additional $2.1 
billion over the 10 years after 2008. (Some construction costs 
and operations and maintenance would continue or occur after 
those first 15 years.) In addition, CBO estimates that enacting 
H.R. 2557 would increase direct spending by $17 million over 
the 2004-2008 period and by $32 million over the 2004-2013 
period.
    H.R. 2557 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
Federal participation in water resources projects and programs 
authorized by this bill would benefit state, local, and tribal 
governments, and any costs incurred by those governments to 
comply with the conditions of this federal assistance would be 
voluntary.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2557 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and the environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2004     2005     2006     2007     2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 Estimated authorization level......................................      808      612      478      445      375
Estimated outlays..................................................      566      671      518      455      396
                                            CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated budget authority.........................................        5        3        3        3        3
Estimated outlays..................................................        5        3        3        3        3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
2557 will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2004 and 
that the necessary amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal 
year.

Spending subject to appropriation

    For new water projects specified in the bill, the Corps 
provided CBO with estimates of annual budget authority needed 
to meet design and construction schedules. CBO adjusted those 
estimates to reflect the impact of anticipated inflation during 
the time between project authorization and appropriation of 
construction costs. Estimated outlays are based on historical 
spending rates for Corps projects. For ongoing construction 
costs of previously authorized projects, the Corps received a 
2003 appropriation of $1.8 billion.
    H.R. 2557 would authorize new projects related to 
environmental restoration, shoreline protection, and 
navigation. Two of the larger projects that would be authorized 
by the bill include a project for hurricane and storm damage 
reduction in Louisiana with an estimated federal cost of $467 
million and a project to reduce flood damage and restore the 
environment in California with an estimated federal cost of 
$201 million. In addition, this bill would modify many existing 
Corps projects and programs by increasing the amounts 
authorized to be appropriated to construct or maintain them or 
by increasing the federal share of project costs. For example, 
section 2003 would authorize an increase in the federal share 
of the construction, operations, and maintenance of some 
deepwater navigation projects. CBO estimates that this 
provision would increase federal costs by about $70 million 
over the 2004-2008 period. In the 10-year period after 2008, 
however, the cost of this provision could increase by over $30 
million a year, subject to the availability of appropriated 
funds for deepwater navigation projects.
    H.R. 2557 also would withdraw the authority for the Corps 
to build over 30 projects authorized in previous legislation. 
Based on information from the Corps, however, CBO does not 
expect that the Corps would begin most of these projects over 
the next five years. Some do not have a local sponsor to pay 
nonfederal costs, others do not pass certain tests for economic 
viability, and still others do not pass certain tests for 
environmental protection. Consequently, CBO estimates that 
taking away the authority to build these projects would provide 
no significant savings over the next several years.

Direct spending

    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2557 would increase direct 
spending by $17 million over the 2004-2008 period and by about 
$3 million each year after 2008. Components of this cost are 
described below.
    Spending of Recreation Fees. Section 2017 would permanently 
authorize the Corps to retain and spend annual recreation fees 
collected in excess of $34 million a year. The Corps' authority 
to retain and spend those fees expired at the end of fiscal 
year 2002. CBO estimates that this extension would cost about 
$3 million a year.
    Rathbun Lake Project. Section 5046 would authorize the 
Secretary to convey a certain portion of the water supply 
storage capacity of Rathbun Lake to the Rathbun Regional Water 
Association. In exchange, the water association would fund, 
construct, operate, and maintain a regional visitor center 
complex on federal land at Rathbun Lake in Iowa. CBO estimates 
that enacting this section would cost about $2 million in 2004 
because the Corps would forgo receipts that the Rathbun 
Regional Water Association would otherwise have to pay for the 
unallocated water supply storage.
    Waurika Lake Project. Section 5076 would eliminate the 
obligation of the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District 
in Oklahoma to pay its outstanding debt related to the 
construction of a water conveyance project. Due to an 
accounting error, the Corps inadvertently undercharged the 
district for costs association with a land purchase related to 
the water project in the early 1980s. Under the terms of the 
construction contract, the district is required to pay all 
costs associated with building the project, including the full 
cost of the land purchases. CBO estimates that enacting this 
section would cost less than $200,000 a year over the 2004-2013 
period.
    Annual Passes for Recreation--Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 
Section 2001 would extend for one year a pilot project that 
allows the Corps to charge lower fees at its Raystown Lake 
recreation facility in Pennsylvania by one year. CBO estimates 
that extending the program until December 31, 2004, would cost 
less than $100,000 over the next two years.
    Funding to Process Permits. Section 2004 would extend the 
Corps' current authority for two more years to accept and spend 
funds contributed by private firms to expedite the evaluation 
of permit applications submitted to the Corps. CBO estimates 
that the Corps would accept and spend less than $500,000 during 
each year of this extension and that the net budgetary impact 
of this provision would be negligible.
    Elizabeth River Project. Section 3089 would eliminate the 
obligation of the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, to pay its 
outstanding debt to the federal government related to the 
construction of a navigation channel. Section 358 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 waived the city's obligation 
to repay its share of the cost of construction of the channel 
that remained unpaid as of September 30, 1999. That act, 
however, did not eliminate the city's responsibility to pay 
those amounts in arrears prior to September 30, 1999. CBO 
estimates that the cost of this additional debt forgiveness 
would be less than $500,000 in 2004.
    Cumberland River Basin Reservoirs. Section 5047 would 
authorize the Corps to continue to charge certain reservoir 
projects in Kentucky and Tennessee reduced rates on municipal 
and industrial water supply storage. CBO estimates that 
enacting this provision would result in a loss of about $25,000 
in receipts each year to the Corps.
    Various Land Conveyances. H.R. 2557 would authorize the 
Corps to convey certain lands in Kansas and Oregon. Section 
3098 would authorize the Corps to convey 7.4 acres to Geary 
County, Kansas, for the construction, operation, and 
maintenance of a fire station. In addition, section 5080 would 
authorize the Corps and the U.S. Forest Service to convey 
approximately three acres of land and buildings in Lowell, 
Oregon, to the Lowell School District. CBO estimates that those 
conveyances would have no significant impact on the federal 
budget.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2557 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. Federal participation in water resources 
projects and programs authorized by this bill would benefit 
state, local, and tribal governments. Governments that choose 
to participate in those projects would incur costs to comply 
with the conditions of the federal assistance, including cost-
sharing requirements, but such costs would be voluntary. In 
addition, some state and local governments participating in 
ongoing water resources projects would benefit from provisions 
in the bill that would alter existing cost-sharing obligations. 
Many of those provisions would make it easier for nonfederal 
participants to meet their obligations by giving them credit 
for expenses they have already incurred or by expanding the 
types of expenditures counted as part of the nonfederal share.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton and 
Rachel Milberg. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 
Marjorie Miller. Impact on the Private Sector: Cecil McPherson.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or 
joint resolution of a public character shall include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. (Public Law 104-4).

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1994 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State, local or 
Tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 2557 does not 
preempt any State, local, or Tribal law.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. (Public Law 
104-1).

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 208. RECREATION POLICY AND USER FEES.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Alternative to Annual Passes.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Expiration of authority.--The authority to 
        establish an annual pass under paragraph (2) shall 
        expire on [the December 31, 2003] December 31, 2004.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL 
                    INTERESTS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Specific Projects.--For the purpose of demonstrating the 
potential advantages and effectiveness of non-Federal 
implementation of flood control projects, the Secretary shall 
enter into agreements pursuant to this section with non-Federal 
interests for 
development of the following flood control projects by such 
interests:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (9) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood 
        control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
          (10) Halls bayou, texas.--The project for flood 
        control, Halls Bayou, Texas.
          (11) St. Paul downtown airport (holman field), st. 
        paul, minnesota.--The project for flood damage 
        reduction, St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field), 
        St. Paul, Minnesota.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 217. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PARTNERSHIPS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Governmental Partnerships.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost-
        sharing agreements with 1 or more non-Federal public 
        interests with respect to a project, or group of 
        projects within a geographic region if appropriate, for 
        the acquisition, design, construction, management, or 
        operation of a dredged material processing, treatment, 
        contaminant reduction, or disposal facility (including 
        any facility used to demonstrate potential beneficial 
        uses of dredged material, which may include effective 
        sediment contaminant reduction technologies) using 
        funds provided in whole or in part by the Federal 
        Government. One or more of the parties of the agreement 
        may perform the acquisition, design, construction, 
        management, or operation of a dredged material 
        processing, treatment, or disposal facility. If 
        appropriate, the Secretary may combine portions of 
        separate construction or maintenance appropriations 
        from separate Federal projects with the appropriate 
        combined cost-sharing between the various projects when 
        the facility serves to manage dredged material from 
        multiple Federal projects located in the geographic 
        region of the facility.
          (2) Public financing.--
                  (A) Agreements.--
                          (i) Specified federal funding sources 
                        and cost sharing.--The cost-sharing 
                        agreement used shall clearly specify 
                        the Federal funding sources and 
                        combined cost-sharing when applicable 
                        to multiple Federal navigation projects 
                        and the responsibilities and risks of 
                        each of the parties related to present 
                        and future dredged material managed by 
                        the facility.
                          (ii) Management of sediments.--The 
                        cost-sharing agreement may include the 
                        management of sediments from the 
                        maintenance dredging of Federal 
                        navigation projects that do not have 
                        partnership agreements. The cost-
                        sharing agreement may allow the non-
                        Federal sponsor to receive reimbursable 
                        payments from the Federal Government 
                        for commitments made by the sponsor for 
                        disposal or placement capacity at 
                        dredged material treatment, processing, 
                        contaminant reduction, or disposal 
                        facilities.
                          (iii) Credit.--The cost-sharing 
                        agreement may allow costs incurred 
                        prior to execution of a partnership 
                        agreement for construction or the 
                        purchase of equipment or capacity for 
                        the project to be credited according to 
                        existing cost-sharing rules.
                  (B) Credit.--Nothing in this subsection 
                supersedes or modifies existing agreements 
                between the Federal Government and any non-
                Federal sponsors for the cost-sharing, 
                construction, and operation and maintenance of 
                Federal navigation projects. Subject to the 
                approval of the Secretary and in accordance 
                with existing laws, regulations, and policies, 
                a non-Federal public sponsor of a Federal 
                navigation project may seek credit for funds 
                provided in the acquisition, design, 
                construction, management, or operation of a 
                dredged material processing, treatment, or 
                disposal facility to the extent the facility is 
                used to manage dredged material from the 
                Federal navigation project. The non-Federal 
                sponsor shall be responsible for providing all 
                necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, or 
                relocations associated with the facility and 
                shall receive credit for these items.
  [(c)] (d) Public-Private Partnerships.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a 
        program to evaluate and implement opportunities for 
        public-private partnerships in the design, 
        construction, management, or operation and maintenance 
        of dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal 
        facilities in connection with construction or 
        maintenance of Federal navigation projects. If a non-
        Federal interest is a sponsor of the project, the 
        Secretary shall consult with the non-Federal interest 
        in carrying out the program with respect to the 
        project.
          (2) Private financing.--
                  (A) Agreements.--In carrying out this 
                subsection, the Secretary may enter into an 
                agreement with a non-Federal interest with 
                respect to a project, a private entity, or both 
                for the acquisition, design, construction, 
                management, or operation and maintenance of a 
                dredged material processing, treatment, or 
                disposal facility (including any facility used 
                to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of 
                dredged material) using funds provided in whole 
                or in part by the private entity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 501. LAND CONVEYANCES.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Boardman, Oregon.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the 
        [city of Boardman,] the Boardman Park and Recreation 
        District, Boardman, Oregon, all right, title, and 
        interest of the United States in and to a parcel of 
        land consisting of approximately 141 acres acquired as 
        part of the John Day Lock and Dam project in the 
        vicinity of [such city] the city of Boardman currently 
        under lease to the Boardman Park and Recreation 
        District.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 510. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION 
                    PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$10,000,000] 
$30,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 528. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Restoration Activities.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Critical restoration projects.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) Authorization of appropriations.--
                          (i) In general.--There is authorized 
                        to be appropriated to the Department of 
                        the Army to pay the Federal share of 
                        the cost of carrying out projects under 
                        subparagraph (A) [$75,000,000 for the 
                        period consisting of fiscal years 1997 
                        through 2003] $95,000,000.
                          (ii) Federal share.--The Federal 
                        share of the cost of carrying out any 1 
                        project under subparagraph (A) shall be 
                        not more than [$25,000,000] 
                        $30,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 531. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal years 2004 
and thereafter may be used by the Corps of Engineers district 
offices to administer projects under this section at 100 
percent Federal expense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 553. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this section, 
the term ``New York State Canal System'' means the Erie, 
Oswego, Champlain, and Cayuga-Seneca Canals.]
  (c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this section, 
the term ``New York State Canal System'' means the 524 miles of 
navigable canal that comprise the New York State Canal System, 
including the Erie, Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and Champlain Canals 
and the historic alignments of these canals, including the 
cities of Albany and Buffalo.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 567. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.

  (a) Study and Strategy Development.--The Secretary, in 
cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the State of 
Pennsylvania, and the State of New York, shall conduct a study, 
and develop a strategy, for using wetland restoration, soil and 
water conservation practices, and nonstructural measures to 
reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and create wildlife 
habitat in the following portions of the Upper Susquehanna 
River basin:
          (1) * * *
          (2) The Susquehanna River watershed upstream of the 
        Chemung River, New York, at an estimated Federal cost 
        of [$10,000,000.] $20,000,000, of which the Secretary 
        may utilize not more than $5,000,000 to design and 
        construct feasible pilot projects during the 
        development of the strategy to demonstrate alternative 
        approaches for the strategy. The total cost for any 
        single pilot project may not exceed $500,000. The 
        Secretary shall evaluate the results of the pilot 
        projects and consider the results in the development of 
        the strategy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) [Cooperation] Cooperative Agreements.--In conducting the 
study and developing the strategy under this section, the 
Secretary shall enter into [cooperation] cooperative agreements 
to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, 
and local government agencies and appropriate nonprofit, 
nongovernmental organizations with expertise in wetland 
restoration, with the consent of the affected local government. 
Financial assistance provided may include activities for the 
implementation of wetlands restoration projects and soil and 
water conservation measures.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of design 
and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 
the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project; and (ii) the cost of in-kind services and materials 
provided for the project by the non-Federal interest.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 575. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

  (a) In General.--During any evaluation of economic benefits 
and costs for projects set forth in subsection (b) that occurs 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
shall not consider flood control works constructed or 
nonstructural actions by non-Federal interests within the 
drainage area of such projects prior to the date of such 
evaluation in the determination of conditions existing prior to 
construction of the project or nonstructural actions, whether 
or not such works or actions are partially funded under the 
hazard mitigation grant program of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 579. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA, FLOOD PROTECTION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$47,000,000] 
$89,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 581. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may design and construct--
          (1) [flood control measures] structural and 
        nonstructural flood control, streambank protection, 
        stormwater management, and channel clearing and 
        modification measures in the Cheat and Tygart River 
        basins, West Virginia, at a level of protection that is 
        sufficient to prevent any future losses to communities 
        in the basins from flooding such as occurred in January 
        1996, but not less than a 100-year level of protection 
        with respect to measures that incorporate levees or 
        floodwalls; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$12,000,000] 
$90,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         TITLE I--COST SHARING

SEC. 101. HARBORS.

    (a) Constructon.--
          (1) Payments during construction.--The non-Federal 
        interests for a navigation project for a harbor or 
        inland harbor, or any separable element thereof, on 
        which a contract for physical construction has not been 
        awarded before the date of enactment of this Act shall 
        pay, during the period of construction of the project, 
        the following costs associated with general navigation 
        features:
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) 25 percent of the cost of construction of 
                the portion of the project which has a depth is 
                excess of 20 feet but not in excess of [45] 53 
                feet; plus
                  (C) 50 percent of the cost of construction of 
                the portion of the project which has a depth in 
                excess of [45] 53 feet.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) Operation and Maintenance.--
          (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of 
        operation and maintenance of each navigation project 
        for a harbor or inland harbor constructed by the 
        Secretary pursuant to this Act or any other law 
        approved after the date of the enactment of this Act 
        shall be 100 percent, except that in the case of a 
        deep-draft harbor, the non-Federal interests shall be 
        responsible for an amount equal to 50 percent of the 
        excess of the cost of the operation and maintenance of 
        such project over the cost which the Secertary 
        determines would be incurred for operation and 
        maintenance of such project if such project had a depth 
        of [45] 53 feet.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (n) Non-Federal Contributions.--
          (1) Prohibition on solicitation of excess 
        contributions.--The Secretary may not solicit 
        contributions from non-Federal interests for costs of 
        constructing authorized water resources development 
        projects or measures in excess of the non-Federal share 
        assigned to the appropriate project purposes listed in 
        subsections (a), (b), and (c) or condition Federal 
        participation in such projects or measures on the 
        receipt of such contributions.
          (2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
        this subsection shall be construed to affect the 
        Secretary's authority under section 903(c) of this Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--HARBOR DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 214. DEFINITIONS.

  For purposes of this title--
          (1) Deep-draft harbor.--The term ``deep-draft 
        harbor'' means a harbor which is authorized to be 
        constructed to a depth of more than [45] 53 feet (other 
        than a project which is authorized by section 202 of 
        this title).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) General cargo harbor.--The term ``general cargo 
        harbor'' means a harbor for which a project is 
        authorized by section 202 of this title and any other 
        harbor which is authorized to be constructed to a depth 
        of more than 20 feet but not more than [45] 53 feet;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE VI--WATER RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 602. LAKES PROGRAM.

  (a) Subject to section 903(a) of this Act, the Secretary 
shall carry out programs for the removal of silt, aquatic 
growth, and other material in the following lakes:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (18) Flints Pond, Hollis, Hillsborough County, New 
        Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and 
        measures to address excessive sedimentation; [and]
          (19) Osgood Pond, Milford, Hillsborough County, New 
        Hampshire, removal of silt and aquatic growth and 
        measures to address excessive sedimentation[.];
          (20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal 
        of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address 
        excessive sedimentation;
          (21) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, 
        removal of silt and restoration of structural 
        integrity;
          (22) Greenwood Lake, Greenwood Lake, New York, 
        removal of silt and aquatic growth; and
          (23) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal 
        of silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of 
        structural integrity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE VII--WATER RESOURCES STUDIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting river 
basins and watersheds for assessment under this section, the 
Secretary shall give priority to--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) the Susquehanna River basin; [and]
          (5) the Willamette River basin[.]; and
          (6) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
          [(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
        costs of an assessment carried out under this section 
        shall be 50 percent.]
          (1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
        costs of an assessment carried out under this section 
        on or after December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

    (a)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Completion of Mitigation.--In those instances in 
        which it is not technically practicable to complete 
        mitigation concurrent with the last day of project 
        construction because of the nature of the mitigation to 
        be undertaken, the Secretary shall complete the 
        required mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, 
        but in no case later than the last day of the first 
        fiscal year beginning after the last day of 
        construction of the project or separable element of the 
        project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals.--
        (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Contents.--A mitigation plan shall include--
                  (A) a description of the physical action to 
                be undertaken to achieve the mitigation 
                objectives within the watershed in which such 
                losses occur and, in any case in which 
                mitigation must take place outside the 
                watershed, a justification detailing the 
                rationale for undertaking the mitigation 
                outside of the watershed;
                  (B) a description of the lands or interests 
                in lands to be acquired for mitigation and the 
                basis for a determination that such lands are 
                available for acquisition;
                  (C) the type, amount, and characteristics of 
                the habitat being restored;
                  (D) success criteria for mitigation based on 
                replacement of lost functions and values of the 
                habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative 
                characteristics; and
                  (E) a plan for any necessary monitoring to 
                determine the success of the mitigation, 
                including the cost and duration of any 
                monitoring, and to the extent practicable, the 
                entities responsible for any monitoring.
          (4) Responsibility for monitoring.--In any case in 
        which it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation 
        plan for a water resources project, the entity 
        responsible for monitoring at the time of a final 
        report of the Chief of Engineers or other final 
        decision document for the project, such entity shall be 
        identified in the partnership agreement entered into 
        with the non-Federal interest.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SECTION 912. SECTION 221 AGREEMENTS.

    (a) * * *
    (b)(1) * * *
    (2) Whenever on the basis of any information available to 
the Secretary, the Secretary finds that any non-Federal 
interest is not providing cooperation required under subsection 
(a), the Secretary [shall] may issue an order requiring such 
non-Federal interest to provide such cooperation. [After notice 
and opportunity for a hearing, if the Secretary finds that any 
person is violating an order issued under this section, such 
person shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 
$10,000 per day of such violation, except that the total amount 
of civil penalties for any violation shall not exceed $50,000.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (4) The Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring 
a civil action for appropriate relief, including permanent or 
temporary injunction, for payment of liquidated damages or, for 
any violation of an order issued under this section, [to 
collect a civil penalty imposed under this section,] to recover 
any cost incurred by the Secretary in undertaking performance 
of any item of cooperation under section 221(d) of the Flood 
Control Act of 1970, or to collect interest for which a non-
Federal interest is liable under paragraph (3). Any action 
under this subsection may be brought in the district court of 
the United States for the district in which the defendant is 
located or resides, or is doing businesss, and such court shall 
have jurisdiction to restrain such violation, to require 
compliance, to require payment of [any civil penalty imposed 
under this section,] any liquidated damages, and to require 
payment of any costs incurred by the Secretary in undertaking 
performance of any such item.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    TITLE X--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION

  Sec. 1001. (a) * * *
  (b)(1) * * *
  (2) Notwithstanding section 3003 of Public Law 104-66 (31 
U.S.C. 1113 note; 109 Stat. 734), every [two years] year after 
the transmittal of the list under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
shall transmit to Congress a list of projects or separable 
elements of projects which have been authorized, but have 
received no obligations during the [7] 5 full fiscal years 
preceding the transmittal of such list. Upon submission of such 
list to Congress, the Secretary shall notify each Senator in 
whose State, and each Member of the House of Representatives in 
whose district, a project (including any part thereof) on such 
list would be located. A project or separable element included 
in such list is not authorized after the date which is 30 
months after the date the list is so transmitted if funds have 
not been obligated for the planning, design, or construction of 
such project or element during such 30-month period.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE XI--MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1103. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PLAN.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Program Authority.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (7)(A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 
        (a)(2) of this section, the costs of each project 
        carried out pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i) of this 
        subsection shall be allocated between the Secretary and 
        the appropriate non-Federal sponsor in accordance with 
        the provisions of section 906(e) of this Act; except 
        that the costs of operation and maintenance of projects 
        located on Federal lands or lands owned or operated by 
        a State or local government shall be borne by the 
        Federal, State, or local agency that is responsible for 
        management activities for fish and wildlife on such 
        lands and, in the case of any project requiring non-
        Federal cost sharing, the non-Federal share of the cost 
        of the project shall be 35 percent. The non-Federal 
        interest may provide the non-Federal share of the cost 
        of the project in the form of services, materials, 
        supplies, or other in-kind contributions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR THE TERRITORIES.

  [The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up 
to $200,000 for all studies and projects in American Samoa, 
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the 
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.]

SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

  The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up 
to $500,000 for all studies and projects in the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands, 
in Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, 
United States Code, and including lands that are within the 
jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined 
by the Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the 
Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status 
under part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations) or on 
land in the State of Alaska conveyed to an Alaska Native 
Village Corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Program.--
          (1) In general.--In cooperation with Indian tribes 
        and the heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary 
        may study and determine the feasibility of carrying out 
        water resources development projects that--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) are located primarily within Indian 
                country (as defined in section 1151 of title 
                18, United States Code, and including lands 
                that are within the jurisdictional area of an 
                Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the 
                Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized 
                by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible 
                for trust land status under part 151 of title 
                25, Code of Federal Regulations) or in 
                proximity to Alaska Native villages.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

  (a) In General.--In fiscal years 2001 through [2003] 2005, 
the Secretary, after public notice, may accept and expend funds 
contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the 
evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department 
of the Army.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 315. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the report of the Chief of 
Engineers, dated February 28, 1983, for the project for flood 
control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, 
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), which report refers to 
recreational development in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin 
Floodway, the Secretary--
          [(1) shall initiate, in collaboration with the State 
        of Louisiana, construction of the visitors center, 
        authorized as part of the project, at or near Lake End 
        Park in Morgan City, Louisiana; and]
          (1) is authorized to study, design, construct, 
        operate, and maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A 
        Regional Visitor Center in the vicinity of Morgan City, 
        Louisiana, in consultation with the State of Louisiana, 
        to provide information to the public on the Atchafalaya 
        River system and other associated waterways that have 
        influenced surrounding communities, and national and 
        local water resources development of the Army Corps of 
        Engineers in South Central Louisiana; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Authorities.--The Secretary shall carry out subsection 
[(a)] (a)(2) in accordance with--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Donations.--In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the 
Mississippi River Commission is authorized to accept the 
donation of cash, funds, lands, materials, and services from 
non-Federal governmental entities and nonprofit corporations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--STUDIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 414. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.

  Not later than [32] 44 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study, at Federal 
expense, of plans--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 425. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
shoreline protection along Lake Michigan and the Chicago River, 
Chicago, Illinois.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 506. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Cost Sharing.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Non-federal share.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may 
                provide up to [50] 100 percent of the non-
                Federal share required under paragraphs (1) and 
                (2) in the form of services, materials, 
                supplies, or other in-kind contributions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 512. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage 
reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
(33 U.S.C. 701s) at the Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and 
Knightsen, California, if the Secretary determines that the 
project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and 
economically justified. All planning, study, design, and 
construction on the project shall be carried out by the office 
of the district engineer, San Francisco, California.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 514. MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary shall carry out under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) a project for flood damage 
reduction in Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California, if the 
Secretary determines that the project is technically sound, 
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. All 
planning, study, design, and construction on the project shall 
be carried out by the office of the district engineer, San 
Francisco, California.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 519. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Critical Restoration Projects.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out projects 
        under this subsection $100,000,000 for fiscal years 
        2001 through [2004] 2010.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Cost Sharing.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) In-kind services.--The Secretary may credit the 
        value of in-kind services provided by the non-Federal 
        interest for a project or activity carried out under 
        this section toward not more than 80 percent of the 
        non-Federal share of the cost of the project or 
        activity if such services are provided not more than 5 
        years before the date of initiation of the project or 
        activity. In-kind services shall include all State 
        funds expended on programs and projects that accomplish 
        the goals of this section, as determined by the 
        Secretary. The programs and projects may include the 
        Illinois River Conservation Reserve Program, the 
        Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands 
        Trust Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out 
        in the Illinois River basin.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 527. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the State 
of Minnesota, shall design and construct the project for 
environmental restoration and recreation, Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, substantially in accordance with the plans described 
in the report entitled ``Feasibility Study for Mississippi 
Whitewater Park, Minneapolis, Minnesota'', prepared for the 
State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, dated June 
30, 1999, and including Hennepin Island and adjacent areas on 
the east side of the Mississippi River.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated [$10,000,000] $25,000,000 to carry out this 
section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 547. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Agreement.--
          (1) Agreement terms.--The Secretary and the Secretary 
        of Energy, acting through the Southeastern Power 
        Administration, shall enter into a binding agreement 
        with the Tri-Cities Power Authority that contains 
        mutually acceptable terms and conditions and under 
        which the Tri-Cities Power Authority agrees to each of 
        the following:
                  (A) To design and construct the generating 
                facilities referred to in subsection (a) within 
                [4] 5 years after the date of such agreement.
                  (B) To reimburse the Secretary for--
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (iii) the redistributed costs 
                        associated with the original 
                        construction of the dam and dam safety 
                        [if all parties agree with the method 
                        of the development of the chargeable 
                        amounts associated with hydropower at 
                        the facility] assurance project.
                  (C) To release and indemnify the United 
                States from any claims, causes of action, or 
                liabilities that may arise from such design 
                [and construction], construction, and operation 
                and maintenance of the facilities referred to 
                in subsection (a), including any liability that 
                may arise out of the removal of the facility if 
                directed by the Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Operation and ownership.--The Tri-Cities Power 
        Authority shall be the owner and operator of the 
        hydropower facilities referred to in subsection (a).
  (c) Other Requirements.--
          (1) Prohibition.--[No] Unless otherwise provided, no 
        Federal funds may be expended for the planning, design, 
        construction, and operation and maintenance of the 
        facilities referred to in subsection (a) [prior to the 
        date on which such facilities are accepted by the 
        Secretary under subsection (d)].
          (2) Reimbursement.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law, if requested by the Tri-Cities Power 
        Authority, the Secretary may provide, on a reimbursable 
        basis, assistance in connection with the [design] 
        planning, design, and construction of the generating 
        facilities referred to in subsection (a).
  (d) Completion of Construction.--
          [(1) Transfer of facilities.--Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of law, upon completion of the 
        construction of the facilities referred to in 
        subsection (a) and final approval of such facilities by 
        the Secretary, the Tri-Cities Power Authority shall 
        transfer without consideration title to such facilities 
        to the United States, and the Secretary shall--
                  [(A) accept the transfer of title to such 
                facilities on behalf of the United States; and
                  [(B) operate and maintain the facilities.
          [(2) Certification.--The Secretary may accept title 
        to the facilities pursuant to paragraph (1) only after 
        certifying that the quality of the construction meets 
        all standards established for similar facilities 
        constructed by the Secretary.]
          (1) Approval.--The Secretary shall review the design 
        and construction activities for all features of the 
        hydroelectric project that pertain to and affect 
        stability of the dam and control the release of water 
        from Bluestone Dam to ensure that the quality of 
        construction of those features meets all standards 
        established for similar facilities constructed by the 
        Secretary.
          [(3)] (2) Authorized project purposes.--The operation 
        and maintenance of the facilities shall be conducted in 
        a manner that is consistent with other authorized 
        project purposes of the Bluestone Lake facility[.], 
        except that hydroelectric power is no longer a project 
        purpose of the facility. Water flow releases from the 
        hydropower facilities shall be determined and directed 
        by the Corps of Engineers.
          (3) Coordination.--Construction of the hydroelectric 
        generating facilities shall be coordinated with the dam 
        safety assurance project currently in the design and 
        construction phases.
  (e) Excess Power.--Pursuant to any agreement under subsection 
(b), the Southeastern Power Administration shall market the 
excess power produced by the facilities referred to in 
subsection (a) [in accordance with section 5 of the Rivers and 
Harbors Act of December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s; 58 Stat. 
890)].
  (f) Payments.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southeastern Power 
Administration, may pay, in accordance with the terms of the 
agreement entered into under subsection (b), out of the 
revenues from the sale of power produced by the generating 
[facility of the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated 
by the Secretary] facilities under construction under such 
agreements and marketed by the Southeastern Power 
Administration--
          (1) to the Tri-Cities Power Authority all reasonable 
        costs incurred by the Tri-Cities Power Authority in the 
        [design] planning, design and construction of the 
        facilities referred to in subsection (a), including the 
        capital investment in such facilities and a reasonable 
        rate of return on such capital investment; and
          (2) to the [Secretary] Tri-Cities Power Authority, in 
        accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into 
        under subsection (b) out of the revenues from the sale 
        of power produced by the generating [facility of the 
        interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by the 
        Secretary] facilities under construction under such 
        agreements and marketed by the Southeastern Power 
        Administration, all reasonable costs incurred by the 
        [Secretary] Tri-Cities Power Authority in the operation 
        and maintenance of [facilities referred to in 
        subsection (a)] such facilities.
  (g) Authority of Secretary of Energy.--Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, the Secretary of Energy, acting through 
the Southeastern Power Administration, is authorized--
          [(1) to construct such transmission facilities as 
        necessary to market the power produced at the 
        facilities referred to in subsection (a) with funds 
        contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; and]
          (1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the 
        market or to construct such transmission facilities as 
        necessary to market the power produced at the 
        facilities referred to in subsection (a) with funds 
        contributed by the Tri-Cities Power Authority; and
          (2) to repay those funds, including interest and any 
        administrative expenses, directly from the revenues 
        from the sale of power produced by [such facilities of 
        the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by 
        the Secretary] the generating facility and marketed by 
        the Southeastern Power Administration.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Tri-Cities Power Authority Defined.--In this section, the 
``Tri-Cities Power Authority'' refers to the entity established 
by the City of Hinton, West Virginia, the City of White Sulphur 
Springs, West Virginia, and the City of Philippi, West 
Virginia, pursuant to a document entitled ``Second Amended and 
Restated Intergovernmental Agreement'' approved by the Attorney 
General of West Virginia on February 14, 2002.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION

SEC. 601. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Specific authorizations.--
                  (A) In general.--
                          (i) Projects.--The Secretary shall 
                        carry out the projects included in the 
                        Plan in accordance with subparagraphs 
                        (B), (C), (D), and (E). The project for 
                        aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro 
                        and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, 
                        authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the 
                        Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
                        (113 Stat. 276), shall be treated for 
                        purposes of this section as being in 
                        the Plan.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (iii) Review and comment.--In 
                        developing the projects authorized 
                        under subparagraph (B) and the project 
                        for aquifer storage and recovery, 
                        Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, the 
                        Secretary shall provide for public 
                        review and comment in accordance with 
                        applicable Federal law.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (k) Outreach and Assistance.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Maximum expenditures.--The Secretary may expend 
        up to $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years 
        beginning after September 30, 2002, to carry out this 
        subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IX--MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 904. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Membership.--The Trust shall be composed of 25 members to 
be appointed by the Secretary, including--
          (1) 15 members recommended by the Governor of South 
        Dakota that--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) include representatives of--
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (vii) agricultural groups; [and]
                          (viii) rural water systems; and
                          [(viii)] (ix) other appropriate 
                        interests;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1946

AN ACT authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the 
                   shores of publicly owned property.

SEC. 5. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND 
                    DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

  (a) Establishment of Erosion Control Program.--The Secretary 
shall establish and conduct a national shoreline erosion 
control development and demonstration program for a period of 
[6] 10 years beginning on the date that funds are made 
available to carry out this section.
  (b) Requirements.--
          (1) In general.--The erosion control program shall 
        include provisions for--
                  (A) projects consisting of planning, 
                designing, and constructing prototype 
                engineered and vegetative shoreline erosion 
                control devices and methods during the first 
                [3] 6 years of the erosion control program;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Cost sharing.--The Secretary may enter into a 
        cost-sharing agreement with a non-Federal interest to 
        carry out a project, or a phase of a project, under the 
        erosion control program in cooperation with the non-
        Federal interest.
          (4) Removal of projects.--The Secretary may pay all 
        or a portion of the costs of removing a project, or an 
        element of a project, constructed under the erosion 
        control program if the Secretary determines during the 
        term of the program that the project or element is 
        detrimental to the environment, private property, or 
        public safety.
          [(3)] (5) Sites.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(4)] (6) Determination of feasibility.--
        Implementation of a project under this section is 
        contingent upon a determination by the Secretary that 
        such project is feasible.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Funding.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated [$21,000,000] $31,000,000 
        to carry out this section.
                              ----------                              


              SECTION 221 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970

  Sec. 221. (a) After the date of enactment of this Act, the 
construction of any water resources project, or an acceptable 
separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, acting 
through the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal interest 
where such interest will be reimbursed for such construction 
[under the provisions of section 215 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1968 or under any other] under any provision of law, shall 
not be commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered 
into a written partnership agreement with the [Secretary of the 
Army to furnish its required cooperation for] district engineer 
for the district in which the project will be carried out under 
which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and 
requirements for implementation or construction of the project; 
except that no such agreement shall be required if the 
Secretary determines that the administrative costs associated 
with negotiating, executing, or administering the agreement 
would exceed the amount of the contribution required from the 
non-Federal interest and are less than $25,000. Such agreement 
may include a provision for liquidated damages in the event of 
a failure of one or more parties to perform. In any such 
agreement entered into by a State, or a body politic of the 
State which derives its powers from the State constitution, or 
a governmental entity created by the State legislature, the 
agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future State 
legislative appropriations for such performance and payment 
when obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent 
with State constitutional or statutory limitations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed 
as limiting the authority of the Secretary to ensure that a 
partnership agreement meets all requirements of law and 
policies of the Secretary in effect on the date of entry into 
the partnership agreement.
  [(e)] (f) This section shall not apply to any project the 
construction of which was commenced before January 1, 1972, or 
to the assurances for future demands required by the Water 
Supply Act of 1958, as amended.
                              ----------                              


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken pursuant 
to this section shall be initiated only after non-Federal 
interests have entered into a binding agreement with the 
Secretary in which the non-Federal interests agree to--
          [(1) provide 25 percent of the cost associated with 
        construction of the project for the protection, 
        restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically 
        related habitats, including provision of all lands, 
        easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations; 
        and
          [(2) pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
        replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with 
        the project for the protection, restoration, and 
        creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats.
  [(d) Determination of Construction Costs.--Costs associated 
with construction of a project for the protection, restoration, 
and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats shall 
be limited solely to construction costs which are in excess of 
those costs necessary to carry out the dredging for 
construction, operation, or maintenance of the authorized 
navigation project in the most cost effective way, consistent 
with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
  [(e) Selection of Dredged Material Disposal Method.--In 
developing and carrying out a project for navigation involving 
the disposal of dredged material, the Secretary may select, 
with the consent of the non-Federal interest, a disposal method 
that is not the least-cost option if the Secretary determines 
that the incremental costs of such disposal method are 
reasonable in relation to the environmental benefits, including 
the benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the 
creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion. The 
Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined in 
accordance with subsection (c).
  [(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated not to exceed $15,000,000 annually to carry out 
this section. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
  [(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any project 
carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 
include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected 
local government.]
  (c) In General.--The Secretary may carry out projects to 
transport and place suitable material dredged in connection 
with the construction, operation, or maintenance of an 
authorized navigation project at locations selected by a non-
Federal entity for use in the construction, repair, or 
rehabilitation of projects determined by the Secretary to be in 
the public interest and associated with navigation, flood 
damage reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial 
water supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, hurricane 
and storm damage reduction, aquatic plant control, and 
environmental protection and restoration.
  (d) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken pursuant 
to this section shall be initiated only after non-Federal 
interests have entered into an agreement with the Secretary in 
which the non-Federal interests agree to pay the non-Federal 
share of the cost of construction of the project and 100 
percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, replacement, and 
rehabilitation of the project in accordance with section 103 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
  (e) Special Rule.--Construction of a project under subsection 
(a) for the protection and restoration of aquatic and 
ecologically related habitat the cost of which does not exceed 
$750,000 and which will be located in a disadvantaged community 
as determined by the Secretary may be carried out at Federal 
expense.
  (f) Determination of Construction Costs.--Costs associated 
with construction of a project under this section shall be 
limited solely to construction costs that are in excess of 
those costs necessary to carry out the dredging for 
construction, operation, or maintenance of the authorized 
navigation project in the most cost effective way, consistent 
with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
  (g) Selection of Dredged Material Disposal Method.--In 
developing and carrying out a project for navigation involving 
the disposal of dredged material, the Secretary may select, 
with the consent of the non-Federal interest, a disposal method 
that is not the least-cost option if the Secretary determines 
that the incremental costs of such disposal method are 
reasonable in relation to the environmental benefits, including 
the benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the 
creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion. The 
Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined in 
accordance with subsection (d).
  (h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any project 
carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 
include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected 
local government.
  (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated $30,000,000 annually for projects under this 
section of which not more than $3,000,000 annually may be used 
for construction of projects described in subsection (e). Such 
sums shall remain available until expended.
  (j) Regional Sediment Management Planning.--In consultation 
with appropriate State and Federal agencies, the Secretary may 
develop, at Federal expense, plans for regional management of 
material dredged in conjunction with the construction, 
operation, or maintenance of navigation projects, including 
potential beneficial uses of dredged material for construction, 
repair, or rehabilitation of public projects for navigation, 
flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and 
industrial water supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, 
hurricane and storm damage reduction, aquatic plant control, 
and environmental protection and restoration.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Authorization of Appropriations for Construction 
Assistance.--There are authorized to be appropriated for 
providing construction assistance under this section--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (7) $30,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(16); [and]
          (8) $30,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(17)[.];
          (9) $20,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(20);
          (10) $20,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(25);
          (11) $15,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(26);
          (12) $7,800,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(27);
          (13) $18,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(31); and
          (14) $30,000,000 for the project described in 
        subsection (c)(40).
  (f) Additional Assistance.--The Secretary may provide 
assistance under subsection (a) and assistance for construction 
for the following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (11) Northeast pennsylvania.--$20,000,000 for water 
        related infrastructure in the counties of Lackawanna, 
        Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, Wayne, Sullivan, 
        Bradford, [and Monroe] Northumberland, Union, Snyder, 
        and Montour, Pennsylvania, including assistance for the 
        Mountoursville Regional Sewer Authority, Lycoming 
        County, Pennsylvania.
          (12) Calumet region, indiana.--[$10,000,000] 
        $30,000,000 for water related infrastructure projects 
        in the counties of [Lake and Porter] Benton, Jasper, 
        Lake, Newton, and Porter, Indiana.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (21) Baton rouge, louisiana.--[$20,000,000] 
        $35,000,000 for water related infrastructure for the 
        parishes of East Baton Rouge, Ascension, and 
        Livingston, Louisiana.
          (22) East san joaquin county, california.--
        [$25,000,000]
                  (A) In general.--$25,000,000 for ground water 
                recharge and conjunctive use projects in 
                Stockton East Water District, California.
                  (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit 
                toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
                project (i) the cost of design and construction 
                work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
                before the date of the partnership agreement 
                for the project if the Secretary determines 
                that the work is integral to the project; and 
                (ii) the cost of in-kind services and materials 
                provided for the project by the non-Federal 
                interest.
                  (C) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal 
                interest may provide any portion of the non-
                Federal share of the cost of the project in the 
                form of services, materials, supplies, or other 
                in-kind contributions.
          (23) Sacramento area, california.--[$25,000,000] 
        $35,000,000 for water supply and regional water 
        conservation and recycling projects in Placer and El 
        Dorado Counties and the San Juan Suburban Water 
        District, California. $________ for wastewater and 
        water supply infrastructure in the counties of Modoc, 
        Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, Nevada, El Dorado, and 
        Placer, California.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (25) Lakes marion and moultrie, south carolina.--
        [$15,000,000] $35,000,000 for wastewater treatment and 
        water supply treatment and distribution projects in the 
        counties of Calhoun, Clarendon, Colleton, Dorchester, 
        Orangeberg, and Sumter, South Carolina.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (29) Oakland county, michigan.--$20,000,000 for a 
        project to eliminate or control sanitary sewer 
        overflows and combined sewer overflows in the cities of 
        Berkley, Ferndale, Madison Heights, Royal Oak, 
        Birmingham, Hazel Park, Oak Park, Southfield, Clawson, 
        Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge, and Troy, and the 
        village of Beverly Hills, and the Charter Township of 
        Royal Oak, Michigan.
          (30) Desoto county, mississippi.--[$20,000,000] 
        $30,000,000 for a wastewater treatment project in the 
        county of DeSoto, Mississippi.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (32) St. louis, missouri.--[$15,000,000] $35,000,000 
        for a project to eliminate or control combined sewer 
        overflows in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (48) Cambria, california.--[$10,300,000]
                  (A) In general.--$10,300,000 for desalination 
                infrastructure, Cambria, California.
                  (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit 
                toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
                project not to exceed $3,000,000 for the cost 
                of planning and design work carried out by the 
                non-Federal interest before the date of the 
                partnership agreement for the project if the 
                Secretary determines that the work is integral 
                to the project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (61) Garrison and kathio [township] and crow wing and 
        mille lacs counties, minnesota.--$11,000,000 for a 
        wastewater infrastructure project for the city of 
        Garrison, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County, and 
        Kathio Township, Minnesota. Such assistance shall be 
        provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille 
        Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (64) Stanly county, north carolina.--$8,900,000 for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure, Stanly County, 
        North Carolina.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (70) Washington, greene, westmoreland, and fayette 
        counties, pennsylvania.--[$8,000,000] $13,300,000 for 
        water and wastewater infrastructure, Washington, 
        Greene, Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties, 
        Pennsylvania.
          (71) Plaquemine, louisiana.--$7,000,000 for sanitary 
        sewer and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, 
        Louisiana.
          (72) Charleston, south carolina.--$20,000,000 for 
        wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater 
        collection systems, Charleston, South Carolina.
          (73) Cross, south carolina.--$2,000,000 for water-
        related environmental infrastructure, Cross, South 
        Carolina.
          (74) Surfside, south carolina.--$8,000,000 for 
        environmental infrastructure, including stormwater 
        system improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, South 
        Carolina.
          (75) North myrtle beach, south carolina.--$3,000,000 
        for environmental infrastructure, including ocean 
        outfalls, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
          (76) Tia juana valley, california.--$1,400,000 for 
        water-related environmental infrastructure, Tia Juana 
        Valley, California.
          (77) Cabarrus county, north carolina.--$4,500,000 for 
        water-related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North 
        Carolina.
          (78) Richmond county, north carolina.--$8,000,000 for 
        water-related infrastructure, Richmond County, North 
        Carolina.
          (79) Union county, north carolina.--$9,000,000 for 
        wastewater infrastructure, Union County, North 
        Carolina.
          (80) Washington, district of columbia.--$35,000,000 
        for implementation of a combined sewer overflow long 
        term control plan, Washington, District of Columbia.
          (81) Southern los angeles county, california.--
        $15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the 
        groundwater basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los 
        Angeles County, California.
          (82) Indianapolis, indiana.--$6,430,000 for 
        environmental infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana.
          (83) Henderson, nevada.---$5,000,000 for wastewater 
        infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada.
          (84) Sennett, new york.--$1,500,000 for water 
        infrastructure, Town of Sennett, New York.
          (85) Ledyard and montville, connecticut.--$7,113,000 
        for water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, 
        Connecticut.
          (86) Awendaw, south carolina.--$2,000,000 for water-
        related infrastructure, Awendaw, South Carolina.
          (87) St. clair county, alabama.--$5,000,000 for 
        water-related infrastructure, St. Clair County, 
        Alabama.
          (88) East bay, san francisco and santa clara areas, 
        california.--$4,000,000 for a desalination project to 
        serve the East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara 
        areas, California.
          (89) Athens, tennessee.--$16,000,000 for wastewater 
        infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee.
          (90) Warwick, new york.--$1,200,000 for water storage 
        capacity restoration, Warwick, New York.
          (91) Kiryas joel, new york.--$20,000,000 for water-
        related infrastructure, Kiryas Joel, New York.
          (92) Whittier, california.--$8,000,000 for wastewater 
        and water-related infrastructure, Whittier, 
        California.''.
          (93) Anacostia river, district of columbia and 
        maryland.--$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure 
        and resource protection and development to enhance 
        water quality and living resources in the Anacostia 
        River watershed, District of Columbia and Maryland.
          (94) Duchesne, iron, and uintah counties, utah.--
        $10,000,000 for water-related infrastructure, Duchesne, 
        Iron, and Uintah Counties, Utah.
          (95) Hancock, harrison, jackson, and pearl river 
        counties, mississippi.--$5,824,300 for water and 
        wastewater-related infrastructure, Hancock, Harrison, 
        Jackson, and Pearl River Counties, Mississippi.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 313. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 
                    INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT 
                    PILOT PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the following 
definitions apply:
          (1) * * *
          (2) South central pennsylvania.--The term ``south 
        central Pennsylvania'' means [Allegheny, Armstrong, 
        Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin, 
        Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, 
        Somerset, Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland 
        Counties] Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, 
        Cambria, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, 
        Indiana, Juniata, Somerset, Washington, and 
        Westmoreland Counties, Pennsylvania.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 324. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 
[design] planning, design, and construction assistance to the 
[Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission of the State of 
New Jersey for the development of the Phase I Environmental 
Improvement Program of the Special Area Management Plan for] 
New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development of an 
environmental improvement program for the Hackensack 
Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
  (b) [Required] Elements.--The program to be developed under 
subsection (a) [shall] may include at a minimum the following 
areas:
          [(1) Mitigation, enhancement, and acquisition of 
        significant wetlands that contribute to the Meadowlands 
        ecosystem.]
          (1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant 
        wetlands and aquatic habitat that contribute to the 
        Meadowlands ecosystem.
          (2) Development and implementation of a regional 
        system to protect, preserve, and monitor wetlands and 
        aquatic habitat.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(7) Research and development for a water quality 
        improvement program.]
          (7) Research, development, and implementation for a 
        water quality improvement program, including 
        restoration of hydrology and tidal flows and 
        remediation of hot spots and other sources of 
        contaminants that degrade existing or planned sites.
  (c) Cost Sharing.--Total project costs under subsection (a) 
shall be shared at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-
Federal. The non-Federal sponsor shall receive credit for 
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward its 
share of project costs, but not to exceed 25 percent of total 
project costs. The non-Federal sponsor may also provide in-kind 
services, not to exceed 25 percent of the total project cost, 
and may also receive credit for reasonable cost of design work 
completed prior to entering into the partnership agreement with 
the Secretary for a project to be carried out under the program 
developed under subsection (a). Operation and maintenance cost 
shall be 100 percent non-Federal.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$5,000,000] 
$35,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 
1992. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

[SEC. 325. LAND EXCHANGE, ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.

  [(a) In General.--The Secretary may initiate a program to 
exchange lands above 863 feet in elevation which are excess to 
the operational needs of Allatoona Lake, Georgia, for lands on 
the north side of Allatoona Lake which are needed for wildlife 
management and for protection of the water quality and overall 
environment of Allatoona Lake.
  [(b) Terms and Conditions.--Land exchanges under the program 
to be conducted under subsection (a) shall be subject to the 
following terms and conditions:
          [(1) Lands acquired under the program must be 
        contiguous to the lands in Federal Government ownership 
        on the date of the enactment of this Act.
          [(2) Lands acquired under the program shall be from 
        willing sellers only.
          [(3) The basis for all land exchanges under the 
        program shall be a fair market appraisal so that lands 
        exchanged are of equal value.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 340. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 
                    INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT 
                    PILOT PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Southern West Virginia Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``Southern West Virginia'' means Raleigh, 
Wayne, Cabell, Fayette, Lincoln, Summers, Wyoming, Webster, 
Mingo, McDowell, Logan, Boone, Mercer, Pocahontas, Greenbrier, 
Nicholas, and Monroe Counties, West Virginia.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Corps of Engineers.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section for fiscal years 2003 
and thereafter may be used by the Corps of Engineers district 
offices to administer projects under this section at 100 
percent Federal expense.
  (i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any 
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest 
may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected 
local government.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 404. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.

  (a) Development of Program.--The Secretary is authorized and 
directed to develop a data collection and monitoring program of 
coastal [processes] and related environmental processes for the 
Atlantic Coast (and associated back bays) of New York, from 
Coney Island to Montauk Point, with a view toward providing 
information necessary to develop a program for addressing post 
storm actions, environmental restoration or conservation 
measures for coastal and back bays, and long-term shoreline 
erosion control. The plan for collecting data and monitoring 
information included in such annual report shall be fully 
coordinated with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of the 
State of New York.
  (b) [Initial Plan.--Not later than 12 months after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the] Annual Reports.--The 
Secretary shall provide an [initial plan for data collection 
and monitoring] annual report of data collection and monitoring 
activities to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
the Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 
of the House of Representatives. [Such initial plan shall be 
fully coordinated with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of 
the State of New York.]
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated $1,400,000 for each of fiscal years 1993, 1994, 
1995, 1996, and 1997, [and an additional total of $2,500,000 
for fiscal years thereafter] $2,500,000 for fiscal years 2000 
through 2002, and $17,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after 
September 30, 2002, to carry out this section. Such sums shall 
remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


       SECTION 145 OF THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1976

  [Sec. 145. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
Chief of Engineers, is authorized upon request of the State, to 
place on the beaches of such State beach-quality sand which has 
been dredged in constructing and maintaining navigation inlets 
and channels adjacent to such beaches, if the Secretary deems 
such action to be in the public interest and upon payment by 
such State of 35 percent of the increased cost thereof above 
the cost required for alternative methods of disposing of such 
sand. At the request of the State, the Secretary may enter into 
an agreement with a political subdivision of the State to place 
sand on the beaches of the political subdivision of the State 
under the same terms and conditions required in the first 
sentence of this section; except that the political subdivision 
shall be responsible for providing any payments required under 
such sentence in lieu of the State. In carrying out this 
section, the Secretary shall give consideration to the schedule 
of the State, or the schedule of the responsible political 
subdivision of the requesting State, for providing its share of 
funds for placing such sand on the beaches of the State or the 
political subdivision and shall, to the maximum extent 
practicable, accommodate such schedule.]
                              ----------                              


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 212. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the 
Secretary shall examine appropriate locations, including--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (27) Susquehanna River watershed, Bradford County, 
        Pennsylvania; [and]
          (28) Clear Creek, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria 
        Counties, Texas[.];
          (29) La Crosse County, Wisconsin;
          (30) Crawford County, Wisconsin;
          (31) Buffalo County, Wisconsin;
          (32) Calhoun County, Illinois;
          (33) Saint Charles County, Missouri;
          (34) Saint Louis County, Missouri;
          (35) Dubuque County, Iowa;
          (36) Scott County, Iowa;
          (37) Rock Island County, Illinois;
          (38) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
          (39) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
          (40) Iberville Parish, Louisiana; and
          (41) Livingston Parish, Louisiana.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 225. RECREATION USER FEES.

  (a) Withholding of Amounts.--
          (1) In general.--[During fiscal years 1999 through 
        2002, the] The Secretary may withhold from the special 
        account established under section 4(i)(1)(A) of the 
        Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 
        460l-6a(i)(1)(A)) 100 percent of the amount of receipts 
        above a baseline of $34,000,000 per each fiscal year 
        received from fees imposed at recreation sites under 
        the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of 
        the Army under section 4(b) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 
        460l-6a(b)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Availability.--The amounts withheld shall remain 
        available until [September 30, 2005] expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 310. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Credit.--After completion of the study, the Secretary 
shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of nourishment and renourishment associated 
with the shore protection project incurred by the non-Federal 
interest to respond to damages to Brevard County beaches that 
are the result of a Federal navigation project, as determined 
in the final report for the study.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 328. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY CANAL), 
                    LOUISIANA.

  (a) In General.--The project to prevent flood damage and for 
hurricane damage reduction, west bank of the Mississippi River 
(east of Harvey Canal), Louisiana, authorized by section 401(b) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) 
and section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to direct the Secretary 
to continue Federal [operation and maintenance] operation, 
maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, and replacement of the 
portion of the project included in the report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated May 1, 1995, referred to as ``[Algiers Channel] 
Algiers Canal Levees''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project shall be 35 percent.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 358. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after [September 
30, 1999] May 4, 1997, the city of Chesapeake, Virginia, shall 
not be obligated to make the annual cash contribution required 
under paragraph 1(9) of the Local Cooperation Agreement dated 
December 12, 1978, between the Government and the city for the 
project for navigation, southern branch of the Elizabeth River, 
Chesapeake, Virginia.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--STUDIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 455. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) In-Kind Contributions for Study.--The non-Federal 
interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share 
required under subsection (f) in the form of services, 
materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
carrying out this section $30,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
years 2003 [and 2004] through 2015.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 517. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.

  The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports for 
the following projects and, if justified, proceed directly to 
project preconstruction, engineering, and design:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, 
        Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine 
        preservation, restoration, and enhancement 
        modifications.]
          (5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, 
        Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine 
        preservation, restoration, enhancement modifications, 
        and interpretive center development.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 568. DETROIT RIVER, MICHIGAN.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Repair and Rehabilitation.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out paragraph 
        (1) [$1,000,000] $25,000,000 for the period beginning 
        with fiscal year 2000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 569. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.

  (a) Definition of Northeastern Minnesota.--In this section, 
the term ``northeastern Minnesota'' means the counties of Cook, 
Lake, St. Louis, Koochiching, Itasca, Cass, Crow Wing, Aitkin, 
Carlton, Pine, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, [Benton, 
Sherburne,] Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena, Isanti, and Chisago, 
Minnesota.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Local Cooperation Agreement.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Cost sharing.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal 
                interest shall receive credit for the 
                reasonable costs of design work completed by 
                the non-Federal interest before entering into a 
                local cooperation agreement with the Secretary 
                for a project. [The credit for the design work 
                shall not exceed 6 percent of the total 
                construction costs of the project.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(g) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the Secretary 
shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot 
program carried out under this section, including 
recommendations concerning whether the program should be 
implemented on a national basis.]
  (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any 
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest 
may include a nonprofit entity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps 
of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this 
section at 100 percent Federal expense.

SEC. 570. ALASKA.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Local Cooperation Agreements.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Cost sharing.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal 
                interest shall receive credit for the 
                reasonable costs of design work completed by 
                the non-Federal interest before entering into a 
                local cooperation agreement with the Secretary 
                for a project. [The credit for the design work 
                shall not exceed 6 percent of the total 
                construction costs of the project.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$25,000,000] 
$40,000,000 for the period beginning with fiscal year 2000, to 
remain available until expended.
  (i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any 
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest 
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the 
affected local government.
  (j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps 
of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this 
section at 100 percent Federal expense.

SEC. 571. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.

  (a) Definition of Central West Virginia.--In this section, 
the term ``central West Virginia'' means the counties of Mason, 
Jackson, Putnam, Kanawha, Roane, Wirt, Calhoun, Clay, 
[Nicholas,] Braxton, [Gilmer,] Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, 
Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan, Berkeley, and Jefferson, 
West Virginia.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any 
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest 
may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected 
local government.
  (j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps 
of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this 
section at 100 percent Federal expense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 573. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any 
project carried out under this section, a non-Federal sponsor 
may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the 
affected local government.
  [(f)] (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
[$10,000,000] $30,000,000.
  [(g)] (h) Repeal.--Title IV of the Great Lakes Critical 
Programs Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 3010) and section 411 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4648) are 
repealed effective on the date that is 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 591. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION, FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA.

  (a) Participation of Secretary.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
        [$12,000,000] $22,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 594. OHIO.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$60,000,000] 
$90,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              SECTION 10 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1922

            (Commonly known as the ``Rivers and Harbors Act)

     CHAP. 427.--AN ACT Authorizing the construction, repair, and 
  preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for 
                            other purposes.

  Sec. 10. That any work of improvement herein adopted, and any 
public work on canals, rivers, and harbors, including any 
planning, engineering, design, construction, operation, and 
maintenance, adopted by Congress may be prosecuted by direct 
appropriations, by continuing contracts, or by both direct 
appropriations and continuing contracts.
                              ----------                              


  SECTION 309 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1992

                          (Public Law 102-154)

  Sec. 309. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
fiscal year 1992 and thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior, 
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, the 
Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the Smithsonian 
Institution are authorized to enter into contracts with State 
and local governmental entities, including local fire 
districts, for procurement of services in the presuppression, 
detection, and suppression of fires on any units within their 
jurisdiction.
                              ----------                              


       SECTION 22 OF THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974

  Sec. 22. [(a) The Secretary]
  (a) Federal State Cooperation.--
          (1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary of the Army, 
        acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to 
        cooperate with any State in the preparation of 
        comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, 
        and conservation of the water and related resources of 
        drainage basins, watersheds or ecosystems located 
        within the boundaries of such State and to submit to 
        congress reports and recommendations with respect to 
        appropriate Federal participation in carrying out such 
        plans.
          (2) Technical assistance.--
                          (A) In general.--At the request of a 
                        governmental agency or non-Federal 
                        interest, the Secretary may provide, at 
                        Federal expense, technical assistance 
                        to such agency or non-Federal interest 
                        in managing water resources.
                          (B) Types of assistance.--Technical 
                        assistance under this paragraph may 
                        include provision and integration of 
                        hydrologic, economic, and environmental 
                        data and analyses.
  (b) Fees.--
          (1) Establishment and collection.--For the purpose of 
        recovering 50 percent of the total cost of providing 
        assistance pursuant to [this section] subsection 
        (a)(1), the Secretary of the Army is authorized to 
        establish appropriate fees, as determined by the 
        Secretary, and to collect such fees from States and 
        other non-Federal public bodies to whom assistance is 
        provided under [this section] subsection (a)(1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) There is]
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $10,000,000 
        annually to carry out [the provisions of this section] 
        subsection (a)(1); except that not more than $500,000 
        shall be expended in any one year in any one State.
          (2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be 
        appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out 
        subsection (a)(2), of which not more than $2,000,000 
        annually may be used by the Secretary to enter into 
        cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations to 
        provide assistance to rural and small communities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


       SECTION 21 OF THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1988

SEC. 21. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

  (a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, the Secretary is directed to maintain water levels in the 
Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs within the following 
operating limits: Winnibigoshish 1296.94 feet--1303.14 feet; 
Leech 1293.20 feet--1297.94 feet; Pokegama 1270.42 feet--
[1276.42] 1278.42 feet; Sandy 1214.31 feet--[1218.31] 1221.31 
feet; Pine 1227.32 feet--[1234.82] 1235.30 feet; and Gull 
1192.75 feet--1194.75 feet. Such water levels shall be measured 
using the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
  [(b) Exception.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters 
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels 
established in subsection (a) in accordance with a contingency 
plan which the Secretary develops after consulting with the 
Governor of Minnesota and affected landowners and commercial 
and recreational users. The Secretary shall transmit such plan 
to Congress within 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
this Act. The Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14 
days prior to operating any such headwaters reservoir below the 
minimum or above the maximum water level limits specified in 
subsection (a).]
  (b) Exception.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters 
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels 
established in subsection (a) in accordance with water control 
regulation manuals (or revisions thereto) developed by the 
Secretary, after consultation with the Governor of Minnesota 
and affected tribal governments, landowners, and commercial and 
recreational users. The water control regulation manuals (and 
any revisions thereto) shall be effective when the Secretary 
transmits them to Congress. The Secretary shall report to 
Congress at least 14 days before operating any such headwaters 
reservoir below the minimum or above the maximum water level 
limits specified in subsection (a); except that notification is 
not required for operations necessary to prevent the loss of 
life or to ensure the safety of the dam or where the drawdown 
of lake levels is in anticipation of flood control operations.
                              ----------                              


                 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

(Division B of H.R. 5666 as introduced on December 15, 2000 and enacted 
into law by section 1(a)(4) of Public Law 106-554)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                               DIVISION B

TITLE I

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 109. Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements. (a)
  (e) Non-Federal Share.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Credit.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) Credit for work prior to execution of the 
                partnership agreement.--The Secretary shall 
                credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
                of the project (i) the cost of construction 
                work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
                before the date of the partnership agreement 
                for the project if the Secretary determines 
                that the work is integral to the project; and 
                (ii) the cost of land acquisition carried out 
                by the non-Federal interest for projects to be 
                carried out under this section.
                              ----------                              


               SECTION 401 OF THE ACT OF NOVEMBER 1, 1988

                          (Public Law 100-581)

 AN ACT To establish procedures for review of tribal constitutions and 
 bylaws or amendments thereto pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 
                              Stat. 987).

  Sec. 401. (a) * * *
  (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
of the Army shall--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) make improvements at existing sites and Celilo 
        Village, Oregon, including but not limited to dredging 
        at the site at Wind River, Washington, and constructing 
        a boat ramp on or near the site at Cascade Locks, 
        Oregon.
                              ----------                              


  SECTION 108 OF THE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1994

  Sec. 108. (a) In General.--[The Secretary]
          (1) Authority to convey.--The Secretary of the Army 
        is authorized to convey to the City of Galveston, 
        Texas, fee simple absolute title to all or any part of 
        a parcel of land containing approximately 605 acres 
        known as the San Jacinto Disposal Area located on the 
        east end of Galveston Island, Texas, in the W.A.A. 
        Wallace Survey, A-647 and A-648, City of Galveston, 
        Galveston County, Texas, being part of the old Fort San 
        Jacinto site, at the fair market value of such parcel 
        to be determined in accordance with the provisions of 
        subsection (d). Such conveyance shall only be made by 
        the Secretary of the Army upon the agreement of the 
        Secretary and the City as to all compensation due 
        herein.
          (2) Letter of intent.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary may provide a 
                letter of intent to the city of Galveston for 
                conveyance of less than 100 acres of the parcel 
                described in subsection (a) for private 
                development purposes if the Secretary receives 
                and approves a proposal by the city designating 
                the land which would be subject to such 
                development.
                  (B) Disposition of spoil.--If the Secretary 
                issues a letter of intent under subparagraph 
                (A), no additional spoil material may be placed 
                on the land designated for private development 
                for a period of at least 5 years from the date 
                of issuance of the letter to provide the city 
                of Galveston with an opportunity to secure 
                private developers, perform appraisals, conduct 
                environmental studies, and provide the 
                compensation to the United States required for 
                the conveyance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Navigational Servitude.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Expiration date.--If, 20 years after the [date of 
        the enactment of this Act] date of enactment of the 
        Water Resources Development Act of 2003, any area or 
        part thereof described in subsection (a) is not 
        bulkheaded or filled or occupied by permanent 
        structures, including marina facilities, in accordance 
        with the requirements set out in paragraph (2), or if 
        work in connection with any activity permitted in 
        paragraph (2) is not commenced within 5 years after 
        issuance of such permits, then the declaration of 
        nonnavigability for such area or part thereof shall 
        expire.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        Committee Correspondence

                          House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on Resources,
                                 Washington, DC, September 4, 2003.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed H.R. 2557, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2003, as ordered reported by the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I believe that 
the Committee on Resources has a substantial jurisdictional 
interest in many provisions of this important legislation 
affecting fish and wildlife, environmental review and 
coordination, ecosystem restoration and Native Americans.
    Recognizing that the House of Representatives has a 
dwindling number of legislative days left before the first 
session of 108th Congress ends, I will forego seeking a 
sequential referral of H.R. 2557. Waiving the Committee on 
Resources' right to a referral in this case does not waive the 
Committee's jurisdiction over any provision in H.R. 2557 or 
similar provisions in other bills. In addition, I ask that you 
support my request to have the Committee on Resources 
represented on the conference on this bill, if a conference is 
necessary. Finally, I ask that you include this letter in the 
report accompanying H.R. 2557.
    I appreciate your leadership on this bill and I look 
forward to working with you on H.R. 2557.
            Sincerely,
                                          Richard W. Pombo,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                 Washington, DC, September 5, 2003.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of September 
4, 2003, regarding H.R. 2557, the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2003, and for your willingness to waive consideration of 
the provisions in the bill that fall within your Committee's 
jurisdiction under House Rules.
    I agree that your waiving consideration of this provision 
of H.R. 2557 does not waive your Committee's jurisdiction over 
the bill. I also acknowledge your right to seek conferees on 
any provisions that are under your Committee's jurisdiction 
during any House-Senate conference on H.R. 2557 or similar 
legislation, and will support your request for conferees on 
such provisions.
    As you request, your letter and this response will be 
included in the Committee report on the legislation.
    Thank you for your cooperation in moving this important 
legislation to the House Floor.
            Sincerely,
                                                 Don Young,
                                                          Chairman.

                                
