    [House Report 109-154]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    109th Congress                                                   Report
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
     1st Session                                                    109-154

    ======================================================================

                    WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

                                    _______

     June 24, 2005.--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. 2864]

          [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

      The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
    was referred the bill (H.R. 2864) 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 2005''.
      (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. Non-Federal contributions.
    Sec. 2002. Harbor cost sharing.
    Sec. 2003. Funding to process permits.
    Sec. 2004. National shoreline erosion control development and
    demonstration program.
    Sec. 2005. Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects.
    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. Wildfire firefighting.
    Sec. 2022. Credit for nonconstruction services.
    Sec. 2023. Technical assistance.
    Sec. 2024. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local
    actions.
    Sec. 2025. Project streamlining.
    Sec. 2026. Lakes program.
    Sec. 2027. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
    Sec. 2028. Cooperative agreements.
    Sec. 2029. Project planning.
    Sec. 2030. Independent peer review.
    Sec. 2031. Training funds.
    Sec. 2032. Access to water resource data.
    Sec. 2033. Shore protection projects.
    Sec. 2034. Ability to pay.
    Sec. 2035. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
    Sec. 2036. Small flood damage reduction projects.
    Sec. 2037. Leasing authority.
    Sec. 2038. Cost estimates.
    Sec. 2039. Studies and reports for water resources projects.
    Sec. 2040. Fiscal transparency report.

                     TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

    Sec. 3001. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.
    Sec. 3002. St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska.
    Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska.
    Sec. 3004. Tatitlek, Alaska.
    Sec. 3005. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto basin, Arkansas.
    Sec. 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.
    Sec. 3007. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.
    Sec. 3008. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas.
    Sec. 3009. American River Watershed, California.
    Sec. 3010. Compton Creek, California.
    Sec. 3011. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.
    Sec. 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California.
    Sec. 3013. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel,
    California.
    Sec. 3014. Kaweah River, California.
    Sec. 3015. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.
    Sec. 3016. Llagas Creek, California.
    Sec. 3017. Los Angeles Harbor, California.
    Sec. 3018. Magpie Creek, California.
    Sec. 3019. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.
    Sec. 3020. Pinole Creek, California.
    Sec. 3021. Prado Dam, California.
    Sec. 3022. Sacramento and American Rivers Flood Control, California.
    Sec. 3023. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
    Sec. 3024. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
    Sec. 3025. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
    Sec. 3026. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
    Sec. 3027. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
    Sec. 3028. Walnut Creek Channel, California.
    Sec. 3029. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.
    Sec. 3030. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.
    Sec. 3031. Yuba River Basin project, California.
    Sec. 3032. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
    Delaware and Maryland.
    Sec. 3033. Brevard County, Florida.
    Sec. 3034. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
    Sec. 3035. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
    Sec. 3036. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
    Sec. 3037. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
    Sec. 3038. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.
    Sec. 3039. Miami Harbor, Florida.
    Sec. 3040. Peanut Island, Florida.
    Sec. 3041. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.
    Sec. 3042. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida.
    Sec. 3043. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
    Sec. 3044. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.
    Sec. 3045. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
    Sec. 3046. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.
    Sec. 3047. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
    Sec. 3048. Chicago River, Illinois.
    Sec. 3049. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.
    Sec. 3050. Emiquon, Illinois.
    Sec. 3051. LaSalle, Illinois.
    Sec. 3052. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
    Sec. 3053. Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana.
    Sec. 3054. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
    Sec. 3055. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
    Sec. 3056. White River, Indiana.
    Sec. 3057. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.
    Sec. 3058. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.
    Sec. 3059. Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge
    Parish Watershed.
    Sec. 3060. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
    Sec. 3061. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.
    Sec. 3062. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
    Sec. 3063. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to
    Shreveport, Louisiana.
    Sec. 3064. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
    Sec. 3065. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.
    Sec. 3066. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal),
    Louisiana.
    Sec. 3067. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
    Sec. 3068. Union River, Maine.
    Sec. 3069. Gwynns Falls Watershed, Baltimore, Maryland.
    Sec. 3070. Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.
    Sec. 3071. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.
    Sec. 3072. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
    Sec. 3073. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
    Sec. 3074. Ada, Minnesota.
    Sec. 3075. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.
    Sec. 3076. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.
    Sec. 3077. Granite Falls, Minnesota.
    Sec. 3078. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.
    Sec. 3079. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
    Sec. 3080. Silver Bay, Minnesota.
    Sec. 3081. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.
    Sec. 3082. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
    Sec. 3083. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.
    Sec. 3084. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.
    Sec. 3085. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.
    Sec. 3086. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.
    Sec. 3087. River Des Peres, Missouri.
    Sec. 3088. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.
    Sec. 3089. Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.
    Sec. 3090. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.
    Sec. 3091. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
    Sec. 3092. Buffalo Harbor, New York.
    Sec. 3093. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
    Sec. 3094. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.
    Sec. 3095. New York State Canal System.
    Sec. 3096. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.
    Sec. 3097. Mahoning River, Ohio.
    Sec. 3098. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
    Sec. 3099. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
    Sec. 3100. Willamette River temperature control, McKenzie Subbasin,
    Oregon.
    Sec. 3101. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
    Sec. 3102. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 3103. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County,
    Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 3104. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 3105. South Central Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 3106. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 3107. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
    Sec. 3108. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
    Sec. 3109. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
    Sec. 3110. Lake Kemp, Texas.
    Sec. 3111. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
    Sec. 3112. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
    Sec. 3113. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.
    Sec. 3114. Proctor Lake, Texas.
    Sec. 3115. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
    Sec. 3116. James River, Virginia.
    Sec. 3117. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties,
    Virginia.
    Sec. 3118. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
    Sec. 3119. Duwamish/Green, Washington.
    Sec. 3120. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.
    Sec. 3121. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
    Sec. 3122. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
    Sec. 3123. Northern West Virginia.
    Sec. 3124. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.
    Sec. 3125. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
    Sec. 3126. Continuation of project authorizations.
    Sec. 3127. Project reauthorizations.
    Sec. 3128. Project deauthorizations.
    Sec. 3129. Land conveyances.
    Sec. 3130. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use
    restrictions.

                               TITLE IV--STUDIES

    Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program.
    Sec. 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites.
    Sec. 4003. Southwestern United States drought study.
    Sec. 4004. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
    Sec. 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
    Sec. 4006. Kuskokwim River, Alaska.
    Sec. 4007. St. George Harbor, Alaska.
    Sec. 4008. Susitna River, Alaska.
    Sec. 4009. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.
    Sec. 4010. Searcy County, Arkansas.
    Sec. 4011. Dry Creek Valley, California.
    Sec. 4012. Elkhorn Slough estuary, California.
    Sec. 4013. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.
    Sec. 4014. Los Angeles River, California.
    Sec. 4015. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.
    Sec. 4016. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.
    Sec. 4017. Napa River, St. Helena, California.
    Sec. 4018. Orick, California.
    Sec. 4019. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.
    Sec. 4020. Sacramento River, California.
    Sec. 4021. San Diego County, California.
    Sec. 4022. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
    Sec. 4023. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
    Sec. 4024. Twentynine Palms, California.
    Sec. 4025. Yucca Valley, California.
    Sec. 4026. Boulder Creek, Boulder, Colorado.
    Sec. 4027. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.
    Sec. 4028. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek,
    Wilmington, Delaware.
    Sec. 4029. Collier County beaches, Florida.
    Sec. 4030. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.
    Sec. 4031. Meriwether County, Georgia.
    Sec. 4032. Tybee Island, Georgia.
    Sec. 4033. Kaukonahua-Helemano watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
    Sec. 4034. West Maui, Maui, Hawaii.
    Sec. 4035. Boise River, Idaho.
    Sec. 4036. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois.
    Sec. 4037. Chicago, Illinois.
    Sec. 4038. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
    Sec. 4039. Utica, Illinois.
    Sec. 4040. Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana.
    Sec. 4041. Salem, Indiana.
    Sec. 4042. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.
    Sec. 4043. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.
    Sec. 4044. Louisville, Kentucky.
    Sec. 4045. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.
    Sec. 4046. Offshore oil and gas fabrication ports, Louisiana.
    Sec. 4047. Vermilion River, Louisiana.
    Sec. 4048. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
    Sec. 4049. Patapsco River, Maryland.
    Sec. 4050. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
    Sec. 4051. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.
    Sec. 4052. St. Clair River, Michigan.
    Sec. 4053. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
    Sec. 4054. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
    Sec. 4055. Mississippi coastal area, Mississippi.
    Sec. 4056. Northeast Mississippi.
    Sec. 4057. St. Louis, Missouri.
    Sec. 4058. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.
    Sec. 4059. Bayonne, New Jersey.
    Sec. 4060. Carteret, New Jersey.
    Sec. 4061. Elizabeth River, Elizabeth, New Jersey.
    Sec. 4062. Gloucester County, New Jersey.
    Sec. 4063. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
    Sec. 4064. Wreck Pond, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
    Sec. 4065. Batavia, New York.
    Sec. 4066. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
    Sec. 4067. East Chester Bay, Turtle Cove, New York.
    Sec. 4068. Finger Lakes, New York.
    Sec. 4069. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey.
    Sec. 4070. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.
    Sec. 4071. Newtown Creek, New York.
    Sec. 4072. Niagara River, New York.
    Sec. 4073. Upper Delaware River watershed, New York.
    Sec. 4074. Lincoln County, North Carolina.
    Sec. 4075. Wilkes County, North Carolina.
    Sec. 4076. Yadkinville, North Carolina.
    Sec. 4077. Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Sec. 4078. Euclid, Ohio.
    Sec. 4079. Lake Erie, Ohio.
    Sec. 4080. Ohio River, Ohio.
    Sec. 4081. Sutherlin, Oregon.
    Sec. 4082. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
    Sec. 4083. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.
    Sec. 4084. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon.
    Sec. 4085. Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 4086. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 4087. North Central Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 4088. Northampton and Lehigh Counties streams, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 4089. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction.
    Sec. 4090. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 4091. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 4092. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.
    Sec. 4093. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.
    Sec. 4094. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.
    Sec. 4095. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina.
    Sec. 4096. Chattanooga, Tennessee.
    Sec. 4097. Cleveland, Tennessee.
    Sec. 4098. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
    Sec. 4099. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.
    Sec. 4100. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee.
    Sec. 4101. Abilene, Texas.
    Sec. 4102. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.
    Sec. 4103. Fort Bend County, Texas.
    Sec. 4104. Harris County, Texas.
    Sec. 4105. Port of Galveston, Texas.
    Sec. 4106. Roma Creek, Texas.
    Sec. 4107. Walnut Creek, Texas.
    Sec. 4108. Grand County and Moab, Utah.
    Sec. 4109. Southwestern Utah.
    Sec. 4110. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina.
    Sec. 4111. James River, Richmond, Virginia.
    Sec. 4112. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.
    Sec. 4113. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia.
    Sec. 4114. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.
    Sec. 4115. 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. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
    Sec. 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
    Sec. 5014. Great Lakes tributary model.
    Sec. 5015. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins.
    Sec. 5016. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection
    Program.
    Sec. 5017. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
    Sec. 5018. Hypoxia assessment.
    Sec. 5019. Potomac River Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy
    Evaluation and Monitoring Program.
    Sec. 5020. Lock and dam security.
    Sec. 5021. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.
    Sec. 5022. Tallapoosa, Alabama.
    Sec. 5023. Alaska.
    Sec. 5024. Barrow, Alaska.
    Sec. 5025. Coffman Cove, Alaska.
    Sec. 5026. Fort Yukon, Alaska.
    Sec. 5027. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska.
    Sec. 5028. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.
    Sec. 5029. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
    Sec. 5030. Tanana River, Alaska.
    Sec. 5031. Valdez, Alaska.
    Sec. 5032. Whittier, Alaska.
    Sec. 5033. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.
    Sec. 5034. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
    Sec. 5035. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.
    Sec. 5036. Helena and vicinity, Arkansas.
    Sec. 5037. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.
    Sec. 5038. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
    Sec. 5039. White River basin, Arkansas.
    Sec. 5040. Cambria, California.
    Sec. 5041. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California;
    Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
    Sec. 5042. Dana Point Harbor, California.
    Sec. 5043. East San Joaquin County, California.
    Sec. 5044. Eastern Santa Clara Basin, California.
    Sec. 5045. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.
    Sec. 5046. Sacramento deep water ship channel, California.
    Sec. 5047. San Francisco, California.
    Sec. 5048. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.
    Sec. 5049. Santa Venetia, California.
    Sec. 5050. Stockton, California.
    Sec. 5051. Victor V. Veysey Dam, California.
    Sec. 5052. Whittier, California.
    Sec. 5053. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,
    Connecticut.
    Sec. 5054. Christina River shipwreck, Delaware.
    Sec. 5055. Anacostia River, District of Columbia, Maryland, and
    Virginia.
    Sec. 5056. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
    Sec. 5057. Lake Worth, Florida.
    Sec. 5058. Lake Lanier, Georgia.
    Sec. 5059. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho.
    Sec. 5060. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.
    Sec. 5061. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration.
    Sec. 5062. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.
    Sec. 5063. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois.
    Sec. 5064. Illinois River basin restoration.
    Sec. 5065. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois.
    Sec. 5066. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.
    Sec. 5067. Calumet region, Indiana.
    Sec. 5068. Floodplain mapping, Missouri River, Iowa.
    Sec. 5069. Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
    Sec. 5070. Cumberland River basin, Kentucky.
    Sec. 5071. Louisville, Kentucky.
    Sec. 5072. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky.
    Sec. 5073. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky.
    Sec. 5074. Paducah, Kentucky.
    Sec. 5075. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
    Sec. 5076. Winchester, Kentucky.
    Sec. 5077. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
    Sec. 5078. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.
    Sec. 5079. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana.
    Sec. 5080. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
    Sec. 5081. Charlestown, Maryland.
    Sec. 5082. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Maryland and Delaware.
    Sec. 5083. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.
    Sec. 5084. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.
    Sec. 5085. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
    Sec. 5086. Crookston, Minnesota.
    Sec. 5087. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.
    Sec. 5088. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
    Sec. 5089. Northeastern Minnesota.
    Sec. 5090. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.
    Sec. 5091. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois.
    Sec. 5092. St. Louis, Missouri.
    Sec. 5093. Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.
    Sec. 5094. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
    Sec. 5095. Central New Mexico, New Mexico.
    Sec. 5096. Atlantic Coast of New York.
    Sec. 5097. College Point, New York City, New York.
    Sec. 5098. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.
    Sec. 5099. Hudson River, New York.
    Sec. 5100. Mount Morris Dam, New York.
    Sec. 5101. Onondaga Lake, New York.
    Sec. 5102. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
    Sec. 5103. Stanly County, North Carolina.
    Sec. 5104. W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
    Sec. 5105. Ohio.
    Sec. 5106. Toussaint River, Ohio.
    Sec. 5107. Eugene, Oregon.
    Sec. 5108. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and Washington.
    Sec. 5109. Lowell, Oregon.
    Sec. 5110. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 5111. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 5112. Northeast Pennsylvania.
    Sec. 5113. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
    Sec. 5114. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
    Sec. 5115. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina.
    Sec. 5116. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
    Sec. 5117. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.
    Sec. 5118. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.
    Sec. 5119. Tennessee River partnership.
    Sec. 5120. Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and
    Mississippi.
    Sec. 5121. Bosque River watershed, Texas.
    Sec. 5122. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas.
    Sec. 5123. Harris County, Texas.
    Sec. 5124. Onion Creek, Texas.
    Sec. 5125. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.
    Sec. 5126. Eastern Shore and southwest Virginia.
    Sec. 5127. James River, Virginia.
    Sec. 5128. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.
    Sec. 5129. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.
    Sec. 5130. Puget Island, Washington.
    Sec. 5131. Willapa Bay, Washington.
    Sec. 5132. Bluestone, West Virginia.
    Sec. 5133. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
    Sec. 5134. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia.
    Sec. 5135. Central West Virginia.
    Sec. 5136. Southern West Virginia.
    Sec. 5137. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.
    Sec. 5138. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
    interests.
    Sec. 5139. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet.

                          TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

    Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida.
    Sec. 6002. Pilot projects.
    Sec. 6003. Maximum cost of projects.
    Sec. 6004. Project authorization.
    Sec. 6005. Credit.
    Sec. 6006. Outreach and assistance.
    Sec. 6007. Critical restoration projects.
    Sec. 6008. Deauthorizations.
    Sec. 6009. Modified water delivery.

                       TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

    Sec. 7001. Definitions.
    Sec. 7002. Additional Reports.
    Sec. 7003. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration task
    force.
    Sec. 7004. Investigations.
    Sec. 7005. Construction.
    Sec. 7006. Non-Federal cost share.
    Sec. 7007. Project justification.
    Sec. 7008. Statutory Construction.

        TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM

    Sec. 8001. Definitions.
    Sec. 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration.
    Sec. 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements.
    Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization.
    Sec. 8005. Comparable progress.

    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) Akutan, alaska.--
                      (A) In general.--The project for navigation, Akutan,
                    Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December
                    20, 2004, at a total cost of $19,700,000.
                      (B) Treatment of certain dredging.--The headlands
                    dredging for the mooring basin shall be considered a
                    general navigation feature for purposes of estimating
                    the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.
              (2) Haines small boat harbor, haines, alaska.--The project
            for navigation, Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska:
            Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a
            total of $12,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $9,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,500,000.
              (3) Tanque verde creek, arizona.--The project for
            environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Arizona: Report
            of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost
            of $4,978,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,236,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,742,000.
              (4) Va shily' ay akimel, salt river restoration, arizona.--
            The project for ecosystem restoration, Va Shily' Ay Akimel,
            Salt River, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
            January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $138,968,000, with an
            estimated Federal cost of $90,129,000 and an estimated non-
            Federal cost of $48,839,000.
              (5) Hamilton city, california.--The project for flood damage
            reduction and ecosystem restoration, Hamilton City, California:
            Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a
            total cost of $50,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $33,000,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of $17,600,000.
              (6) Imperial beach, california.--The project for storm damage
            reduction, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the Chief of
            Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of
            $11,862,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,592,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,270,000, and at an
            estimated total cost of $38,004,000 for periodic beach
            nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
            estimated Federal cost of $19,002,000 and an estimated non-
            Federal cost of $19,002,000.
              (7) Matilija dam, ventura county, california.--The project
            for ecosystem restoration, Matilija Dam and Ventura River
            Watershed, Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief of
            Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of
            $130,335,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $78,973,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $51,362,000.
              (8) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The project for
            ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Middle Creek,
            Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
            November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $41,793,000, with an
            estimated Federal cost of $27,256,000 and an estimated non-
            Federal cost of $14,537,000.
              (9) Napa river salt marsh, california.--
                      (A) In general.--The project for ecosystem
                    restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh, Nap River,
                    California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
                    December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $100,500,000,
                    with an estimated Federal cost of $64,000,000 and an
                    estimated non-Federal cost of $36,500,000.
                      (B) Project features.--In carrying out the project,
                    the Secretary shall include construction of a recycled
                    water pipeline extending from the Sonoma Valley County
                    Sanitation District Waste Water Treatment Plant and the
                    Napa Sanitation District Waste Water Treatment Plant as
                    part of the project and restoration and enhancement of
                    Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
              (10) 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 $18,824,000, with an
            estimated Federal cost of $12,236,000 and an estimated non-
            Federal cost of $6,588,000.
              (11) Miami harbor, miami-dade county, florida.--
                      (A) In general.--The project for navigation, Miami
                    Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief
                    of Engineers dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of
                    $121,127,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
                    $64,843,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
                    $56,284,000.
                      (B) General reevaluation report.--The non-Federal
                    share of the cost of the general reevaluation report
                    that resulted in the report of the Chief of Engineers
                    referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be the same
                    percentage as the non-Federal share of cost of
                    construction of the project.
                      (C) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into a new
                    partnership with the non-Federal interest to reflect
                    the cost sharing required by subparagraph (B).
              (12) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The project for
            ecosystem restoration, East St. Louis and vicinity, Illinois:
            Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a
            total cost of $191,158,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $123,807,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $67,351,000.
              (13) Peoria riverfront, illinois.--The project for
            environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront, Illinois: Report
            of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 28, 2003, 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.
              (14) Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana.--The project for
            navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief
            of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of
            $9,000,000. The costs of construction of the project shall 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.
              (15) 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: Reports of the Chief of Engineers, dated
                    August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of
                    $788,000,000 with an estimated Federal cost of
                    $512,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
                    $275,800,000.
                      (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 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.
              (16) Swope park industrial area, missouri.--The project for
            flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri:
            Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at a
            total cost of $15,683,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $10,194,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,489,000.
              (17) Manasquan to barnegat inlet, new jersey.--The project
            for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan to Barnegat
            Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
            December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $65,800,000, with an
            estimated Federal cost of $42,800,000 and an estimated non-
            Federal cost of $23,000,000, and at an estimated total cost of
            $108,000,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year
            life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $54,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $54,000,000.
              (18) South river, new jersey.--The project for hurricane and
            storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, South
            River, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July
            22, 2003, at a total cost of $112,623,000, with an estimated
            Federal cost of $73,205,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
            of $39,418,000.
              (19) Southwest valley, albuquerque, new mexico.--The project
            for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New
            Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29,
            2004, at a total cost of $19,494,000, with an estimated Federal
            cost of $12,671,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
            $6,823,000.
              (20) 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 $172,940,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $80,086,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $92,823,000.
              (21) Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos river,
            texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
            Sabine River to Corpus Christi, Texas: Report of the Chief of
            Engineers, dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of
            $13,104,000. 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.
              (22) 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 24, 2002, at a total cost of $15,960,000. 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.
              (23) 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 $25,200,000, with an estimated Federal
                    cost of $10,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
                    of $14,800,000.
                      (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.
              (24) 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 Federal cost of $35,573,000.
              (25) Chehalis river, centralia, washington.--
                      (A) In general.--The project for flood damage
                    reduction, Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington:
                    Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 27,
                    2004, at a total cost of $109,850,000, with an
                    estimated Federal cost of $66,425,000 and an estimated
                    non-Federal cost of $43,425,000.
                      (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall--
                              (i) credit up to $6,500,000 toward the non-
                            Federal share of the cost of the project for
                            the cost of planning and design work carried
                            out by the non-Federal interest in accordance
                            with the project study plan dated November 28,
                            1999; and
                              (ii) credit toward the non-Federal share of
                            the cost of the project 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.
                      (C) Additional flood storage at skookumchuck dam.--
                    The Secretary shall integrate into the project the
                    locally preferred plan to provide an additional 9,000
                    acre-feet of storage capacity at Skookumchuck Dam,
                    Washington, upon a determination by the Secretary that
                    providing such additional storage capacity is feasible.

    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) Haleyville, alabama.--Project for flood damage reduction,
            Haleyville, Alabama.
              (2) Weiss lake, alabama.--Project for flood damage reduction,
            Weiss Lake, Alabama.
              (3) Chino valley wash, arizona.--Project for flood damage
            reduction, Chino Valley Wash, Arizona.
              (4) Little colorado river levee, arizona.--Project for flood
            damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.
              (5) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood
            damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
              (6) Barrel springs wash, palmdale, california.--Project for
            flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale,
            California.
              (7) Borrego springs, california.--Project for flood damage
            reduction, Borrego Springs, California.
              (8) Colton, california.--Project for flood damage reduction,
            Colton, California.
              (9) Dunlap stream, san bernardino, california.--Project for
            flood damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, San Bernardino,
            California.
              (10) Hunts canyon wash, palmdale, california.--Project for
            flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale,
            California.
              (11) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--Project for flood
            damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
              (12) Utica and vicinity, illinois.--Project for flood damage
            reduction, Utica and vicinity, Illinois.
              (13) Des moines and raccoon rivers, iowa.--Project for flood
            damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Iowa.
              (14) Peabody, massachusetts.--Project for flood damage
            reduction, Peabody, Massachusetts.
              (15) Salem, massachusetts.--Project for flood damage
            reduction, Salem, Massachusetts.
              (16) Cass river, michigan.--Project for flood damage
            reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, Michigan.
              (17) Crow river, rockford, minnesota.--Project for flood
            damage reduction, Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.
              (18) Itasca county, minnesota.--Project for flood damage
            reduction, Trout Lake and Canisteo Pit, Itasca County,
            Minnesota.
              (19) Marsh creek, minnesota.--Project for flood damage
            reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
              (20) Roseau river, roseau, minnesota.--Project for flood
            damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota.
              (21) South branch of the wild rice river, borup, minnesota.--
            Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild
            Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
              (22) Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri.--Project for
            flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.
              (23) Cannisteo river, addison, new york.--Project for flood
            damage reduction, Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.
              (24) Cohocton river, campbell, new york.--Project for flood
            damage reduction, Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.
              (25) East river, silver beach, new york city, new york.--
            Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach,
            New York City, New York.
              (26) East valley creek, andover, new york.--Project for flood
            damage reduction, East Valley Creek, Andover, New York.
              (27) Sunnyside brook, westchester county, new york.--Project
            for flood damage reduction, Sunnyside Brook, Westchester
            County, New York.
              (28) Little yankee run, ohio.--Project for flood damage
            reduction, Little Yankee Run, Ohio.
              (29) Little neshaminy creek, warrenton, pennsylvania.--
            Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek,
            Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
              (30) Southampton creek watershed, southampton,
            pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Southampton
            Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania.
              (31) Spring creek, lower macungie township, pennsylvania.--
            Project for flood damage reduction, Spring Creek, Lower
            Macungie Township, Pennsylvania.
              (32) Yardley aqueduct, silver and brock creeks, yardley,
            pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Yardley
            Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania.
              (33) Surfside beach, south carolina.--Project for flood
            damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.
              (34) Congelosi ditch, missouri city, texas.--Project for
            flood damage reduction, Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas.
              (35) Dilley, texas.--Project for flood damage reduction,
            Dilley, Texas.
      (b) Special Rules.--
              (1) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--The Secretary may
            proceed with the project for the Cache River Basin, Grubbs,
            Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(5), notwithstanding
            that the project is located within the boundaries of the flood
            control project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri,
            authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950, (64
            Stat. 172) and modified by section 99 of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41).
              (2) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--The Secretary shall
            review the locally prepared plan for the project for flood
            damage, Wildwood Creek, California, referred to in subsection
            (a)(11) 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, the Secretary may use the plan
            to carry out the project and shall provide credit toward the
            non-Federal share of the cost of the project 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.
              (3) Borup, minnesota.--In carrying out the project for flood
            damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup,
            Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a)(21) 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.
              (4) Itasca county, minnesota.--In carrying out the project
            for flood damage reduction, Itasca County, Minnesota, referred
            to in subsection (a)(18) the Secretary may consider national
            ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal
            interest in the project.
              (5) Dilley, texas.--The Secretary shall carry out the project
            for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred to in
            subsection (a)(35) if the Secretary determines that the project
            is feasible.

    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 and louisiana.--
            Projects for emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and
            Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.
              (2) Franklin point park, anne arundel county, maryland.--
            Project for emergency streambank protection, Franklin Point
            Park, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
              (3) Mayo beach park, anne arundel county, maryland.--Project
            for emergency streambank protection, Mayo Beach Park, Anne
            Arundel County, Maryland.
              (4) Piney point lighthouse, st. mary's county, maryland.--
            Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney Point
            Lighthouse, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
              (5) St. joseph harbor, michigan.--Project for emergency
            streambank protection, St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
              (6) Pug hole lake, minnesota.--Project for emergency
            streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.
              (7) Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri.--
            Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork Grand
            River, Gentry County, Missouri.
              (8) Platte river, platte city, missouri.--Project for
            emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City,
            Missouri.
              (9) Rush creek, parkville, missouri.--Project for emergency
            streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri,
            including measures to address degradation of the creek bed.
              (10) Keuka lake, hammondsport, new york.--Project for
            emergency streambank protection, Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, New
            York.
              (11) 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.
              (12) Howard road outfall, shelby county, tennessee.--Project
            for emergency streambank protection, Howard Road outfall,
            Shelby County, Tennessee.
              (13) Mitch farm ditch and lateral d, shelby county,
            tennessee.--Project for emergency streambank protection, Mitch
            Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee.
              (14) Wolf river tributaries, shelby county, tennessee.--
            Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf River
            tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee.
              (15) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--Project for emergency
            streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
              (16) Wells river, newbury, vermont.--Project for emergency
            streambank protection, Wells River, Newbury, Vermont.

    SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

      (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 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) Mahukona beach park, hawaii.--Project for navigation,
            Mahukona Beach Park, Hawaii.
              (3) North kohala harbor, hawaii.--Project for navigation,
            North Kohala Harbor in the vicinity of Kailua Kona, Hawaii.
              (4) Wailoa small boat harbor, hawaii.--Project for
            navigation, Wailoa Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii.
              (5) Mississippi river ship channel, louisiana.--Project for
            navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
              (6) Port tobacco river and goose creek, maryland.--Project
            for navigation, Port Tobacco River and Goose Creek, Maryland.
              (7) St. jerome creek, st. mary's county, maryland.--Project
            for navigation, St. Jerome Creek, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
              (8) East basin, cape cod canal, sandwich, massachusetts.--
            Project for navigation, East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich,
            Massachusetts.
              (9) Lynn harbor, lynn, massachusetts.--Project for
            navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.
              (10) Merrimack river, haverhill, massachusetts.--Project for
            navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.
              (11) Oak bluffs harbor, oak bluffs, massachusetts.--Project
            for navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
              (12) Woods hole great harbor, falmouth, massachusetts.--
            Project for navigation, Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth,
            Massachusetts.
              (13) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au
            Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
              (14) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--Project
            for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan.
      (b) Special Rules.--
              (1) Blytheville county harbor, arkansas.--The Secretary shall
            carry out the project for navigation, Blytheville County
            Harbor, Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(1) if the
            Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
              (2) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--The
            Secretary shall review the locally prepared plan for the
            project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Michigan,
            referred to in subsection (a)(14), 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, the Secretary may use the plan to carry out the
            project and shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share
            of the cost of the project 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. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE
                        ENVIRONMENT.

      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 1135 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a):
              (1) Ballona creek, los angeles county, california.--Project
            for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ballona
            Creek, Los Angeles County, California.
              (2) Ballona lagoon tide gates, marina del rey, california.--
            Project for improvement of the quality of the environment,
            Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey, California.
              (3) Rathbun lake, iowa.--Project for improvement of the
            quality of the environment, Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
              (4) Smithville lake, missouri.--Project for improvement of
            the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri.
              (5) Delaware bay, new jersey and delaware.--Project for
            improvement of the quality of the environment, Delaware Bay,
            New Jersey and Delaware, for the purpose of oyster restoration.
              (6) Tioga-hammond lakes, pennsylvania.--Project for
            improvement of the quality of the environment, Tioga-Hammond
            Lakes, Pennsylvania.

    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) Cypress creek, montgomery, alabama.--Project for aquatic
            ecosystem restoration, Cypress Creek, Montgomery, Alabama.
              (2) Ben lomond dam, santa cruz, california.--Project for
            aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz,
            California.
              (3) Dockweiler bluffs, los angeles county, california.--
            Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dockweiler Bluffs,
            Los Angeles County, California.
              (4) Salt river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
            restoration, Salt River, California.
              (5) Santa rosa creek, santa rosa, california.--Project for
            aquatic ecosystem restoration, Santa Rosa Creek in the vicinity
            of the Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa, California.
              (6) 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.
              (7) 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.
              (8) Bayou texar, pensacola, florida.--Project for aquatic
            ecosystem restoration, Bayou Texar, Pensacola, Florida.
              (9) Biscayne bay, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
            restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida.
              (10) Clam bayou and dinkins bayou, sanibel island, florida.--
            Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clam Bayou and
            Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida.
              (11) Destin harbor, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
            restoration, Destin Harbor, Florida.
              (12) Chattahoochee fall line, georgia and alabama.--Project
            for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall Line,
            Georgia and Alabama.
              (13) Longwood cove, gainesville, georgia.--Project for
            aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville,
            Georgia.
              (14) City park, university lakes, louisiana.--Project for
            aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes,
            Louisiana.
              (15) Mill pond, littleton, massachusetts.--Project for
            aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton,
            Massachusetts.
              (16) Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts.--Project for
            aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton,
            Massachusetts.
              (17) Kalamazoo river watershed, battle creek, michigan.--
            Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Kalamazoo River
            watershed, Battle Creek, Michigan.
              (18) Rush lake, minnesota.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
            restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota.
              (19) South fork of the crow river, hutchinson, minnesota.--
            Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the
            Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota.
              (20) St. louis county, missouri.--Project for aquatic
            ecosystem restoration, St. Louis County, Missouri.
              (21) Truckee river, reno, nevada.--Project for aquatic
            ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including
            features for fish passage.
              (22) Grover's mill pond, new jersey.--Project for aquatic
            ecosystem restoration, Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.
              (23) Dugway creek, bratenahl, ohio.--Project for aquatic
            ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.
              (24) Johnson creek, gresham, oregon.--Project for aquatic
            ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
              (25) Beaver creek, beaver and salem, pennsylvania.--Project
            for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver and
            Salem, Pennsylvania.
              (26) Cementon dam, lehigh river, pennsylvania.--Project for
            aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, Lehigh River,
            Pennsylvania.
              (27) Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard,
            pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
            Delaware River in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval
            Shipyard, Pennsylvania.
              (28) Saucon creek, northampton county, pennsylvania.--Project
            for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon Creek, Northampton
            County, Pennsylvania.
              (29) Blackstone river, rhode island.--Project for aquatic
            ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
              (30) Wilson branch, cheraw, south carolina.--Project for
            aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South
            Carolina.
              (31) White river, bethel, vermont.--Project for aquatic
            ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont.

    SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE 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 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.
              (2) Sanibel island, florida.--Project for shoreline
            protection, Sanibel Island, Florida.
              (3) Apra harbor, guam.--Project for shoreline protection,
            Apra Harbor, Guam.
              (4) Piti, cabras island, guam.--Project for shoreline
            protection, Piti, Cabras Island, Guam.
              (5) Narrows and gravesend bay, upper new york bay, brooklyn,
            new york.--Project for shoreline protection in the vicinity of
            the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York
            Bay, Brooklyn, New York.
              (6) Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard,
            pennsylvania.--Project for shoreline protection, Delaware River
            in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
            Pennsylvania.
              (7) Port aransas, texas.--Project for shoreline protection,
            Port Aransas, Texas.

    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. 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. 2002. 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 October 1, 2003.
      (e) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise
    any partnership agreement entered into after October 1, 2003, for any
    project to which the amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c)
    apply to take into account the change in non-Federal participation in
    the project as a result of such amendments.

    SEC. 2003. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

      Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C.
    2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 117 Stat. 1836) is amended--
              (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``In fiscal years 2001
            through 2005, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
              (2) by adding at the end the following:
      ``(c) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided under this
    section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000, through December 31,
    2007.''.

    SEC. 2004. 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. 2005. SMALL SHORE AND BEACH RESTORATION AND PROTECTION PROJECTS.

      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), is amended by
    striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000''.

    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 striking ``to furnish its required cooperation
                    for'' and inserting ``under which each party agrees to
                    carry out its responsibilities and requirements for
                    implementation or construction of''; and
                      (C) by inserting after ``$25,000.'' the following:
                    ``Such agreement may include a provision for 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 an agreement
    under this section meets all requirements of law and policies of the
    Secretary in effect on the date of entry into the 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 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 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) Partnership and Cooperative Arrangements.--
              (1) In general.--A goal of agreements entered into under
            section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
            5(b)) shall be to further partnership and cooperative
            arrangements, and the agreements shall be referred to as
            ``partnership agreements''.
              (2) References 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 considered to be a reference to a partnership
            agreement or a project partnership agreement, respectively.
              (3) References to partnership agreements.--Any reference to a
            partnership agreement or project partnership agreement in this
            Act (other than this section) shall be considered as a
            reference to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation
            agreement, respectively.
      (e) Delegation of Authority.--Not later than September 30, 2006, the
    Secretary shall issue policies and guidelines for partnership
    agreements that delegate to the district engineers, at a minimum--
              (1) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership
            agreement that has appeared in an agreement previously approved
            by the Secretary;
              (2) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership
            agreement the specific terms of which are dictated by law, or
            by a final feasibility study, final environmental impact
            statement, or other final decision document for a water
            resources development project;
              (3) the authority to approve any partnership agreement that
            complies with the policies and guidelines issued by the
            Secretary; and
              (4) the authority to sign any partnership agreement for any
            water resources development project unless, within 30 days of
            the date of authorization of the project, the Secretary
            notifies the district engineer in which the project will be
            carried out that the Secretary wishes to retain the prerogative
            to sign the partnership agreement for that project.
      (f) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
    enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the Secretary shall
    submit to Congress a report detailing the following:
              (1) the number of partnership agreements signed by district
            engineers and the number of partnership agreements signed by
            the Secretary, and
              (2) for any partnership agreement signed by the Secretary, an
            explanation of why delegation to the district engineer was not
            appropriate.
      (g) Public Availability.--Not later than the 120th day following the
    date of enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall ensure that
    each district engineer has made available on the Internet all
    partnership agreements entered into under section 221 of the Flood
    Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)) within the preceding 10
    years and all partnership agreements for water resources development
    projects currently being carried out in that district and shall make
    any partnership agreements entered into after such date of enactment
    available on the Internet within 7 days of the date on which such
    agreement is entered into.

    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 2006 through 2010.

    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, 2006, 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, 2006, 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. The
    Secretary shall also ensure that such compilations are available
    through electronic means, including the Internet.

    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 one 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 sediment obtained in connection with the construction,
    operation, or maintenance of an authorized water resources 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 one or more of the purposes of protection, restoration, or creation
    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 water resources project in the most cos- effective way,
    consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
      ``(g) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method.--In developing and
    carrying out a water resources project involving the disposal of
    sediment, 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 subsections
    (d) and (f).
      ``(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 sediment obtained in
    conjunction with the construction, operation, or maintenance of water
    resources projects, including potential beneficial uses of sediment 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.
      ``(k) Use of Funds.--
              ``(1) Non-federal interest.--The non-Federal interest for a
            project described in this section may use, and the Secretary
            shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal program,
            to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the
            cost of such project if such funds are authorized to be used to
            carry out such project.
              ``(2) Other federal agencies.--The non-Federal share of the
            cost of construction of a project under this section may be met
            through contributions from a Federal agency made directly to
            the Secretary, with the consent of the affected local
            government, if such funds are authorized to be used to carry
            out such project. Before initiating a project to which this
            paragraph applies, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement
            with a non-Federal interest in which the non-Federal interest
            agrees to pay 100 percent of the cost of operation,
            maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project.''.
      (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 the following:
              (1) A project at Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas.
              (2) A project at Egmont Key, Florida.
              (3) A project in the vicinity of Calcasieu Ship Channel,
            Louisiana.
              (4) A project in the vicinity of the Smith Point Park
            Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York.
              (5) A project in the vicinity of Morehead City, North
            Carolina.
              (6) A project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay, Texas.

    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.

      ``(a) In General.--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 owned by an Alaska
    Native Regional Corporation or an Alaska Native Village Corporation (as
    those terms are defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
    U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)) or the Metlakatla Indian community.
      ``(b) Use of Funds.--The non-Federal interest for a study or project
    for an area described in subsection (a) may use, and the Secretary
    shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal program, to
    satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of such study or
    project if such funds are authorized to be used to carry out such study
    or project.''.

    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)--
                      (A) by striking ``During fiscal years 1999 through
                    2002, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
                      (B) by striking ``$34,000,000'' and inserting
                    ``$42,000,000''; 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) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio;
              ``(7) Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties,
            Washington;
              ``(8) Niagara River Basin, New York; and
              ``(9) Genesee River Basin, New York.'';
              (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.

      (a) Scope.--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''.
      (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 203(e) of such Act is
    amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2010''.

    SEC. 2021. 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. 2022. 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
    carrying out 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 integral to the project.

    SEC. 2023. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

      Section 22 of the 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 (b)(2) by striking ``Up to 1/2 of the'' and
            inserting ``The'';
              (5) in subsection (c) by striking ``(c) There is'' and
            inserting the following:
      ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
              ``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
              (6) in subsection (c)(1) (as designated by paragraph (5))--
                      (A) by striking ``the provisions of this section''
                    and inserting ``subsection (a)(1);''; and
                      (B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting
                    ``$1,000,000'';
              (7) 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.'';
              (8) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
              (9) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
      ``(d) Annual Submission of Proposed Activities.--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
    Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the
    individual activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for
    that fiscal year.''.

    SEC. 2024. 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, storm damage reduction, ecosystem 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, storm damage reduction,
    ecosystem 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. 2025. 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. 2026. 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) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey,
            removal of silt and measures to address water quality;
              ``(22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal of
            silt and restoration of structural integrity;
              ``(23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal of
            silt and aquatic growth;
              ``(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of
            silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural
            integrity; and
              ``(25) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.''.

    SEC. 2027. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

      (a) Mitigation Plan Contents.--Section 906(d) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (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.''.
      (b) 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 Environment
            and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of
            construction of projects that require mitigation under section
            906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 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. 2028. 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. 2029. PROJECT PLANNING.

      (a) Objectives.--
              (1) Flood damage reduction, 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 plan
                    is feasible and achieves the project purposes 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 additional
            measures, 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 additional measures, a separate
            project, or separable project element to achieve those
            benefits.
              (3) Rules applicable to certain measures, projects, and
            elements.--Any additional measures, separate project, or
            separable element identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and
            recommended for construction shall not be considered integral
            to the underlying project and, if authorized, shall be subject
            to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-Federal
            interest agrees to share in the cost of the additional
            measures, project, or separable element.
      (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. 2030. 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.

    SEC. 2031. TRAINING FUNDS.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary may include individuals not employed
    by the Department of the Army in training classes and courses offered
    by the Corps of Engineers in any case in which the Secretary determines
    that it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to include
    those individuals as participants.
      (b) Expenses.--
              (1) In general.--An individual not employed by the Department
            of the Army attending a training class or course described in
            subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the training provided
            to the individual.
              (2) Payments.--Payments made by an individual for training
            received under paragraph (1), up to the actual cost of the
            training--
                      (A) may be retained by the Secretary;
                      (B) shall be credited to an appropriation or account
                    used for paying training costs; and
                      (C) shall be available for use by the Secretary,
                    without further appropriation, for training purposes.
              (3) Excess amounts.--Any payments received under paragraph
            (2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training provided
            shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury of
            the United States.

    SEC. 2032. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to provide
    public access to water resource and related water quality data in the
    custody of the Corps of Engineers.
      (b) Data.--Public access under subsection (a) shall--
              (1) include, at a minimum, access to data generated in water
            resources project development and regulation under section 404
            of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344);
            and
              (2) appropriately employ geographic information system
            technology and linkages to water resource models and analytical
            techniques.
      (c) Partnerships.--To the maximum extent practicable, in carrying out
    activities under this section, the Secretary shall develop
    partnerships, including cooperative agreements with State, tribal, and
    local governments and other Federal agencies.
      (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each fiscal year.

    SEC. 2033. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

      (a) In General.--In accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 (33
    U.S.C. 426), and notwithstanding administrative actions, it is the
    policy of the United States to promote beach nourishment for the
    purposes of flood damage reduction and hurricane and storm damage
    reduction and related research that encourage the protection,
    restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches, including beach
    restoration and periodic beach renourishment for a period of 50 years,
    on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal Government,
    States, localities, and private enterprises.
      (b) Preference.--In carrying out the policy, preference shall be
    given to--
              (1) areas in which there has been a Federal investment of
            funds for the purposes described in subsection (a); and
              (2) areas with respect to which the need for prevention or
            mitigation of damage to shores and beaches is attributable to
            Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities.
      (c) Applicability.--The Secretary shall apply the policy to each
    shore protection and beach renourishment project (including shore
    protection and beach renourishment projects constructed before the date
    of enactment of this Act).

    SEC. 2034. ABILITY TO PAY.

      (a) Criteria and Procedures.--Section 103(m)(2) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)(2)) is amended by
    striking ``180 days after such date of enactment'' and inserting
    ``August 31, 2005''.
      (b) Projects.--The Secretary shall apply the criteria and procedures
    referred to in section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) to the following projects:
              (1) St. johns bayou and new madrid floodway, missouri.--The
            project for flood control, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid
            Floodway, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118).
              (2) 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).
              (3) West virginia and pennsylvania projects.--The projects
            for flood control authorized by section 581 of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790-3791).

    SEC. 2035. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

      Section 206(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
    U.S.C. 2330) is amended by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting
    ``$40,000,000''.

    SEC. 2036. SMALL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.

      Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) is
    amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting ``$60,000,000''.

    SEC. 2037. LEASING AUTHORITY.

      Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction
    of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and
    other purposes'', approved December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d) is
    amended--
              (1) by inserting ``federally-recognized Indian tribes and''
            before ``Federal'' the first place it appears;
              (2) by inserting ``Indian tribes or'' after ``considerations,
            to such''; and
              (3) by inserting ``federally-recognized Indian tribe'' after
            ``That in any such lease or license to a''.

    SEC. 2038. COST ESTIMATES.

       The estimated Federal and non-Federal costs of projects authorized
    to be carried out by the Secretary before, on, or after the date of
    enactment of this Act are for informational purposes only and shall not
    be interpreted as affecting the cost sharing responsibilities
    established by law.

    SEC. 2039. STUDIES AND REPORTS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

      (a) Studies.--
              (1) Cost-sharing requirements.--Section 105(a) of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)) is
            amended by adding at the end the following:
              ``(3) Detailed project reports.--The requirements of this
            subsection that apply to a feasibility study also shall apply
            to a study that results in a detailed project report, except
            that--
                      ``(A) the first $100,000 of the costs of a study that
                    results in a detailed project report shall be a Federal
                    expense; and
                      ``(B) paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply to such a
                    study.''.
              (2) Planning and engineering.--Section 105(b) of such Act (33
            U.S.C. 2215(b)) is amended by striking ``authorized by this
            Act''.
              (3) Definitions.--Section 105 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2215) is
            amended by adding at the end the following:
      ``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
              ``(1) Detailed project report.--The term `detailed project
            report' means a report for a project not specifically
            authorized by Congress in law or otherwise that determines the
            feasibility of the project with a level of detail appropriate
            to the scope and complexity of the recommended solution and
            sufficient to proceed directly to the preparation of contract
            plans and specifications. The term includes any associated
            environmental impact statement and mitigation plan. For a
            project for which the Federal cost does not exceed $1,000,000,
            the term includes a planning and design analysis document.
              ``(2) Feasibility study.--The term `feasibility study' means
            a study that results in a feasibility report under section 905,
            and any associated environmental impact statement and
            mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water
            resources project. The term includes a study that results in a
            project implementation report prepared under title VI of the
            Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694),
            a general reevaluation report, and a limited reevaluation
            report.''.
      (b) Reports.--
              (1) Preparation.--Section 905(a) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a); 100 Stat. 4185) is
            amended--
                      (A) by striking ``(a) In the case of any'' and
                    inserting the following:
      ``(a) Preparation of Reports.--
              ``(1) In general.--In the case of any'';
                      (B) by striking ``the Secretary, the Secretary
                    shall'' and inserting ``the Secretary that results in
                    recommendations concerning a project or the operation
                    of a project and that requires specific authorization
                    by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall
                    perform a reconnaissance study and'';
                      (C) by striking ``Such feasibility report'' and
                    inserting the following:
              ``(2) Contents of feasibility reports.--A feasibility
            report'';
                      (D) by striking ``The feasibility report'' and
                    inserting ``A feasibility report''; and
                      (E) by striking the last sentence and inserting the
                    following:
              ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply to--
                      ``(A) any study with respect to which a report has
                    been submitted to Congress before the date of enactment
                    of this Act;
                      ``(B) any study for a project, which project is
                    authorized for construction by this Act and is not
                    subject to section 903(b);
                      ``(C) any study for a project which does not require
                    specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise;
                    and
                      ``(D) general studies not intended to lead to
                    recommendation of a specific water resources project.
              ``(4) Feasibility report defined.--In this subsection, the
            term `feasibility report' means each feasibility report, and
            any associated environmental impact statement and mitigation
            plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources
            project. The term includes a project implementation report
            prepared under title VI of the Water Resources Development Act
            of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general reevaluation report,
            and a limited reevaluation report.''.
              (2) Projects not specicially authorized by congress.--Section
            905 of such Act is further amended--
                      (A) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Reconnaissance
                    Studies.--'' before ``Before initiating'';
                      (B) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as
                    subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
                      (C) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
      ``(c) Projects not Specifically Authorized by Congress.--In the case
    of any water resources project-related study authorized to be
    undertaken by the Secretary without specific authorization by Congress
    in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall prepare a detailed project
    report.'';
                      (D)  in subsection  (d) (as  so redesignated)  by
                    inserting  ``Indian Tribes.--'' before ``For purposes
                    of''; and
                      (E) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated) by
                    inserting ``Standard and Uniform Procedures and
                    Practices.--'' before ``The Secretary shall'' .

    SEC. 2040. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT.

      (a) In General.--On the third Tuesday of January of each year
    beginning January 2006, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to the
    Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
    Representatives a report on the expenditures for the preceding fiscal
    year and estimated expenditures for the current fiscal year and, for
    projects and activities that are not scheduled for completion in the
    current fiscal year, the estimated expenditures necessary in the
    following fiscal year for each project or activity to maintain the same
    level of effort being achieved in the current fiscal year.
      (b) Contents.--In addition to the information described in subsection
    (a), the report shall contain a detailed accounting of the following
    information:
              (1) With respect to general construction, information on--
                      (A) projects currently under construction,
                    including--
                              (i) allocations to date;
                              (ii) the number of years remaining to
                            complete construction;
                              (iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to
                            maintain that construction schedule; and
                              (iv) a list of projects the Corps of
                            Engineers expects to complete during the
                            current fiscal year; and
                      (B) projects for which there is a signed cost-sharing
                    agreement and completed planning, engineering, and
                    design, including--
                              (i) the number of years the project is
                            expected to require for completion; and
                              (ii) estimated annual Federal cost to
                            maintain that construction schedule.
              (2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland
            and intracoastal waterways under section 206 of Public Law 95-
            502 (33 U.S.C. 1804)--
                      (A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each
                    waterway for the authorized reach and at the authorized
                    depth; and
                      (B) the estimated annual cost of operation and
                    maintenance of locks and dams to ensure navigation
                    without interruption.
              (3) With respect to general investigations and reconnaissance
            and feasibility studies--
                      (A) the number of active studies;
                      (B) the number of completed studies not yet
                    authorized for construction;
                      (C) the number of initiated studies; and
                      (D) the number of studies expected to be completed
                    during the fiscal year.
              (4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received
            for interagency and international support activities under
            section 318(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
            (33 U.S.C. 2323(a)).
              (5) Recreation fees and lease payments.
              (6) Hydropower and water storage fees.
              (7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the
            Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
              (8) Other revenues and fees collected.

                     TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

    SEC. 3001. 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 and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577),
    shall be $8,000,000.

    SEC. 3002. ST. PAUL HARBOR, ST. PAUL ISLAND, ALASKA.

      (a) Small Boat Harbor.--No elements of the project for navigation,
    St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska, authorized by section
    101(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
    3667) and modified by section 303 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 298) and section 105 of the Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Act, 2003 (117 Stat. 139), shall be treated
    by the Secretary as separable.
      (b) Limitation on Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share for the
    project shall not exceed $14,400,000.

    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. TATITLEK, ALASKA.

      The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
    project for navigation, Tatitlek, 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. 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. 3006. OSCEOLA HARBOR, ARKANSAS.

      (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Osceola Harbor,
    Arkansas, constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
    1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to allow non-Federal interests to
    construct a mooring facility within the existing authorized harbor
    channel, subject to all necessary permits, certifications, and other
    requirements.
      (b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section
    shall be construed as affecting the responsibility of the Secretary to
    maintain the general navigation features of the project at a bottom
    width of 250 feet.

    SEC. 3007. PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, ARKANSAS.

      The Pine Mountain Dam feature of the project for flood protection,
    Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 204 of the
    Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078), is modified--
              (1) to add environmental restoration as a project purpose;
            and
              (2) to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal share
            of the cost of the project over a 30-year period in accordance
            with section 103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of
            1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)).

    SEC. 3008. 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. 3009. AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.

      Section 128 of Public Law 108-137 (117 Stat. 1838) is amended by
    adding at the end the following:
      ``(c) Dam Safety Modifications at L.L. Anderson Dam.--In determining
    improvements for dam safety that are necessary at the L.L. Anderson
    Dam, the Secretary shall consider the without-project condition to be
    the dam as it existed on December 1, 2003.
      ``(d) Cost Allocation.--In allocating costs for the project
    authorized in subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the project cost
    allocations for flood damage reduction and dam safety that are
    contained in the American River Watershed, California, long-term study
    final supplemental plan formulation report dated February 2002.''.

    SEC. 3010. COMPTON CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

      The project for flood control, Los Angeles Drainage Area, California,
    authorized by section 101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1990 (104 Stat. 4611), is modified to add environmental restoration and
    recreation as project purposes.

    SEC. 3011. 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. 3012. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton Airfield,
    California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to direct the
    Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the
    report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 19, 2004, at a total cost
    of $205,226,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $153,840,000 and an
    estimated non-Federal cost of $51,386,000.

    SEC. 3013. 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. 3014. KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

      The project for flood control, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River,
    California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3658), is modified to direct the
    Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
    project, or provide reimbursement not to exceed $800,000, for the costs
    of any work carried out by the non-Federal interest before, on, or
    after the date of the project partnership agreement if the Secretary
    determines that the work is integral to the project.

    SEC. 3015. 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 determine whether maintenance of the project is feasible,
    and if the Secretary determines that maintenance of the project is
    feasible, to carry out such maintenance.

    SEC. 3016. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

      The project for flood damage reduction, Llagas Creek, California,
    authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1999 (113 Stat. 333), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry
    out the project at a total cost of $105,000,000.

    SEC. 3017. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

      The project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, California,
    authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
    carry out the project at a total cost of $222,000,000.

    SEC. 3018. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) In General.--The project for Magpie Creek, California, authorized
    under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is
    modified to direct the Secretary to apply the cost-sharing requirements
    of section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
    Stat. 4085) for the portion of the project consisting of land
    acquisition to preserve and enhance existing floodwater storage.
      (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall 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. 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. 3020. 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. 3021. 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. 3022. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) Determination of Federal Costs Paid by Non-Federal Interest.--
              (1) Federal costs paid by non-federal interest.--The
            Secretary shall determine the amount paid by the Sacramento
            Area Flood Control Agency towards the Federal share of the cost
            of the project for the Natomas levee features authorized by
            section 9159(b) of the Department of Defense Appropriations
            Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1944) of the project for flood control and
            recreation, Sacramento and American Rivers, California.
              (2) Reimbursements to non-federal interest.--The Secretary
            shall determine the amount of reimbursements paid to the
            Sacramento Flood Control Agency for payment of the Federal
            share of the cost of the project referred to in paragraph (1).
              (3) Determination of federal share.--In carrying out
            paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include in the total cost of
            the project all costs of the following activities that the
            Secretary determines to be integral to the project:
                      (A) Planning, engineering, and construction.
                      (B) Acquisition of project lands, easements, and
                    rights-of-way.
                      (C) Performance of relocations.
                      (D) Environmental mitigation for all project
                    elements.
      (b) Credit.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
            Federal share of the cost of any flood damage reduction
            project, authorized before the date of enactment of this Act,
            for which the non-Federal interest is the Sacramento Area Flood
            Control Agency an amount equal to the total amount determined
            under subsection (a)(1) reduced by the amount determined under
            subsection (a)(2).
              (2) Allocation of credit.--The Secretary shall allocate the
            amount to be credited under paragraph (1) toward the non-
            Federal share of such projects as are requested by the
            Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.

    SEC. 3023. 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. 3024. 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. 3025. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

      The project of navigation, Santa Cruz Harbor, California, authorized
    by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 300) and
    modified by section 809 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
    (100 Stat. 4168) and section 526 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1999 (113 Stat. 346), is modified to direct the Secretary--
              (1) to renegotiate the memorandum of agreement with the non-
            Federal interest to increase the annual payment to reflect the
            updated cost of operation and maintenance that is the Federal
            and non-Federal share as provided by law based on the project
            purpose; and
              (2) to revise the memorandum of agreement to include terms
            that revise such payments for inflation.

    SEC. 3026. SEVEN OAKS DAM, CALIFORNIA.

      The project for flood control, Santa Ana Mainstem, authorized by
    section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
    Stat. 4113) and modified by section 104 of the Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329-11), section
    102(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4611),
    and section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
    Stat. 3713), is further modified to direct the Secretary to conduct a
    study for the reallocation of water storage at the Seven Oaks Dam,
    California, for water conservation.

    SEC. 3027. 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 $212,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
    $106,050,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $106,050,000. 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. 3028. 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. 3029. 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. 3030. 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. 3031. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

      The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California,
    authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified--
              (1) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a
            total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
            $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,700,000;
            and
              (2) 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. 3032. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY,
                        DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.

      The project for navigation, Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to
    Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by the first section
    of the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1030), and
    section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249), is
    modified to add recreation as a project purpose.

    SEC. 3033. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

      (a) Shoreline.--The project for shoreline protection, Brevard County,
    Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(7) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), is modified--
              (1) to direct the Secretary to establish the reach of the
            project as the reach between the Florida department of
            environmental protection monuments 75.4 to 118.3, a distance of
            7.6 miles; and
              (2) to direct the Secretary to expedite the general
            reevaluation report required by section 418 of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637).
      (b) Credit.--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. 3034. 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. 3035. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA.

      In carrying out the project for navigation, Canaveral Harbor,
    Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962
    (76 Stat. 1174), the Secretary shall construct a sediment trap.

    SEC. 3036. 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. 3037. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.

      (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor,
    Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to authorize the
    Secretary to extend the navigation features in accordance with the
    Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost
    of $14,658,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and an
    estimated non-Federal cost of $5,022,000.
      (b) General Reevaluation Reports.--The non-Federal share of the cost
    of the general reevaluation report that resulted in the report of the
    Chief of Engineers for the project and the non-Federal share of the
    cost of the general reevaluation report for Jacksonville Harbor,
    Florida, being conducted on June 1, 2005, shall each be the same
    percentage as the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the
    project.
      (c) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into new partnership
    agreements with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost sharing
    required by subsection (b).

    SEC. 3038. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.

      (a) In General.--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 substantially in accordance with the report of
    the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of
    $14,809,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,088,000 and an
    estimated non-Federal cost of $5,721,000, and at an estimated total
    cost of $58,635,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of
    the project.
      (b) Construction of Shoreline Protection Projects by Non-Federal
    Interests.--The Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement with
    the non-Federal sponsor in accordance with section 206 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i-1) for the modified
    project.

    SEC. 3039. 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--
              (1) to include as a project purpose environmental mitigation
            required before July 18, 2003, by a Federal, State, or local
            environmental agency for unauthorized or unanticipated
            environmental impacts within, or in the vicinity of, the
            authorized project; and
              (2) to direct the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal
            interest for costs it has incurred in construction of the
            project in accordance with section 204 of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232).

    SEC. 3040. PEANUT ISLAND, FLORIDA.

      The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
    project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Peanut
    Island, Palm Beach County, Florida, being carried out under section
    1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a)
    shall be $9,750,000.

    SEC. 3041. 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. 3042. TAMPA HARBOR CUT B, FLORIDA.

      (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida,
    authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
    1818), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct passing
    lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles long and centered on Tampa
    Harbor Cut B if the Secretary determines that such improvements are
    necessary for navigation safety.
      (b) General Reevaulation Report.--The non-Federal share of the cost
    of the general reevaluation report for Tampa Harbor, Florida, being
    conducted on June 1, 2005, shall be the same percentage as the non-
    Federal share of the cost of construction of the project.
      (c) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into a new partnership
    agreement with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost sharing
    required by subsection (b).

    SEC. 3043. 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.

    SEC. 3044. LATHAM RIVER, GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA.

      The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the
    project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Latham
    River, Glynn County, Georgia, being carried out under section 1135 of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be
    $6,175,000.

    SEC. 3045. DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO.

      The Secretary may carry out improvements to recreational facilities
    at the Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, North Fork, Clearwater River, Idaho,
    authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat.
    1193), to accommodate lower pool levels.

    SEC. 3046. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN, ILLINOIS.

      (a) Partnership Agreement.--The project for navigation, Muscooten
    Bay, Illinois River, Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown,
    Illinois, constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
    1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to direct the Secretary to enter into
    a partnership agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the
    August 18, 1983, local cooperation agreement with the Beardstown
    Community Park District. The partnership agreement shall include the
    same rights and responsibilities as the agreement, changing only the
    identity of the non-Federal sponsor.
      (b) Maintenance.--Following execution of the partnership agreement
    referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out maintenance
    of the project referred to in subsection (a) on an annual basis.

    SEC. 3047. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.

      The Cache River Levee portion of the project for flood control, Cache
    River, Illinois, authorized by the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat.
    1215), is modified to add environmental restoration as a project
    purpose.

    SEC. 3048. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.

      The navigation channel for the North Branch Canal portion of the
    Chicago River, authorized by the first section of the Rivers and
    Harbors Appropriations Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1129), extending
    from 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet
    upstream of the Division Street Bridge is modified to be no wider than
    66 feet.

    SEC. 3049. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, ILLINOIS.

      (a) Existing Barrier.--The Secretary shall upgrade and make
    permanent, at Federal expense, the existing Chicago Sanitary and Ship
    Canal Dispersal Barrier Chicago, Illinois, constructed as a
    demonstration project under section 1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous
    Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.
    4722(i)(3)).
      (b) Operation and Maintenance.--The barrier referred to in subsection
    (a) and the barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal being
    constructed under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be operated and maintained, at Federal
    expense, as a system in a manner to optimize effectiveness. Operation
    and maintenance includes investigating and eliminating potential
    pathways that may allow aquatic species in the Des Plaines River and
    Illinois and Michigan Canal to bypass the barriers in the Chicago
    Sanitary and Ship Canal.
      (c) Feasibility Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with
    appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental entities, shall
    conduct a feasibility study, at Federal expense, of the range of
    options and technologies available to prevent the spread of aquatic
    species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through
    the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other pathways.

    SEC. 3050. 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. 3051. LASALLE, ILLINOIS.

      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 the vicinity of LaSalle, Illinois, on the Illinois and Michigan
    Canal.

    SEC. 3052. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS.

      (a) Project Purpose.--The project for flood control, 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. 3053. FORT WAYNE AND VICINITY, INDIANA.

      The project for flood control Fort Wayne, St. Mary's and Maumee
    Rivers, Indiana, authorized by section 101(a)(11) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4604), is modified--
              (1) to direct the Secretary to provide a 100-year level of
            flood protection at the Berry-Thieme, Park-Thompson, Woodhurst,
            and Tillman sites along the St. Mary's River, Fort Wayne and
            vicinity, Indiana, at a total cost of $5,300,000; and
              (2) to 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. 3054. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA.

      The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Koontz Lake, Indiana,
    being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) and modified by section 520 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2655), is further modified
    to direct the Secretary to seek to reduce the cost of the project by
    using innovative technologies and cost reduction measures determined
    from a review of non-Federal lake dredging projects in the vicinity of
    Koontz Lake.

    SEC. 3055. 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 $198,000,000, with an estimated
    Federal cost of $148,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
    $49,500,000.

    SEC. 3056. 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 for 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--
              (1) 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
              (2) 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. 3057. DES MOINES RIVER AND GREENBELT, IOWA.

      The project for the Des Moines Recreational River and Greenbelt,
    Iowa, authorized by Public Law 99-88 and modified by section 604 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153), is modified
    to include enhanced public access and recreational enhancements, at a
    Federal cost of $3,000,000.

    SEC. 3058. 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. 3059. 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--
              (1) 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;
              (2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a
            total cost of $178,000,000; and
              (3) 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. 3060. 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. 3061. BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.

      The project for the improvement of the quality of the environment,
    Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, being carried out under section 1135 of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309(a)), 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. 3062. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA.

      The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System
    project, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of 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. 3063. 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--
              (1) to authorize the purchase and reforesting lands that have
            been cleared or converted to agricultural uses; and
              (2) to incorporate current wildlife and forestry management
            practices for the purpose of improving species diversity on
            mitigation lands that meet Federal and State of Louisiana
            habitat goals and objectives.

    SEC. 3064. 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. 3065. 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. 3066. 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. 3067. 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 $25,000,000.

    SEC. 3068. 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. 3069. GWYNNS FALLS WATERSHED, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out the project for
    ecosystem restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, in accordance with the
    Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources Gwynns Falls Watershed Study-
    Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment
    prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the city of Baltimore, Maryland,
    dated April 2004.
      (b) Special Rule for Gwynns Falls, Maryland.--The report on the
    project for environmental restoration at Gwynns Falls, Maryland, shall
    be treated as being consistent and in compliance with the consent
    decree entered into between the United States and the Mayor and City
    Council of Baltimore, Maryland, filed with the United States District
    Court for the District of Maryland on April 26, 2002.
      (c) Repeal.--Section 123 of Public Law 108-137 (117 Stat. 1837) is
    repealed.

    SEC. 3070. BOSTON HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.

      The project for navigation, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized
    by section 101(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
    (104 Stat. 4607), is modified to provide that no funds may be expended
    for the dredging of Chelsea Creek until the city of Boston and the
    United States Coast Guard complete the replacement of the Chelsea
    Street Bridge, as identified in the limited reevaluation report for the
    project dated June 1996.

    SEC. 3071. 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. 3072. ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

      The Secretary shall expedite development of the dredged material
    management plan for the project for navigation St. Joseph Harbor,
    Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958
    (72 Stat. 299).

    SEC. 3073. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN.

      (a) In General.--The text of section 1149 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) is amended to read as follows:
      ``The Secretary shall construct at Federal expense a second lock, of
    the same dimensions as the existing Poe Lock, adjacent to the existing
    lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, generally in accordance with the
    report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, dated May 19,
    1986, and the limited reevaluation report dated February 2004 at a
    total cost of $341,714,000.''.
      (b) Conforming Repeals.--The following provisoins are repealed:
              (1) Section 107(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act
            of 1990 (104 Stat. 4620).
              (2) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of
            1996 (110 Stat. 3717-3718).
              (3) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of
            1999 (113 Stat. 305).

    SEC. 3074. 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. 3075. 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. 3076. 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. 3077. 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. 3078. KNIFE RIVER HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

      The project for navigation, Harbor at Knife River, Minnesota,
    authorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945
    (59 Stat. 19), is modified to direct the Secretary to develop a final
    design and prepare plans and specifications to correct the harbor
    entrance and mooring conditions at the project.

    SEC. 3079. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

      The project for flood control, Red Lake River, 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 $17,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
    $11,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,000,000.

    SEC. 3080. 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. 3081. 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. 3082. 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. 3083. 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 in-kind services and materials.

    SEC. 3084. PEARL RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete a feasibility study for
    the project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River Watershed,
    Mississippi.
      (b) Comparison of Alternatives.--The feasibility study shall identify
    both the plan that maximizes national economic development benefits and
    the locally preferred plan and shall compare the level of flood damage
    reduction provided by each plan to that portion of Jackson,
    Mississippi, located below the Ross Barnett Reservoir Dam.
      (c) Recommended Plan.--If the Secretary determines that the locally
    preferred plan provides a level of flood damage reduction that is equal
    to or greater than the level of flood damage reduction provided by the
    national economic development plan, and the locally preferred plan is
    technically feasible and environmentally protective, the Secretary
    shall recommend construction of the locally preferred plan.
      (d) Evaluation of Project Cost.--For the purposes of determining
    compliance with the first section of the Flood Control Act of June 22,
    1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a), the Secretary shall consider only the costs of
    the national economic development plan, and shall exclude incremental
    costs associated with the locally preferred plan that are in excess of
    such costs, if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay 100 percent of
    such incremental costs.
      (e) Non-Federal Cost Share.--If the locally preferred plan is
    authorized for construction, the non-Federal share of the cost of the
    project shall be the same percentage as the non-Federal share of the
    cost of the national economic development plan plus all additional
    costs of construction associated with the locally preferred plan.

    SEC. 3085. FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.

      Section 102(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
    Stat. 282) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting
    ``$12,000,000''.

    SEC. 3086. MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI.

      The project for flood damage reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield,
    Missouri, authorized by section 101(b)(18) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), 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 that the work is
    integral to the project.

    SEC. 3087. RIVER DES PERES, MISSOURI.

      The projects for flood control, River Des Peres, Missouri, authorized
    by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990
    (104 Stat. 4607) and section 102(13) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668), are each 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. 3088. ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA.

      The project for flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln,
    Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(19) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified--
              (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
            share of the cost of the project 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
              (2) to allow the non-Federal sponsor for the project to use,
            and to direct the Secretary to accept, funds provided under any
            other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the
            non-Federal share of the project if such funds are authorized
            to be used to carry out the project.

    SEC. 3089. 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. 3090. LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NEW JERSEY.

      The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration, shore
    protection, and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May
    Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(25)
    of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is
    modified to incorporate the project for shoreline erosion control, Cape
    May Point, New Jersey, carried out under section 5 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), if the Secretary determines that such incorporation is
    feasible.

    SEC. 3091. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.

      The project for flood control, Passaic River, New Jersey and New
    York, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and modified by section 327 of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2607), is
    further modified to direct the Secretary to include the benefits and
    costs of preserving natural flood storage in any future economic
    analysis of the project.

    SEC. 3092. BUFFALO HARBOR, NEW YORK.

      The project for navigation, Buffalo Harbor, New York, authorized by
    section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176), is
    modified to include measures to enhance public access, at Federal cost
    of $500,000.

    SEC. 3093. 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 $20,000,000.

    SEC. 3094. 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. 3095. 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. 3096. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OHIO.

      Section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
    Stat. 3758) is amended by striking ``$2,500,000'' and inserting
    ``$6,000,000''.

    SEC. 3097. MAHONING RIVER, OHIO.

      In carrying out the project for environmental dredging, authorized by
    section 312(f)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33
    U.S.C. 1272(f)(4)), the Secretary is directed 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. 3098. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

      Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the Secretary in
    October 1999 of costs associated with present and future water storage
    at Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma, under Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract
    Number DACW56-79-C-0072 shall satisfy the obligations of the city under
    that contract for such costs, including accrued interest.

    SEC. 3099. 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. 3100. 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. 3101. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND DELAWARE.

      The Secretary may remove debris from the project for navigation,
    Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, Philadelphia to
    the Sea.

    SEC. 3102. 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. 3103. 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. 3104. 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. 3105. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

      Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
    4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 117 Stat. 142) is
    amended--
              (1) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ``$180,000,000'' and
            inserting ``$200,000,000''; and
              (2) in subsection (h)(2) 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. 3106. 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. 3107. 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 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. 3108. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS.

      The project for navigation, Freeport Harbor, Texas, authorized by
    section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is
    modified.--
              (1) 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 that the work is integral
            to the project; and
              (2) to direct the Secretary to remove the sunken vessel
            ``COMSTOCK'' at Federal expense.

    SEC. 3109. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

      The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration,
    and recreation, authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280), is modified to authorize the
    Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $29,717,000, with
    an estimated Federal cost of $20,670,000 and an estimated non-Federal
    cost $9,047,000.

    SEC. 3110. 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. 3111. 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 include as part of the project flood protection works
            to reroute drainage to Raymondville Drain constructed by the
            non-Federal interests in Hidalgo County in the vicinity of
            Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that such work
            meets feasibility requirements;
              (2) 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
              (3) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal
            share of the cost of the project, to make a determination
            within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act 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. 3112. 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. 3113. PAT MAYSE LAKE, TEXAS.

      The Secretary is directed to accept from the city of Paris, Texas,
    $3,461,432 as payment in full of monies owed to the United States for
    water supply storage space in Pat Mayse Lake, Texas, under contract
    number DA-34-066-CIVENG-65-1272, including accrued interest.

    SEC. 3114. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS.

      The Secretary is authorized to purchase fee simple title to all
    properties located within the boundaries, and necessary for the
    operation, of the Proctor Lake project, Texas, authorized by section
    203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259).

    SEC. 3115. 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 design and
    construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the
    project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
    project.

    SEC. 3116. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA.

       The project for navigation, James River, Virginia, authorized by the
    first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 5,
    1884 (23 Stat. 138), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to
    enlarge the turning basin adjacent to the Richmond Deepwater Terminal
    at a total cost of $1,511,000 if the Secretary determines that the such
    enlargement is necessary for navigation safety.

    SEC. 3117. LEE, RUSSELL, SCOTT, SMYTH, TAZEWELL, AND WISE COUNTIES,
                        VIRGINIA.

      The project for flood control, Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy
    River and Upper Cumberland River, authorized by section 202 of the
    Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339)
    and modified by section 352 of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1996 (110 Stat. 3724-3725) and section 336 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is further modified to direct
    the Secretary to determine the ability of Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth,
    Tazewell, and Wise Counties, Virginia, to pay the non-Federal share of
    the cost of the project based solely on the criterion specified in
    section 103(m)(3)(A)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
    (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)(3)(A)(i)).

    SEC. 3118. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA.

      Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110
    Stat. 3789) is amended by striking ``at a total cost of $1,200,000,
    with an estimated Federal cost of $900,000 and an estimated non-Federal
    cost of $300,000.'' and inserting ``at a total cost of $3,000,000, with
    an estimated Federal cost of $2,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal
    cost of $750,000.''.

    SEC. 3119. DUWAMISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON.

       The project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington,
    authorized by section 101(b)(26) of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 2000 (114 Stat. 2579), is modified--
              (1) 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, on, or after the date of
            the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
            determines that the work is integral to the project; and
              (2) 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 in-kind services and materials.

    SEC. 3120. YAKIMA RIVER, PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WASHINGTON.

      The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Yakima River, Port of
    Sunnyside, Washington, 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.

    SEC. 3121. 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 ``$99,000,000''.

    SEC. 3122. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA.

      Section 30(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102
    Stat. 4030; 114 Stat. 2678) is amended to read as follows:
      ``(d) Historic Structure.--The Secretary shall ensure the
    preservation and restoration of the structure known as the `Jenkins
    House', and the reconstruction of associated buildings and landscape
    features of such structure located within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp
    in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the
    treatment of historic properties. Amounts made available for
    expenditure for the project authorized by section 301(a) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110) shall be available
    for the purposes of this subsection.''.

    SEC. 3123. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

      Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
    353) is amended in the first sentence by striking ``favorable''.

    SEC. 3124. 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. 3125. 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. 3126. 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 flood control, Agana River, Guam,
            authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development
            Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127).
              (2) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor,
            Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and
            Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731); except that the authorized
            depth of that portion of the project extending riverward of the
            Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and Somerset,
            Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet.
      (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. 3127. 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. 3128. 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 first section of 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 eastern 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) Mystic river, connecticut.--The portion of the project
            for navigation, Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized by the
            first section of the River and Harbor Approriations Act of
            September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 436) consisting of a 12-foot-deep
            channel, approximately 7,554 square feet in area, starting at a
            point N193,086.51, E815,092.78, thence running north 59 degrees
            21 minutes 46.63 seconds west about 138.05 feet to a point
            N193,156.86, E814,974.00, thence running north 51 degrees 04
            minutes 39.00 seconds west about 166.57 feet to a point
            N193,261.51, E814,844.41, thence running north 43 degrees 01
            minutes 34.90 seconds west about 86.23 feet to a point
            N193,324.55, E814,785.57, thence running north 06 degrees 42
            minutes 03.86 seconds west about 156.57 feet to a point
            N193,480.05, E814,767.30, thence running south 21 degrees 21
            minutes 17.94 seconds east about 231.42 feet to a point
            N193,264.52, E814,851.57, thence running south 53 degrees 34
            minutes 23.28 seconds east about 299.78 feet to the point of
            origin.
              (3) Falmouth harbor, massachusetts.--The portion of the
            project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts,
            authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948
            (62 Stat. 1172), beginning at a point along the eastern side of
            the inner harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running north
            25 degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 feet to a point
            N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 22 degrees 7
            minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point N201,112.15,
            E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 1 minute 0.3
            seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, E845,674.65,
            thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 seconds west
            665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, thence running
            south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 160.76 feet to
            the point of origin.
              (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) Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut.--The project for
    navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut, authorized by
    section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1829, and by the
    first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat.
    1029), and section 364 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
    (110 Stat. 3733-3734), is further modified to redesignate a portion of
    the 9-foot-deep channel to an anchorage area, approximately 900 feet in
    length and 90,000 square feet in area, and lying generally north of a
    line with points at coordinates N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and
    N107938.74, E452265.74.
      (d) Mystic River, Massachusetts.--The portion of the project for
    navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts, authorized by the first
    section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 13, 1892 (27
    Stat. 96), between a line starting at a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45
    and ending at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85 and a line starting at a
    point N514,595.15, E707,746.15 and ending at a point N514,732.94,
    E707,658.38 shall be relocated and reduced from 100 foot to a 50-foot
    wide channel after the date of enactment of this Act described as
    follows: Beginning at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85, thence running
    southeasterly about 840.50 feet to a point N515,070.16, E707,601.27,
    thence running southeasterly about 177.54 feet to a point N514,904.84,
    E707,665.98, thence running southeasterly about 319.90 feet to a point
    with coordinates N514,595.15, E707,746.15, thence running northwesterly
    about 163.37 feet to a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38, thence running
    northwesterly about 161.58 feet to a point N514.889.47, E707,618.30,
    thence running northwesterly about 166.61 feet to a point N515.044.62,
    E707,557.58, thence running northwesterly about 825.31 feet to a point
    N515,683.77, E707,035.45, thence running northeasterly about 50.90 feet
    returning to a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85.
      (e) Green Bay Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin.--The portion of the inner
    harbor of the Federal navigation channel, Green Bay Harbor, Green Bay,
    Wisconsin, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act
    of June 23, 1866, beginning at station 190+00 to station 378+00 is
    authorized to a width of 75 feet and a depth of 6 feet.
      (f) 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 control, Cache Creek Basin, Clear
            Lake Outlet Channel, California, authorized by section 401(a)
            of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
            4112).
              (2) The project for flood protection on Atascadero Creek and
            its tributaries of Goleta, California, authorized by section
            201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826).
              (3) The project for flood control, central and southern
            Florida, Shingle Creek basin, Florida, authorized by section
            203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).
              (4) The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield
            Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control
            Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 649).
              (5) The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George,
            Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602(a)(2) of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148).
              (6) The project for flood control, Green Bay Levee and
            Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, authorized by section 401(a) of
            the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115),
            deauthorized in fiscal year 1991, and reauthorized by section
            115(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
            Stat. 4821).
              (7) The project for flood control, Hazard, Kentucky,
            authorized by section 3(a)(7) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1988 (100 Stat. 4014) and section 108 of the
            Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621).
              (8) The recreation portion of the project for flood control,
            Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 203 of the
            Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1421).
              (9) The project for flood control, western Kentucky
            tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood
            Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1076) and modified by section 210
            of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1829).
              (10) The project for flood damage reduction, Tensas-Cocodrie
            area, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the Flood Control
            Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 643).
              (11) The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and
            South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by
            section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825).
              (12) The bulkhead and jetty features at Lake Borgne and Chef
            Menteur, Louisiana, of the project for navigation, Mississippi
            River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico, barge channel through
            Devils Swamp, Louisiana, authorized by the first section of the
            River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635).
              (13) The project for navigation Red River Waterway,
            Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, authorized by the
            River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).
              (14) The project for flood damage reduction Brockton,
            Massachusetts, authorized by section 401(c) of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4129).
              (15) The project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor,
            Michigan, authorized by section 202 of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093).
              (16) The project for hydropower, Libby Dam, Montana, (Units
            6-8), authorized by section 549 of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3779).
              (17) The project for flood damage reduction, Platte River
            Flood and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska,
            authorized by section 603(f)(6) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4150).
              (18) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New
            York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817).
              (19) The project for flood control, Sugar Creek Basin, North
            Carolina and South Carolina, authorized by section 401(a) of
            the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121).
              (20) The project for flood control, Miami River, Fairfield,
            Ohio, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4122).
              (21) The project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay, Lake
            Erie, Ohio, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4135).
              (22) The project for flood control and water supply, Parker
            Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma, authorized by section 601 of
            the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4144).
              (23) The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial,
            Hammond, Oregon, authorized by title I of the Energy and Water
            Development Appropriations Act, 1991 (104 Stat. 2078).
              (24) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-
            Davisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the
            Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788).
              (25) The project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork
            Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of the
            Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921).
              (26) The Arroyo Colorado, Texas, feature of the project for
            flood control Lower Rio Grande, Texas, authorized by section
            401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
            Stat. 4125).
              (27) The structural portion of the project for flood control,
            Cypress Creek, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the
            Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014).
              (28) The project for flood protection, East Fork Channel
            Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River,
            Texas, authorized by section 202 of the Flood Control Act of
            1962 (76 Stat. 1185).
              (29) The project for flood control, Falfurrias, Texas,
            authorized by section 3(a)(14) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014).
              (30) The project for streambank erosion, Kanawha River,
            Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) of
            the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153).
      (g) 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. 3129. LAND CONVEYANCES.

      (a) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of
            Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to
            paragraph (2), all right, title, and interest to real property
            within the State acquired by the Federal Government as
            mitigation land for the project for flood control, St. Francis
            Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by the Flood
            Control Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et seq.)
              (2) Terms and conditions.--
                      (A) In general.--The conveyance by the United States
                    under this subsection shall be subject to--
                              (i) the condition that the State of Arkansas
                            agree to operate, maintain, and manage the real
                            property for fish and wildlife, recreation, and
                            environmental purposes at no cost or expense to
                            the United States; and
                              (ii) such other terms and conditions as the
                            Secretary determines to be in the interest of
                            the United States.
                      (B) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
                    real property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be
                    held in public ownership or the State ceases to
                    operate, maintain, and manage the real property in
                    accordance with this subsection, all right, title, and
                    interest in and to the property shall revert to the
                    United States, at the option of the Secretary.
              (3) Mitigation.--Nothing in this subsection extinguishes the
            responsibility of the Federal Government or the non-Federal
            interest for the project referred to in paragraph (1) from the
            obligation to implement mitigation for such project that
            existed on the day prior to the transfer authorized by this
            subsection.
      (b) Milford, Kansas.--
              (1) In general.--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 real property consisting of approximately 7.4
            acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for construction,
            operation, and maintenance of a fire station.
              (2) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real
            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.
      (c) Pike County, Missouri.--
              (1) In general.--At such time as S.S.S., Inc., conveys all
            right, title and interest in and to the real property described
            in paragraph (2)(A) to the United States, the Secretary shall
            convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in
            and to the real property described in paragraph (2)(B) to
            S.S.S., Inc.
              (2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in
            paragraph (1) are the following:
                      (A) Non-federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the
                    exact legal description to be determined by mutual
                    agreement of S.S.S., Inc., and the Secretary, subject
                    to any existing flowage easements situated in Pike
                    County, Missouri, upstream and northwest, about a 200-
                    foot distance from Drake Island (also known as Grimes
                    Island).
                      (B) Federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the exact
                    legal description to be determined by mutual agreement
                    of S.S.S. Inc., and the Secretary, situated in Pike
                    County, Missouri, known as Government Tract Numbers
                    MIs-7 and a portion of FM-46 (both tracts on Buffalo
                    Island), administered by the Corps of Engineers.
              (3) Conditions.--The exchange of real property under
            paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:
                      (A) Deeds.--
                              (i) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the
                            real property described in paragraph (2)(A) to
                            the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed
                            acceptable to the Secretary.
                              (ii) Federal land.--The instrument of
                            conveyance used to convey the real property
                            described in paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc.,
                            shall be by quitclaim deed and contain such
                            reservations, terms, and conditions as the
                            Secretary considers necessary to allow the
                            United States to operate and maintain the
                            Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.
                      (B) Removal of improvements.--S.S.S., Inc., may
                    remove, and the Secretary may require S.S.S., Inc., to
                    remove, any improvements on the land described in
                    paragraph (2)(A).
                      (C) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange under
                    paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years
                    after the date of enactment of this Act.
              (4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market value,
            as determined by the Secretary, of the real property conveyed
            to S.S.S., Inc., by the Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds
            the appraised fair market value, as determined by the
            Secretary, of the real property conveyed to the United States
            by S.S.S., Inc., under paragraph (1), S.S.S., Inc., shall make
            a payment to the United States equal to the excess in cash or a
            cash equivalent that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
      (d) 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''.
      (e) Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim deed
            to the Tioga Township, Pennsylvania, without consideration, all
            right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
            parcel of real property located on the northeast end of Tract
            No. 226, a portion of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes flood control
            project, Tioga County, Pennsylvania, consisting of
            approximately 8 acres, together with any improvements on that
            property, for public ownership and use as the site of the
            administrative offices and road maintenance complex for the
            Township.
              (2) Reservation of interests.--The Secretary shall reserve
            such rights and interests in and to the property to be conveyed
            as the Secretary considers necessary to preserve the
            operational integrity and security of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes
            flood control project.
              (3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the property
            conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public
            ownership, or to be used as a site for the Tioga Township
            administrative offices and road maintenance complex or for
            related public purposes, all right, title, and interest in and
            to the property shall revert to the United States, at the
            option of the United States.
      (f) Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of
            South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, at fair market value, all
            right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
            real property described in paragraph (2) that is managed, as of
            the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina
            department of commerce for public recreation purposes for the
            Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project
            authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80
            Stat. 1420).
              (2) Land description.--Subject to paragraph (3), the real
            property referred to in paragraph (1) is the parcel contained
            in the portion of real property described in Army Lease Number
            DACW21-1-92-0500.
              (3) Reservation of interests.--The United States shall
            reserve--
                      (A) ownership of all real property included in the
                    lease referred to in paragraph (2) that would have been
                    acquired for operational purposes in accordance with
                    the 1971 implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint
                    Acquisition Policy; and
                      (B) such other rights and interests in and to the
                    real property to be conveyed as the Secretary considers
                    necessary for authorized project purposes, including
                    easement rights-of-way to remaining Federal land.
              (4) No effect on shore management policy.--The Shoreline
            Management Policy (ER-1130-2-406) of the Corps of Engineer
            shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development of
            land conveyed under this subsection.
              (5) Cost sharing.--In carrying out the conveyance under this
            subsection, the Secretary and the State shall comply with all
            obligations of any cost-sharing agreement between the Secretary
            and the State with respect to the real property described in
            paragraph (2) in effect as of the date of the conveyance.
              (6) Land not conveyed.--The State shall continue to manage
            the real property described in paragraph (3) not conveyed under
            this subsection in accordance with the terms and conditions of
            Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
      (g) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
              (1) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage
            and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed
            under this section shall be determined by a survey that is
            satisfactory to the Secretary.
              (2) Applicability of property screening provisions.--Section
            2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any
            conveyance under this section.
              (3) 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.
              (4) 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 documentation costs, associated with the
            conveyance.
              (5) 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. 3130. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE
                        RESTRICTIONS.

      (a) Idaho.--
              (1) In general.--With respect to the property covered by each
            deed in paragraph (2)--
                      (A) the reversionary interests and use restrictions
                    relating to port and industrial use purposes are
                    extinguished;
                      (B) the restriction that no activity shall be
                    permitted that will compete with services and
                    facilities offered by public marinas is extinguished;
                      (C) the human habitation or other building structure
                    use restriction is extinguished if the elevation of the
                    property is above the standard project flood elevation;
                    and
                      (D) the use of fill material to raise areas of the
                    property above the standard project flood elevation is
                    authorized, except in any area for which a permit under
                    section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
                    (33 U.S.C. 1344) is required.
              (2) Affected deeds.--The deeds with the following county
            auditor's file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1):
                      (A) Auditor's Instruments No. 399218 and No. 399341
                    of Nez Perce County, Idaho--2.07 acres.
                      (B) Auditor's Instruments No. 487437 and No. 339341
                    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) Port of Pasco, Washington.--
              (1) Extinguishment of use restrictions and flowage
            easement.--With respect to the property covered by the deed in
            paragraph (3)(A)--
                      (A) the flowage easement and human habitation or
                    other building structure use restriction is
                    extinguished if the elevation of the property is above
                    the standard project flood elevation; and
                      (B) the use of fill material to raise areas of the
                    property above the standard project flood elevation is
                    authorized, except in any area for which a permit under
                    section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
                    (33 U.S.C. 1344) is required.
              (2) Extinguishment of flowage easement.--With respect to the
            property covered by each deed in paragraph (3)(B), the flowage
            easement is extinguished if the elevation of the property is
            above the standard project flood elevation.
              (3) Affected deeds.--The deeds referred to in paragraphs (1)
            and (2) are as follows:
                      (A) Auditor's File Number 262980 of Franklin County,
                    Washington.
                      (B) Auditor's File Numbers 263334 and 404398 of
                    Franklin County, Washington.
      (d) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section affects the
    remaining rights and interests of the Corps of Engineers for authorized
    project purposes.

                               TITLE IV--STUDIES

    SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.

      Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (42 U.S.C.
    1962d-21) 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 in-kind services and materials.''.

    SEC. 4002. LAKE ERIE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the nature and
    frequency of avian botulism problems in the vicinity of Lake Erie
    associated with dredged material disposal sites and shall make
    recommendations to eliminate the conditions that result in such
    problems.

    SEC. 4003. SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES DROUGHT STUDY.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of
    the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce,
    and other appropriate agencies, shall conduct, at Federal expense, a
    comprehensive study of drought conditions in the southwestern United
    States, with a particular emphasis on the Colorado River basin, the Rio
    Grande River basin, and the Great Basin.
      (b) Inventory of Actions.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
    shall assemble an inventory of actions taken or planned to be taken to
    address drought-related situations in the southwestern United States.
      (c) Purpose.--The purpose of the study shall be to develop
    recommendations to more effectively address current and future drought
    conditions in the southwestern United States.
      (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
    appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $7,000,000.
    Such funds shall remain available until expended.

    SEC. 4004. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

      Section 459(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
    Stat. 333; 114 Stat. 2635) is amended by striking ``3 years after the
    first date on which funds are appropriated to carry out this section''
    and inserting ``December 30, 2006''.

    SEC. 4005. KNIK ARM, COOK INLET, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to
    determine the potential impacts on navigation of construction of a
    bridge across Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.

    SEC. 4006. KUSKOKWIM RIVER, ALASKA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for navigation, Kuskokwim River, Alaska, in the
    vicinity of the village of Crooked Creek.

    SEC. 4007. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA.

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

    SEC. 4008. 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. 4009. GILA BEND, MARICOPA, ARIZONA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa,
    Arizona. In conducting the study, the Secretary shall review plans and
    designs developed by non-Federal interests and shall incorporate such
    plans and designs into the Federal study if the Secretary determines
    that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal standards.

    SEC. 4010. 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. 4011. DRY CREEK VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project to provide recycled water for agricultural water
    supply, Dry Creek Valley, California, including a review of the
    feasibility of expanding the Geysers recharge project north of
    Healdsburg, California.

    SEC. 4012. ELKHORN SLOUGH ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Elkhorn Slough estuary,
    California, to determine the feasibility of conserving, enhancing, and
    restoring estuarine habitats by developing strategies to address
    hydrological management issues.

    SEC. 4013. FRESNO, KINGS, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for water supply for Fresno, Kings, and Kern
    Counties, California.

    SEC. 4014. LOS ANGELES RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and
    ecosystem restoration, Los Angeles River, California.
      (b) Revitalization Plan.--In conducting the study, the Secretary
    shall review the Los Angeles River revitalization plan developed by
    non-Federal interests and shall incorporate such plan into the Federal
    study if the Secretary determines that such plan is consistent with
    Federal standards.

    SEC. 4015. LYTLE CREEK, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and groundwater
    recharge, Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.

    SEC. 4016. MOKELUMNE RIVER, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply along the
    Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.
      (b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section
    shall be construed to invalidate, preempt, or create any exception to
    State water law, State water rights, or Federal or State permitted
    activities or agreements.

    SEC. 4017. NAPA RIVER, ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of
    the Napa River in the vicinity of St. Helena, California, for the
    purposes of improving flood management through reconnecting the river
    to its floodplain; restoring habitat, including riparian and aquatic
    habitat; improving fish passage and water quality; and restoring native
    plant communities.
      (b) Plans and Designs.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall
    review plans and designs developed by non-Federal interests and shall
    incorporate such plans and designs into the Federal study if the
    Secretary determines that such plans and designs are consistent with
    Federal standards.

    SEC. 4018. ORICK, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem
    restoration, Orick, California. In conducting the study, the Secretary
    shall determine the feasibility of restoring or rehabilitating the
    Redwood Creek Levees, Humboldt County, California.

    SEC. 4019. RIALTO, FONTANA, AND COLTON, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for water supply for Rialto, Fontana, and
    Colton, California.

    SEC. 4020. 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. 4021. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for water supply, San Diego County, California,
    including a review of the feasibility of connecting 4 existing
    reservoirs to increase usable storage capacity.

    SEC. 4022. 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. 4023. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) In General.--In conducting the South San Francisco Bay shoreline
    study, the Secretary shall--
              (1) review the planning, design, and land acquisition
            documents prepared by the California State Coastal Conservancy,
            the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and other local
            interests in developing recommendations for measures to provide
            flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline,
            restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds
            (including lands owned by the Department of the Interior), and
            other related purposes; and
              (2) incorporate such planning, design, and land acquisition
            documents into the Federal study if the Secretary determines
            that such documents are consistent with Federal standards.
      (b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the Secretary shall
    transmit a feasibility report for the South San Francisco Bay shoreline
    study to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
    House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
    Works of the Senate.
      (c) Credit.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
            Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a
            result of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study 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.
              (2) Limitation.--In no case may work that was carried out
            more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be
            eligible for credit under this subsection.

    SEC. 4024. TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Pinto Cove Wash, in
    the vicinity of Twentynine Palms, California.

    SEC. 4025. YUCCA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, West Burnt Mountain
    basin, in the vicinity of Yucca Valley, California.

    SEC. 4026. BOULDER CREEK, BOULDER, COLORADO.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction in the Boulder Creek
    floodplain, Colorado.

    SEC. 4027. ROARING FORK RIVER, BASALT, COLORADO.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and other purposes
    for the Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.

    SEC. 4028. DELAWARE AND CHRISTINA RIVERS AND SHELLPOT CREEK,
                        WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and related purposes
    along the Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington,
    Delaware.

    SEC. 4029. COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES, FLORIDA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and
    flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and
    Naples beaches, Collier County, Florida.

    SEC. 4030. VANDERBILT BEACH LAGOON, FLORIDA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for environmental restoration, water supply, and
    improvement of water quality at Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.

    SEC. 4031. MERIWETHER COUNTY, GEORGIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for water supply, Meriwether County, Georgia.

    SEC. 4032. 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. 4033. KAUKONAHUA-HELEMANO WATERSHED, OAHU, HAWAII.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Kaukonahua-Helemano
    watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.

    SEC. 4034. WEST MAUI, MAUI, HAWAII.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out projects for water resources development, environmental
    restoration, and natural resources protection, West Maui, Maui, Hawaii.

    SEC. 4035. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO.

      The study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho, authorized by
    section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
    324), is modified--
              (1) to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as project
            purposes to be studied; and
              (2) to require the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
            share of the cost of the study the cost, not to exceed
            $500,000, 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. 4036. BALLARD'S ISLAND SIDE CHANNEL, ILLINOIS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, Ballard's Island,
    Illinois.

    SEC. 4037. 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. 4038. 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. 4039. UTICA, ILLINOIS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction in the vicinity of
    Utica, Illinois.

    SEC. 4040. LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES, INDIANA.

      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 along Lake
    Michigan, Hammond, Whiting, East Chicago, Gary, and Portage, Indiana.

    SEC. 4041. SALEM, INDIANA.

      The Secreatry shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project to provide an additional water supply source for
    Salem, Indiana.

    SEC. 4042. BUCKHORN LAKE, KENTUCKY.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of modifying the project for flood damage reduction,
    Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 2 of the Flood Control
    Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to add ecosystem restoration,
    recreation, and improved access as project purposes, including
    permanently raising the winter pool elevation of the project.
      (b) In-Kind Contributions.--The non-Federal interest may provide the
    non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the form of services,
    materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.

    SEC. 4043. DEWEY LAKE, KENTUCKY.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    modifying the project for Dewey Lake, Kentucky, to add water supply as
    a project purpose.

    SEC. 4044. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood control,
    Louisville, Kentucky, authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act
    of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to investigate measures to address
    the rehabilitation of the project.

    SEC. 4045. 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. 4046. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FABRICATION PORTS, LOUISIANA.

      (a) Benefits.--In conducting a feasibility study for each of the
    following projects for navigation, the Secretary shall include in the
    calculation of national economic development benefits all economic
    benefits associated with contracts for new energy exploration and
    contracts for the fabrication of energy infrastructure that would
    result from carrying out the project:
              (1) Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black,
            Louisiana, being conducted under section 430 of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2639).
              (2) Iberia Port, Louisiana, being conducted under section 431
            of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
            2639).
      (b) Repeal.--Section 6009 of the Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
    Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 282) is repealed.

    SEC. 4047. VERMILION RIVER, LOUISIANA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for navigation on the Vermilion River,
    Louisiana, from the intersection of the Vermilion River and the Gulf
    Intracoastal Waterway to the industrial area north of the Vermilion
    River.

    SEC. 4048. 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. 4049. PATAPSCO RIVER, MARYLAND.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine and assess the
    impact of debris in the Patapsco River basin, Maryland, on wetlands,
    water quality, and public health and to identify management measures to
    reduce the inflow of debris into the Patapsco River.

    SEC. 4050. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    deepening that portion of the navigation channel of the navigation
    project for Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
    authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat.
    731), seaward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River
    and Somerset, Massachusetts.

    SEC. 4051. HAMBURG AND GREEN OAK TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction on Ore Lake and the
    Huron River for Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.

    SEC. 4052. ST. CLAIR RIVER, MICHIGAN.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a study of the
    relationships among dredging of the St. Clair River for navigation,
    erosion in the river, and declining water levels in the river and in
    Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.
      (b) Recommendations.--The report on the results of the study may
    include recommendations to address water level declines in Lake
    Michigan and Lake Huron.

    SEC. 4053. DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study and prepare a
    report to evaluate the integrity of the bulkhead system located on and
    in the vicinity of Duluth-Superior Harbor, Duluth, Minnesota, and
    Superior, Wisconsin.
      (b) Contents.--The report shall include--
              (1) a determination of causes of corrosion of the bulkhead
            system;
              (2) recommendations to reduce corrosion of the bulkhead
            system;
              (3) a description of the necessary repairs to the bulkhead
            system; and
              (4) an estimate of the cost of addressing the causes of the
            corrosion and carrying out necessary repairs.

    SEC. 4054. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

      The Secretary shall review the project for flood protection and other
    purposes on Wild Rice River, Minnesota, authorized by section 201 of
    the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), to develop alternatives
    to the Twin Valley Lake feature.

    SEC. 4055. MISSISSIPPI COASTAL AREA, MISSISSIPPI.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    making improvements or modifications to existing improvements in the
    coastal area of Mississippi in the interest of hurricane and storm
    damage reduction, prevention of saltwater intrusion, preservation of
    fish and wildlife, prevention of erosion, and other related water
    resource purposes.

    SEC. 4056. 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. 4057. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, St. Louis, Missouri,
    to restore or rehabilitate the levee system feature of the project for
    flood protection, St. Louis, Missouri, authorized by the first section
    of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing construction of certain public
    works on the Mississippi River for the protection of Saint Louis,
    Missouri'', approved August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 540).

    SEC. 4058. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, NEW JERSEY.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project in the vicinity of the Atlantic Intracoastal
    Waterway, New Jersey, for the construction of a dredged material
    disposal transfer facility to make dredged material available for
    beneficial reuse.

    SEC. 4059. BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including
    improved water quality, enhanced public access, and recreation, on the
    Kill Van Kull, Bayonne, New Jersey.

    SEC. 4060. CARTERET, NEW JERSEY.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including
    improved water quality, enhanced public access, and recreation, on the
    Raritan River, Carteret, New Jersey.

    SEC. 4061. ELIZABETH RIVER, ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements in the Elizabeth River
    watershed, Elizabeth, New Jersey.

    SEC. 4062. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gloucester, New
    Jersey, including the feasibility of restoring the flood protection
    dikes in Gibbstown, New Jersey, and the associated tidegates in
    Gloucester, New Jersey.

    SEC. 4063. PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY.

      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 Arthur
    Kill, Perth Amboy, New Jersey.

    SEC. 4064. WRECK POND, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for environmental restoration at Wreck Pond, New
    Jersey, including Black Creek and associated waters.

    SEC. 4065. BATAVIA, NEW YORK.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for hydropower and related purposes in the
    vicinity of Batavia, New York.

    SEC. 4066. BIG SISTER CREEK, EVANS, NEW YORK.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Big
    Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
      (b) Evaluation of Potential Solutions.--In conducting the study, the
    Secretary shall evaluate potential solutions to flooding from all
    sources, including flooding that results from ice jams.

    SEC. 4067. EAST CHESTER BAY, TURTLE COVE, NEW YORK.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for navigation, East Chester Creek, Chester Bay,
    Turtle Cove, New York.

    SEC. 4068. FINGER LAKES, NEW YORK.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and
    protection, Finger Lakes, New York, to address water quality and
    invasive species.

    SEC. 4069. HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

      In conducting 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. 4070. LAKE ERIE SHORELINE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline
    protection in the vicinity of Gallagher Beach, Lake Erie Shoreline,
    Buffalo, New York.

    SEC. 4071. NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements on Newtown Creek,
    Brooklyn and Queens, New York.

    SEC. 4072. NIAGARA RIVER, NEW YORK.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for a low-head hydroelectric generating facility
    in the Niagara River, New York.

    SEC. 4073. UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NEW YORK.

      Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42
    U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)) and with the consent of the affected local
    government, a nonprofit organization may serve as the non-Federal
    interest for a study for the Upper Delaware River watershed, New York,
    being carried out under Committee Resolution 2495 of the Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives,
    adopted May 9, 1996.

    SEC. 4074. LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of existing water and water
    quality-related infrastructure in Lincoln County, North Carolina, to
    assist local interests in determining the most efficient and effective
    way to connect county infrastructure.

    SEC. 4075. WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for water supply, Wilkes County, North Carolina.

    SEC. 4076. YADKINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for water supply, Yadkinville, North Carolina.

    SEC. 4077. CINCINNATI, OHIO.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration and
    recreation on the Ohio River, Cincinnati, Ohio.
      (b) Design.--While conducting the study, the Secretary may continue
    to carry out design work for the project as authorized by section 118
    of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (118 Stat.
    439).
      (c) Existing Plans.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall
    review the Central Riverfront Park Master Plan, dated December 1999,
    and incorporate any components of the plan that the Secretary
    determines are consistent with Federal standards.
      (d) Credit.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
            Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a
            result of the study 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.
              (2) Limitation.--In no case may work that was carried out
            more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be
            eligible for credit under this subsection.

    SEC. 4078. EUCLID, OHIO.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for navigation, ecosystem restoration, and
    recreation on Lake Erie, in the vicinity of the Euclid Lakefront,
    Euclid, Ohio.

    SEC. 4079. LAKE ERIE, OHIO.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out projects for power generation at confined disposal
    facilities along Lake Erie, Ohio.

    SEC. 4080. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out projects for flood damage reduction on the Ohio River in
    Mahoning, Columbiana, Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, Washington,
    Athens, Meigs, Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties, Ohio.

    SEC. 4081. 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, the Secretary may carry out the project.
      (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.

    SEC. 4082. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OREGON.

      The Secretary shall conduct 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. 4083. 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. 4084. WALLA WALLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON.

      In conducting the study of determine the feasibility of carrying out
    a project for ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon,
    the Secretary shall--
              (1) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
            study 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
              (2) allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-Federal
            share of the cost of the study in the form of in-kind services
            and materials.

    SEC. 4085. CHARTIERS CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chartiers Creek
    watershed, Pennsylvania.

    SEC. 4086. KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood control,
    Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Warren, Pennsylvania, authorized by
    section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570),
    and modified by section 2 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52
    Stat. 1215), section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55
    Stat. 646), and section 4 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944
    (58 Stat. 887), to review operations of and identify modifications to
    the project to expand recreational opportunities.

    SEC. 4087. NORTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection
    in Warren, McKean, Potter, Tioga, Lycoming, Centre, Cameron, Elk,
    Clearfield, Jefferson, Clarion, Venango, Forest, Clinton, Crawford, and
    Mifflin Counties, Pennsylvania, particularly as related to abandoned
    mine drainage abatement and reestablishment of stream and river
    channels.

    SEC. 4088. NORTHAMPTON AND LEHIGH COUNTIES STREAMS, PENNSYLVANIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, floodplain
    management, flood damage reduction, water quality control, and
    watershed management, for the streams of Northampton and Lehigh
    Counties, Pennsylvania.

    SEC. 4089. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of structural
    and nonstructural flood damage reduction, stream bank protection, storm
    water management, channel clearing and modification, and watershed
    coordination measures in the Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania, the
    Allegheny River basin, Pennsylvania, and the Upper Ohio River basin,
    Pennsylvania, to provide a level of flood protection sufficient to
    prevent future losses to communities located in such basins from
    flooding such as occurred in September 2004, but not less than a 100-
    year level of flood protection.
      (b) Priority Communities.--In carrying out this section, the
    Secretary shall give priority to the following Pennsylvania
    communities: Marshall Township, Ross Township, Shaler Township, Jackson
    Township, Harmony, Zelienople, Darlington Township, Houston Borough,
    Chartiers Township, Washington, Canton Township, Tarentum Borough, and
    East Deer Township.

    SEC. 4090. WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood control,
    Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Flood
    Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), to investigate measures
    to rehabilitate the project.

    SEC. 4091. YARDLEY BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, at Yardley Borough,
    Pennsylvania, including the alternative of raising River Road.

    SEC. 4092. RIO VALENCIANO, JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to reevaluate
    the project for flood damage reduction and water supply, Rio
    Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, authorized by section 209 of the Flood
    Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197) and section 204 of the Flood
    Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1828), to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out the project.
      (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
    of the cost of the study 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. 4093. CROOKED CREEK, BENNETTSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for water supply, Crooked Creek, Bennettsville,
    South Carolina.

    SEC. 4094. BROAD RIVER, YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for water supply, Broad River, York County,
    South Carolina.

    SEC. 4095. 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. 4096. CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chattanooga Creek,
    Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

    SEC. 4097. CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Cleveland,
    Tennessee.

    SEC. 4098. CUMBERLAND RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for recreation on, riverbank protection for, and
    environmental protection of, the Cumberland River and riparian habitats
    in the city of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.

    SEC. 4099. LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for water supply for Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne
    Counties, Tennessee.

    SEC. 4100. WOLF RIVER AND NONCONNAH CREEK, MEMPHIS TENNESSEE.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along Wolf River and
    Nonconnah Creek, in the vicinity of Memphis, Tennessee, to include the
    repair, replacement, rehabilitation, and restoration of the following
    pumping stations: Cypress Creek, Nonconnah Creek, Ensley, Marble Bayou,
    and Bayou Gayoso.

    SEC. 4101. ABILENE, TEXAS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for water supply, Abilene, Texas.

    SEC. 4102. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, TEXAS.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop a comprehensive plan to
    determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage
    reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem
    restoration in the coastal areas of the State of Texas.
      (b) Scope.--The comprehensive plan shall provide for the protection,
    conservation, and restoration of 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.
      (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``coastal
    areas in the State of Texas'' means the coastal areas of the State of
    Texas from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande River on the
    west and includes tidal waters, barrier islands, marches, coastal
    wetlands, rivers and streams, and adjacent areas.

    SEC. 4103. FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Fort Bend County,
    Texas.

    SEC. 4104. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Harris County,
    Texas.

    SEC. 4105. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying
    out a project for dredged material disposal in the vicinity of the
    project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston
    Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666).

    SEC. 4106. ROMA CREEK, TEXAS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Roma Creek, Texas.

    SEC. 4107. WALNUT CREEK, TEXAS.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental
    restoration, and erosion control, Walnut Creek, Texas.

    SEC. 4108. 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. 4109. SOUTHWESTERN UTAH.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara River,
    Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties, Utah.

    SEC. 4110. CHOWAN RIVER BASIN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental
    restoration, navigation, and erosion control, Chowan River basin,
    Virginia and North Carolina.

    SEC. 4111. JAMES RIVER, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the James River
    in the vicinity of Richmond, Virginia, including the Shockoe Bottom
    area.

    SEC. 4112. ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.

      (a) In General.--The study for rehabilitation of the Elliott Bay
    Seawall, Seattle, Washington, being carried out under Committee
    Resolution 2704 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    of the House of Representatives adopted September 25, 2002, is modified
    to include a determination of the feasibility of reducing future damage
    to the seawall from seismic activity.
      (b) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out the study, the
    Secretary may accept contributions in excess of the non-Federal share
    of the cost of the study from the non-Federal interest to the extent
    that the Secretary determines that the contributions will facilitate
    completion of the study.
      (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
    of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of the study
    the value of contributions accepted by the Secretary under subsection
    (b).

    SEC. 4113. 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. 4114. KENOSHA HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    carrying out a project for navigation, Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin,
    including the extension of existing piers.

    SEC. 4115. 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,
    and greater Milwaukee watersheds, 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) Manatee Harbor basin, Florida.
              (2) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana.
              (3) Calcasieu River at Devil's Elbow, Louisiana.
              (4) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park,
            Memphis Harbor, Tennessee.
              (5) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, Texas.
              (6) 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.

    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) Cucamonga basin, Upland, California.
              (2) Charlotte Harbor watershed, Florida.
              (3) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.
              (4) Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee,
            Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the
            counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb,
            Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry,
            Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia.
              (5) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
              (6) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
              (7) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and Pointe
            Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
              (8) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
              (9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.
              (10) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
              (11) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.
              (12) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
              (13) Buffalo River watershed, New York.
              (14) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York.
              (15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County, New York.
              (16) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene,
            Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York.
              (17) Genesee River watershed, New York.
              (18) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey.
              (19) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.
              (20) Oswego River basin, New York.
              (21) Ramapo River watershed, New York.
              (22) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York.
              (23) Tuscarawas River basin, Ohio.
              (24) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.
              (25) 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.
              (26) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
              (27) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
              (28) Sauk River basin, Washington.
              (29) Greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin.
      (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) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
              (A) Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.
              (B) Candor Dam, Candor, New York.
              (C) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
              (D) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
              (E) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.
              (F) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
              (G) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
              (H) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
      (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 immediately carry out a project to remedy the
    situation at Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon, due to the rapid deterioration of
    the dam. Cost sharing for the project shall be as provided by section
    1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n).
      (d) Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.--Section 504(a)(2) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 338; 117 Stat. 1842) is
    amended by striking ``Dams'' and inserting ``Dams No. 1-5''.
      (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $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, Nonconnah Creek,
            Tennessee.

    SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS.

      (a) In General.--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 paragraphs (23) and
            (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) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
              ``(30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
              ``(31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana;
              ``(32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and
              ``(33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.''.
      (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 212(i)(1) of such Act
    (33 U.S.C. 2332(i)(1)) is amended by striking ``section--'' and all
    that follows before the period at the end and inserting ``section
    $20,000,000''.

    SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

      (a) In General.--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) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(18);
              ``(10) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(20);
              ``(11) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(23);
              ``(12) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(25);
              ``(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(26);
              ``(14) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(27);
              ``(15) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(28); and
              ``(16) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection
            (c)(40).''.
      (b) East Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas.--Federal assistance
    made available under the rural enterprise zone program of the
    Department of Agriculture may be used toward payment of the non-Federal
    share of the costs of the project described in section 219(c)(20) of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-219) if
    such assistance is authorized to be used for such purposes.

    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) 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).
              (2) 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).
              (3) 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).
              (4) 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).
              (5) 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).
              (6) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York, being carried out
            under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C.
            701r).
              (7) 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).

    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 water supply, Little Red River, Arkansas.
              (2) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key,
            Florida.
              (3) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, Baton
            Rouge, Louisiana.
              (4) Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Montauk
            Point, New York.
      (b) Special Rule for Egmont Key, Florida.--In carrying out the
    project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, referred to
    in subsection (a)(2), 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)  Special Rule for Montauk Point, New York.--The Secretary shall
    complete the report for the project referred to in subsection (a)(4)
    not later than September 30, 2005, notwithstanding the ownership of the
    property to be protected.

    SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, an
    assessment of the water resources needs of the river basins and
    watersheds of the southeastern United States.
      (b) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out the assessment, the
    Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with State and local
    agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, and regional researchers.
      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated $7,000,000 to carry out this section.

    SEC. 5010. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

      Section 1103(e)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
    U.S.C. 652(e)(7)) is amended--
              (1) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the following:
            ``The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share of
            the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and
            materials.''; and
              (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
      ``(C) Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970
    (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(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. 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. 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. 5013. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.

      Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33
    U.S.C. 1268 note; 114 Stat. 2613) is amended by striking ``2006'' and
    inserting ``2011''.

    SEC. 5014. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.

      Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
    U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting
    ``2011''.

    SEC. 5015. 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 2005 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. 5016. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
                        PROGRAM.

      (a) Form of Assistance.--Section 510(a)(2) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended by striking ``, and
    beneficial uses of dredged material'' and inserting ``, beneficial uses
    of dredged material, and restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation''.
      (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 510(i) of such Act (110
    Stat. 3761) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting
    ``$50,000,000''.

    SEC. 5017. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION.

      The second sentence of section 704(b) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended by striking
    ``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$30,000,000''.

    SEC. 5018. HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT.

      The Secretary may participate with Federal, State, and local
    agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional researchers, and
    other interested parties to assess hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.

    SEC. 5019. POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND TRIBUTARY STRATEGY
                        EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM.

      The Secretary may participate in the Potomac River Watershed
    Assessment and Tributary Strategy Evaluation and Monitoring Program to
    identify a series of resource management indicators to accurately
    monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the agreed upon
    tributary strategies and other public policies that pertain to natural
    resource protection of the Potomac River watershed.

    SEC. 5020. LOCK AND DAM SECURITY.

      (a) Standards.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the
    Coast Guard, shall develop standards for the security of locks and
    dams, including the testing and certification of vessel exclusion
    barriers.
      (b) Site Surveys.--At the request of a lock or dam owner, the
    Secretary shall provide technical assistance, on a reimbursible basis,
    to improve lock or dam security.
      (c) Cooperative Agreement.--The Secretary may enter into a
    cooperative agreement with a nonprofit alliance of public and private
    organizations that has the mission of promoting safe waterways and
    seaports to carry out testing and certification activities, and to
    perform site surveys, under this section.
      (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this section.

    SEC. 5021. 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. 5022. TALLAPOOSA, ALABAMA.

      The Secretary may provide technical assistance relating to water
    supply to the Middle Tallapoosa Water Supply District, Alabama. There
    is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

    SEC. 5023. ALASKA.

      Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
    369) is amended--
              (1) in subsection (c) by inserting ``environmental
            restoration,'' after ``water supply and related facilities,'';
              (2) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence;
              (3) in subsection (h) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and
            inserting ``$45,000,000''; and
              (4) 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. 5024. BARROW, ALASKA.

      The Secretary shall carry out, under section 117 of the Energy and
    Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 Stat. 2944), a
    nonstructural project for coastal erosion and storm damage prevention
    and reduction at Barrow, Alaska, including relocation of
    infrastructure.

    SEC. 5025. COFFMAN COVE, ALASKA.

      The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for navigation,
    Coffman Cove, Alaska, at a total cost of $3,000,000.

    SEC. 5026. FORT YUKON, ALASKA.

      The Secretary shall make repairs to the dike at Fort Yukon, Alaska,
    so that the dike meets Corps of Engineers standards.

    SEC. 5027. KOTZEBUE HARBOR, ALASKA.

      The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for navigation,
    Kotzebue Harbor, Kotzebue, Alaska, at at total cost of $2,200,000.

    SEC. 5028. 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. 5029. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA.

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

    SEC. 5030. TANANA RIVER, ALASKA.

      The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, the removal of
    the hazard to navigation on the Tanana River, Alaska, near the mouth of
    the Chena River, as described in the January 3, 2005, memorandum from
    the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, to the Corps of
    Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska.

    SEC. 5031. VALDEZ, ALASKA.

       The Secretary is authorized to construct a small boat harbor in
    Valdez, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with an estimated
    Federal cost of $10,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
    $9,500,000.

    SEC. 5032. WHITTIER, ALASKA.

      (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study
    to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for navigation at
    Whittier, Alaska, to construct a new boat harbor at the head of
    Whittier Bay and to expand the existing harbor and, if the Secretary
    determines that a project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the
    project.
      (b) Non-Federal Cost Share.--The non-Federal interest may use, and
    the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal
    program to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the
    construction of any project carried out under this section if such
    funds are authorized to be used to carry out such project.
      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $35,200,000.

    SEC. 5033. WRANGELL HARBOR, ALASKA.

      (a) General Navigation Features.--In carrying out the project for
    navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska, authorized by section 101(b)(1) of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), the
    Secretary shall consider the dredging of the mooring basin and
    construction of the inner harbor facilities to be general navigation
    features for purposes of estimating the non-Federal share of project
    costs.
      (b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise
    the partnership agreement for the project to reflect the change
    required by subsection (a).

    SEC. 5034. 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. 5035. DES ARC LEVEE PROTECTION, ARKANSAS.

      The Secretary shall review the project for flood control, Des Arc,
    Arkansas, to determine whether bank and channel scour along the White
    River threaten the existing project and whether the scour is as a
    result of a design deficiency. If the Secretary determines that such
    conditions exist as a result of a deficiency, the Secretary shall carry
    out measures to eliminate the deficiency.

    SEC. 5036. HELENA AND VICINITY, ARKANSAS.

      The Secretary shall accept as fulfilling the non-Federal cost-sharing
    responsibilities for the project for flood control, Helena and
    Vicinity, Arkansas, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), the non-Federal cash
    contribution of $568,000 and the lands, easements, rights-of-way,
    relocations, and dredged material disposal areas provided by the non-
    Federal sponsor as of September 1, 2003, and the Secretary shall not
    seek to recover any reimbursement from the non-Federal sponsor related
    to advanced payments to, or work performed for, the non-Federal sponsor
    under the authority of sections 103 and 104 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213, 2214).

    SEC. 5037. 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. 5038. 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. 5039. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS.

      (a) Minimum Flows.--
              (1) In general.--In carrying out section 304 of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2601), the
            Secretary shall implement alternatives BS-3 and NF-7, as
            described in the White River Minimum Flows Reallocation Study
            Report, Arkansas and Missouri, dated July 2004.
              (2) Cost sharing.--Reallocation of storage and installation
            of facilities under this subsection shall be considered fish
            and wildlife enhancement that provides national benefits and
            shall be a Federal expense in accordance with section 906(e)(1)
            of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
            2283(e)(1)).
              (3) Offset.--In carrying out this subsection, losses to
            hydropower shall be offset by a reduction, not to exceed
            $17,000,000, in the costs allocated to hydropower, as
            determined by the present value of the estimated replacement
            cost of the electrical energy and capacity at the time of the
            implementation.
      (b) Fish Hatchery.--In operating the fish hatchery at Beaver Lake,
    Arkansas, authorized by section 105 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), losses to hydropower shall be offset by a
    reduction, not to exceed $2,200,000, in the costs allocated to
    hydropower, as determined by the present value of the estimated
    replacement cost of the electrical energy and capacity at the time of
    the implementation.
      (c) Repeal.--Section 374 of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1999 (113 Stat. 321) is repealed.

    SEC. 5040. 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. 5041. 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. 5042. DANA POINT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of the causes of water quality
    degradation within Dana Point Harbor, California, to determine if the
    degradation is the result of a Federal navigation project, and, if the
    Secretary determines that the degradation is the result of a Federal
    navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate
    the degradation at Federal expense.

    SEC. 5043. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

      Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
    (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, on, or after 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 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 in-kind
                    services and materials.''; 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. 5044. EASTERN SANTA CLARA BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

      Section 111(c) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (as
    enacted into law by Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-224) is
    amended--
              (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting
            ``$28,000,000''; and
              (2) by striking ``$7,000,000'' and inserting ``$10,000,000''.

    SEC. 5045. PINE FLAT DAM AND RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the Kings River Fisheries
    Management Program Framework Agreement, dated May 29, 1999, among the
    California Department of Fish and Game, the Kings River Water
    Association, and the Kings River Conservation District and, if the
    Secretary determines that the management program is feasible, the
    Secretary may participate in the management program.
      (b) Prohibition.--Nothing in this section authorizes any project for
    the raising of, or the construction of, a multilevel intake structure
    at Pine Flat Dam, California.
      (c) Use of Existing Studies.--In carrying out this section, the
    Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, studies in
    existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including data and
    environmental documentation in the Report of the Chief of Engineers,
    Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, Fresno County, California, dated July 19,
    2002.
      (d) 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 the work is integral to the project.
      (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to $20,000,000 to carry out this section.

    SEC. 5046. 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. 5047. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port of San
    Francisco, California, may carry out the project for repair and
    removal, as appropriate, of Piers 35, 36, and 80 in San Francisco,
    California, substantially in accordance with the Port's redevelopment
    plan.
      (1) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated $20,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

    SEC. 5048. 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 northeasterly
    prolongation of that portion of the northwesterly line of Bryant Street
    lying between Beale Street and Main Street with the southwesterly line
    of Spear Street, which intersection lies on the line of jurisdiction of
    the San Francisco Port Commission; following thence southerly along
    said line of jurisdiction as described in the State of California
    Harbor and Navigation Code Section 1770, as amended in 1961, to its
    intersection with the easterly line of Townsend Street along a line
    that is parallel and distant 10 feet distant from the existing southern
    boundary of Pier 40 produced to its point of intersection with the
    United States Government pier-head line; thence northerly along said
    pier-head line to its intersection with a line parallel with, and
    distant 10 feet easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line of
    Pier 30-32; thence northerly along said parallel line and its northerly
    prolongation, to a point of intersection with a line parallel with, and
    distant 10 feet northerly from, the existing northerly boundary of Pier
    30-32, thence westerly along last said parallel line to its
    intersection with the United States Government pier-head line; 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. 5049. SANTA VENETIA, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood
    damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (33
    U.S.C. 701s), Santa Venetia, California, if the Secretary determines
    that the project is feasible.
      (b) Project Financing.--In carrying out 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 Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying
    such section is necessary to implement the project.

    SEC. 5050. 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 one or more of the 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. 5051. VICTOR V. VEYSEY DAM, CALIFORNIA.

      (a) Designation.--The Prado Dam, authorized by the Flood Control Act
    of 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), shall be known and designated as the ``Victor
    V. Veysey Dam''.
      (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,
    paper, or other record of the United States to the dam referred to in
    subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Victor V.
    Veysey Dam''.

    SEC. 5052. WHITTIER, 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) in
    the vicinity of Whittier, California, if the Secretary determines that
    the project is feasible.

    SEC. 5053. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN HARBOR,
                        CONNECTICUT.

      (a) Designation.--The western breakwater for the project for
    navigation, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first
    section of the Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be known
    and designated as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater''.
      (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,
    paper, or other record of the United States to the breakwater referred
    to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Charles
    Hervey Townshend Breakwater''.

    SEC. 5054. CHRISTINA RIVER SHIPWRECK, DELAWARE.

      The Secretary may carry out the removal of the debris associated with
    the steamship ``STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA'' and other derelict vessels from
    the Christina River, Delaware, under section 202 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2945).

    SEC. 5055. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND, AND
                        VIRGINIA.

      (a) Comprehensive Action Plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date
    of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the Mayor
    of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Maryland, the Governor of
    Virginia, the County Executives of Montgomery County and Prince
    George's County, Maryland, and other interested persons, shall develop
    a 10-year comprehensive action plan for the restoration and protection
    of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River and its tributaries.
      (b) Public Availability.--Upon completion of the plan, the Secretary
    shall make the plan available to the public.

    SEC. 5056. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

      Section 109(e)(2) 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. 5057. 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. 5058. LAKE LANIER, GEORGIA.

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

    SEC. 5059. 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. 5060. 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 non-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) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
              (2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District,
            Illinois.
              (3) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
              (4) Cairo, Illinois Mainline Levee, Cairo, Illinois.
              (5) Goose Pond Pump Station, Cairo, Illinois.
              (6) Cottonwood Slough Pump Station, Alexander County,
            Illinois.
              (7) 10th and 28th Street Pump Stations, Cairo, Illinois.
              (8) Flood control levee projects in Brookport, Shawneetown,
            Old Shawneetown, Golconda, Rosiclare, Harrisburg, and
            Reevesville, Illinois.
      (e) Justification.--The reconstruction of a project authorized by
    this section shall not be considered a separable element of the
    project.
      (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated--
              (1) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in
            paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (d); and
              (2) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in
            subsection (d)(8).
    Such sums shall remain available until expended.

    SEC. 5061. 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. 5062. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for a project
    to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areas
    along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.
      (b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall include
    hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall accurately show the
    flood inundation of each property by flood risk in the floodplain. The
    maps shall be produced in a high resolution format and shall be made
    available to all flood prone areas along the Little Calumet River,
    Chicago, Illinois, in an electronic format.
      (c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-Federal
    interests for the project shall work with the Director of the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency to ensure the validity of the maps
    developed under the project for flood insurance purposes.
      (d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the Secretary
    may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with the non-Federal
    interests or provide reimbursements of project costs.
      (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project
    shall be 50 percent.
      (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000.

    SEC. 5063. 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. 5064. 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''.
      (c) Nonprofit Entities and Monitoring.--Section 519 of such Act (114
    Stat. 2654) is amended by adding at the end the following:
      ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the
    Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a non-Federal
    interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the
    affected local government.
      ``(i) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall develop an Illinois river
    basin monitoring program to support the plan referred to in subsection
    (b). Data collected under the monitoring program shall incorporate data
    provided by the State of Illinois and shall be publicly accessible
    through electronic means.''.

    SEC. 5065. PROMONTORY POINT, LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.

      In carrying out the project for storm damage reduction and shoreline
    erosion protection, Lake Michigan, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), the
    Secretary shall reevaluate the feasibility of reconstructing the
    Promontory Point section consistent with the original limestone step
    design.

    SEC. 5066. BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, INDIANA.

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

    SEC. 5067. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.

      Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
    (113 Stat. 335; 117 Stat. 1843) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting the following:
                      ``(A) In general.--$30,000,000'';
              (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 the cost
                    of planning and design work carried out by the non-
                    Federal interest before, on, or after 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. 5068. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, MISSOURI RIVER, IOWA.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for a project
    to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areas in
    the State of Iowa, along the Missouri River.
      (b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall include
    hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall accurately portray the
    flood hazard areas in the floodplain. The maps shall be produced in a
    high resolution format and shall be made available to the State of Iowa
    in an electronic format.
      (c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-Federal
    interests for the project shall work with the Director of the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency to ensure the validity of the maps
    developed under the project for flood insurance purposes.
      (d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the Secretary
    may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with the non-Federal
    interests or provide reimbursements of project costs.
      (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the project
    shall be 50 percent.
      (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.

    SEC. 5069. 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. 5070. CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KENTUCKY.

      At reservoirs managed by the Secretary above Cumberland River mile
    385.5 within the Cumberland River basin, Kentucky, the Secretary shall
    charge fees associated with storage and maintenance of water supply
    that do not exceed the fees in effect on October 1, 2002.

    SEC. 5071. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.

      (a) In General.--Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1999 (113 Stat. 353) is amended--
              (1) in the section heading by inserting ``kentucky
            and'' before ``northern west
            virginia''; and
              (2) by adding at the end the following:
              ``(4) Louisville, kentucky.--Report of the Corps of Engineers
            entitled `Louisville Waterfront Park, Phase II, Kentucky,
            Master Plan', dated July 22, 2002, at a total cost of
            $32,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,000,000 and
            an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,000,000.''.
      (b) Conforming Amendment.--In the table of contents contained in
    section 1(b) of such Act strike the item relating to section 557 and
    insert the following:

    ``Sec. 557. Kentucky and Northern West Virginia.''.

    SEC. 5072. 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. 5073. 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. 5074. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY.

      The Secretary shall complete a feasibility report for rehabilitation
    of the project for flood damage reduction, Paducah, Kentucky, and, if
    the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary
    shall carry out the project at a total cost of $3,000,000.

    SEC. 5075. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

      Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
    3773; 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 may be used by the Corps of
    Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at
    100 percent Federal expense.''.

    SEC. 5076. WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY.

      Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106
    Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A-219) is amended by adding at the end the
    following:
              ``(41) Winchester, kentucky.--Wastewater infrastructure,
            Winchester, Kentucky.''.

    SEC. 5077. 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. 5078. CALCASIEU SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA.

      The Secretary shall expedite completion of a dredged material
    management plan for the Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana, and may take
    interim measures to increase the capacity of existing disposal areas,
    or to construct new confined or beneficial use disposal areas, for the
    channel.

    SEC. 5079. CROSS LAKE, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.

      The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Air Force, and
    may use, not to exceed $4,500,000 to assist the city of Shreveport,
    Louisiana, with its plan to construct a water intake facility.

    SEC. 5080. 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. 5081. CHARLESTOWN, MARYLAND.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for
    nonstructural flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration at
    Charlestown, Maryland.
      (b) Land Acquisition.--The flood damage reduction component of the
    project may include the acquisition of private property from willing
    sellers.
      (c) Justification.--Any nonstructural flood damage reduction project
    to be carried out under this section that will result in the conversion
    of property to use for ecosystem restoration and wildlife habitat shall
    be justified based on national ecosystem restoration benefits.
      (d) Use of Acquired Property.--Property acquired under this section
    shall be maintained in public ownership for ecosystem restoration and
    wildlife habitat.
      (e) Ability to Pay.--In determining the appropriate non-Federal cost
    share for the project, the Secretary shall determine the ability of
    Cecil County, Maryland, to participate as a cost-sharing non-Federal
    interest in accordance with section 103(m) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).
      (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated $2,000,000 to carry out this section.

    SEC. 5082. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, MARYLAND AND DELAWARE.

      (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide technical assistance to
    the Secretary of Agriculture for use in carrying out the Conservation
    Corridor Demonstration Program established under subtitle G of title II
    of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801
    note; 116 Stat. 275).
      (b) Coordination and Integration.--In carrying out water resources
    projects in Maryland and Delaware on the Delmarva Peninsula, the
    Secretary shall coordinate and integrate those projects, to the maximum
    extent practicable, with any activities carried out to implement a
    conservation corridor plan approved by the Secretary of Agriculture
    under section 2602 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
    2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275).

    SEC. 5083. MASSACHUSETTS DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.

      The Secretary may cooperate with Massachusetts in the management and
    long-term monitoring of aquatic dredged material disposal sites within
    the State, and is authorized to accept funds from the State to carry
    out such activities.

    SEC. 5084. ONTONAGON HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the vicinity
    of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor, Ontonagon County,
    Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
    1962 (76 Stat. 1176, 100 Stat. 4213, 110 Stat. 3730), 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. 5085. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

      (a) Ecosystem Restoration.--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.
      (b) Plan.--Section 426(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1999 (113 Stat. 326) is amended by striking ``$400,000'' and inserting
    ``$475,000''.

    SEC. 5086. CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for emergency
    streambank protection along the Red Lake River in Crookston, Minnesota,
    and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the
    Secretary may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood
    Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r); except that the maximum amount of
    Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be $6,500,000.

    SEC. 5087. 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 ``township and crow wing and mille lacs counties'';
              (2) by striking ``$11,000,000'' and inserting
            ``$17,000,000'';
              (3) by inserting ``, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County,''
            after ``Garrison''; and
              (4) 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 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. 5088. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.

      (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey to the city of
    Minneapolis by quitclaim deed and without consideration all right,
    title, and interest of the United States to the property known as the
    War Department (Fort Snelling Interceptor) Tunnel in Minneapolis,
    Minnesota.
      (b) Applicability of Property Screening Provisions.--Section 2696 of
    title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to the conveyance under
    this section.

    SEC. 5089. 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), 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. 5090. 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 in-kind services and materials.

    SEC. 5091. 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. 5092. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

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

    SEC. 5093. ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JERSEY.

      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),
    Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, if the Secretary determines that
    the project is feasible.

    SEC. 5094. 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 the non-Federal share 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. 5095. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO.

      (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 593(h) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 381) is amended by
    striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$40,000,000''.
      (b) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Section 593 of such Act (113 Stat.
    381) is amended 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.''.

    SEC. 5096. 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 adding 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 2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years
    beginning after September 30, 2004,''.
      (d) Tsunami Warning System.--Section 404 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended by adding at the
    end the following:
      ``(d) Tsunami Warning System.--There is authorized to be appropriated
    $800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a project for a tsunami warning
    system, Atlantic Coast of New York.''.

    SEC. 5097. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

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

    SEC. 5098. 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. 5099. HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK.

      The Secretary may participate with the State of New York, New York
    City, and the Hudson River Park Trust in carrying out activities to
    restore critical marine habitat, improve safety, and protect and
    rehabilitate critical infrastructure. There is authorized to be
    appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

    SEC. 5100. MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NEW YORK.

      As part of the operation and maintenance of the Mount Morris Dam, New
    York, the Secretary may make improvements to the access road for the
    dam to provide safe access to a Federal visitor's center.

    SEC. 5101. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.

      Section 573 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
    372) 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 interest may include a
    nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.''.

    SEC. 5102. 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. 5103. 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. 5104. W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA.

      The Secretary shall remove debris from the joint intake at the W.
    Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.

    SEC. 5105. OHIO.

      Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
    381) is amended--
              (1) in subsection (b) by striking ``design and construction''
            and inserting ``planning, design, and construction'';
              (2) in subsection (g) by striking ``$60,000,000'' and
            inserting ``$100,000,000''; and
              (3) by adding at the end the following:
      ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the
    Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(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. 5106. TOUSSAINT RIVER, OHIO.

      (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Toussaint River, Carroll
    Township, Ohio, authorized by section 107 of the River and Harbor Act
    of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to
    enter into an agreement with the non-Federal interest under which the
    Secretary may--
              (1) acquire, and transfer to the non-Federal interest, a
            dredge and associated equipment with the capacity to perform
            operation and maintenance of the project; and
              (2) provide the non-Federal interest with a lump-sum payment
            to cover all future costs of operation and maintenance of the
            project.
      (b) Agreement.--The Secretary may carry out subsection (a)(1) by
    entering into an agreement with the non-Federal interest under which
    the non-Federal interest may acquire the dredge and associated
    equipment directly and be reimbursed by the Secretary.
      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated $1,800,000 to carry out this section. Of such funds,
    $500,000 may be used to carry out subsection (a)(1).
      (d) Release.--Upon the acquisition and transfer of a dredge and
    associated equipment under subsection (a)(1), and the payment of funds
    under subsection (a)(2), all future Federal responsibility for
    operation and maintenance of the project is extinguished.

    SEC. 5107. 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, the Secretary
    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. 5108. JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, LAKE UMATILLA, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall pay not more than $2,500,000 to
    the provider of research and curation support previously provided to
    the Federal Government as a result of--
              (1) the multipurpose project at 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
              (2) 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. 5109. 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 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) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the property
    conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to be held in public ownership,
    all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert to
    the United States, at the option of the United States.
      (e) 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. 5110. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
    (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting the following:
                      ``(A) In general.--$20,000,000'';
              (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 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
              (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. 5111. LEHIGH RIVER, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

      The Secretary shall use existing water quality data to model the
    effects of the Francis E. Walter Dam, at different water levels, to
    determine its impact on water and related resources in and along the
    Lehigh River in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. There is authorized to be
    appropriated $500,000 to carry out this section.

    SEC. 5112. 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. 5113. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.

      (a) Study and Strategy Development.--Section 567(a) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787; 114 Stat. 2662) is
    amended--
              (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``and
            carry out'' after ``develop''; and
              (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``$10,000,000.'' and
            inserting ``$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.''.
      (b) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 567(c) of such Act (114 Stat.
    2662) is amended--
              (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Cooperation'' and
            inserting ``Cooperative''; and
              (2) in the first sentence--
                      (A) by inserting ``and carrying out'' after
                    ``developing''; and
                      (B) by striking ``cooperation'' and inserting ``cost-
                    sharing and cooperative''.
      (c) Implementation of Strategy.--Section 567(d) of such Act (114
    Stat. 2663) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
            following:
              ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
              (2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) (as so
            designated)--
                      (A) by striking ``implement'' and inserting ``carry
                    out''; and
                      (B) by striking ``implementing'' and inserting
                    ``carrying out'';
              (3) by adding at the end the following:
              ``(2) Priority project.--In carrying out projects to
            implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give priority to
            the project for ecosystem restoration, Cooperstown, New York,
            described in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin--Cooperstown
            Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, dated December
            2004, prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the New York State
            Department of Environmental Conservation.''; and
              (4) 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 (3) of this subsection).
      (d) Credit.--Section 567 of such Act (110 Stat. 3787; 114 Stat. 2662)
    is amended by adding at the end the following:
      ``(e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal
    share of the cost of a project under this section--
              ``(1) 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
              ``(2) the cost of in-kind services and materials provided for
            the project by the non-Federal interest.''.

    SEC. 5114. 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, the Secretary
    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. 5115. 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. 5116. 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. 5117. J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TENNESSEE.

      The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct a trail system at the
    J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee, authorized by section 4
    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 June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), including design
    and construction of support facilities for public health and safety
    associated with trail development. In carrying out such improvements,
    the Secretary is authorized to use funds made available by the State of
    Tennessee from any Federal or State source, or both.

    SEC. 5118. 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 County, 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. 5119. 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 River
    and Harbor 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. 5120. UPPER MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT, TENNESSEE, ARKANSAS, AND
                        MISSISSIPPI.

      The Secretary may participate with non-Federal and nonprofit entities
    to address issues concerning managing groundwater as a sustainable
    resource through the Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas,
    and Mississippi, and coordinating the protection of groundwater supply
    and groundwater quality with local surface water protection programs.
    There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this
    section.

    SEC. 5121. BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED, TEXAS.

      (a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation with
    appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall develop, as
    expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for development of
    new technologies and innovative approaches for restoring, preserving,
    and protecting the Bosque River watershed within Bosque, Hamilton,
    McLennan, and Erath Counties, Texas. The Secretary, in cooperation with
    the Secretary of Agriculture, may carry out activities identified in
    the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives for
    stabilization and enhancement of land and water resources in the basin.
      (b) Services of Public Non-Profit Institutions and Other Entities.--
    In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may utilize, through
    contracts or other means, the services of public non-profit
    institutions and such other entities as the Secretary considers
    appropriate.
      (c) Non-Federal Share.--
              (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
            activities carried out under this section shall be 35 percent.
              (2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
            Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this
            section the cost of planning, design, and construction work
            completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests for
            implementation of measures constructed with assistance provided
            under this section. The amount of such credit shall not exceed
            the non-Federal share of the cost of such activities.
              (3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of the
            cost of operation and maintenance for measures constructed with
            assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
      (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

    SEC. 5122. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the Balanced Vision Plan
    for the Trinity River Corridor, Dallas, Texas, dated December 2003 and
    amended in March 2004, prepared by the non-Federal interest for the
    project for flood damage reduction and other purposes, Dallas Floodway,
    Dallas, Texas, and, if the Secretary determines that the project is
    technically sound and environmentally acceptable, shall carry out the
    project at a total cost of $194,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost
    of $126,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $67,900,000.
      (b) Credit.--
              (1) In-kind contributions.--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 the work is
            integral to the project.
              (2) Cash contributions.--The Secretary shall accept funds
            provided by the non-Federal interests for use in carrying out
            planning, engineering, and design for the project. The Federal
            share of such planning, engineering, and design carried out
            with non-Federal contributions shall be credited against the
            non-Federal share of project costs.

    SEC. 5123. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

      (a) In General.--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''.
      (b) Specific Projects.--Section 575(b) of such Act (110 Stat. 3789;
    113 Stat. 311) is amended--
              (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end;
              (2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and
            inserting ``; and''; and
              (3) by adding the following:
              ``(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou,
            Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).''.

    SEC. 5124. 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
    in the period beginning 2 years before the date of initiation of the
    study and ending on the date of execution of the partnership agreement
    for construction of the project 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. 5125. DYKE MARSH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

      The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park Service to
    restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.

    SEC. 5126. EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.

      Section 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
    (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``$20,000,000 for water supply and wastewater
            infrastructure'' and inserting the following:
                      ``(A) In general.--$20,000,000 for water supply,
                    wastewater infrastructure, and environmental
                    restoration'';
              (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 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
              (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. 5127. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA.

      The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park Service to
    provide technical and project management assistance for the James
    River, Virginia, with a particular emphasis on locations along the
    shoreline adversely impacted by Hurricane Isabel.

    SEC. 5128. 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. 5129. 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. 5130. 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. 5131. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.

      Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
    2675) is amended--
              (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``may construct'' and
            inserting ``shall construct''; and
              (2) by inserting ``and ecosystem restoration'' after
            ``erosion protection'' each place it appears.

    SEC. 5132. 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. 5133. 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) Priority Communities.--Section 581(b) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
              (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
            inserting a semicolon; and
              (3) by adding at the end the following:
              ``(7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed; and
              ``(8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty's Run River
            basin.''.
      (c) 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. 5134. 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. 5135. 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. 5136. 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 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. 5137. JOHNSONVILLE DAM, JOHNSONVILLE, WISCONSIN.

      The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Johnsonville Dam,
    Johnsonville, Wisconsin, to determine if the structure prevents ice
    jams on the Sheboygan River.

    SEC. 5138. 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 Airport (Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.
              ``(12) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--The
            project for flood control, Chicago Underflow Plan, Thornton
            Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois.
              ``(13) Larose to golden meadow, louisiana.--The project for
            flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
              ``(14) Perris, california.--The project for flood control,
            Perris, California.''.

    SEC. 5139. 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.

                          TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

    SEC. 6001. HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FLORIDA.

      (a) Modification.--The project for Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer,
    Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to authorize the
    Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $39,200,000.
      (b) Treatment.--Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
              (1) 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, except that operation and maintenance costs of the
            project shall remain a non-Federal responsibility.''; and
              (2) in clause (iii) by inserting after ``subparagraph (B)''
            the following: ``and the project for aquifer storage and
            recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer''.

    SEC. 6002. PILOT PROJECTS.

      Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
    (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
              (1) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
                      (A) by striking ``$69,000,000'' and inserting
                    ``$71,200,000''; and
                      (B) by striking ``$34,500,000'' each place it appears
                    and inserting ``$35,600,000''; and
              (2) in clause (i)--
                      (A) by striking ``$6,000,000'' and inserting
                    ``$8,200,000''; and
                      (B) by striking ``$3,000,000'' each place it appears
                    and inserting ``$4,100,000''.

    SEC. 6003. MAXIMUM COST OF PROJECTS.

      Section 601(b)(2)(E) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
    (114 Stat. 2683) is amended by inserting ``and section (d)'' before the
    period at the end.

    SEC. 6004. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

      Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114
    Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the following:
              ``(3) Project authorization.--The following project for water
            resources development and conservation and other purposes is
            authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
            accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
            described in the report designated in this paragraph:
                      ``(A) Indian river lagoon south, florida.--The
                    project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood
                    damage reduction, and protection of water quality,
                    Indian River Lagoon South, Florida: Report of the Chief
                    of Engineers dated August 6, 2004, at a total cost of
                    $1,210,608,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
                    $605,304,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
                    $605,304,000.''.

    SEC. 6005. CREDIT.

      Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
    (114 Stat. 2685) is amended--
              (1) in clause (i)--
                      (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I);
                      (B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (II);
                    and
                      (C) by adding at the end the following:
                              ``(III) the credit is provided for work
                            carried out before the date of the partnership
                            agreement between the Secretary and the non-
                            Federal sponsor, as defined in an agreement
                            between the Secretary and the non-Federal
                            sponsor providing for such credit;''; and
              (2) in clause (ii)--
                      (A) by striking ``design agreement or the project
                    cooperation''; and
                      (B) by inserting before the semicolon the following:
                    ``, including in the case of credit provided under
                    clause (i)(III) conditions relating to design and
                    construction''.

    SEC. 6006. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE.

      Section 601(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114
    Stat. 2691) 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, 2004, to carry out this subsection.''.

    SEC. 6007. 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. 6008. DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

      As of the date of enactment of this Act, the following projects are
    not authorized:
              (1) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
            section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act
            of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the
            Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
              (2) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
            section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740),
            Martin County, Florida modifications to the Central and South
            Florida Project, as contained in Senate Document 101, 90th
            Congress, 2d Session.
              (3) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by
            section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740),
            East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie--Martin County, Spillway
            Structure S-311 of the Central and South Florida Project, as
            contained in House Document 369, 90th Congress, 2d Session.

    SEC. 6009. MODIFIED WATER DELIVERY.

      (a) Tamiami Trail.--The Secretary shall not carry out a project for
    raising Tamiami Trail, Florida, until such date as the project is
    specifically authorized by law.
      (b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress reports
    recommending specific authorizations in law for--
              (1) changes to the project to improve water deliveries to
            Everglades National Park, authorized by section 104 of the
            Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989
            (16 U.S.C. 410r-8), if necessary;
              (2) a project to raise Tamiami Trail, Florida, if necessary;
            and
              (3) a combined structural and operational plan for the C-111
            Canal Project, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control
            Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176), and modified by section 203 of the
            Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), and further modified
            by section 316 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
            (110 Stat. 3715), and the project to improve water deliveries
            to Everglades National Park.

                       TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

    SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS.

      In this title, 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 and the Pearl River on the east,
            including those parts of the Deltaic Plain and the Chenier
            Plain included within the study area of the Plan.
              (2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
            the State of Louisiana.
              (3) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the report of the Chief of
            Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana Coastal
            Area dated January 31, 2005.
              (4) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Coastal
            Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force
            established by section 7003.

    SEC. 7002. ADDITIONAL REPORTS.

      (a) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.--Not later than 2 years after the
    date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
    report recommending modifications to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
    to address navigation, salt water intrusion, channel bank erosion,
    mitigation, and threats to life and property.
      (b) Chenier Plain.--Not later than July 1, 2006, the Secretary shall
    submit to Congress a report recommending near-term ecosystem
    restoration measures for the Chenier Plain, Louisiana.
      (c) Long-Term Plan.--
              (1) Comprehensive framework.--Not later than one year after
            the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
            submit to Congress a recommended framework for developing a
            long-term program that provides for the comprehensive
            protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands,
            estuaries (including Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary), barrier
            islands, and related land and features that protect critical
            resources, habitat, and infrastructure in the coastal Louisiana
            ecosystem from the impacts of coastal storms, hurricanes,
            erosion, and subsidence.
              (2) Consideration.--In developing the recommended framework,
            the Secretary shall consider integrating other Federal or State
            projects or activities within the coastal Louisiana ecosystem
            into the long-term restoration program.
              (3) Comprehensive plan.--
                      (A) Deadline.--Not later than five years after the
                    date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
                    submit to Congress a feasibility study recommending a
                    comprehensive, long-term, plan for the protection,
                    conservation, and restoration of the coastal Louisiana
                    ecosystem.
                      (B) Integration.--The comprehensive, long-term, plan
                    shall include recommendations for the integration of
                    ongoing Federal and State projects, programs, and
                    activities.

    SEC. 7003. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION TASK
                        FORCE.

      (a) 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):
              (1) The Secretary.
              (2) The Secretary of the Interior.
              (3) The Secretary of Commerce.
              (4) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
              (5) The Secretary of Agriculture.
              (6) The Secretary of Transportation.
              (7) The Secretary of Energy.
              (8) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
              (9) The Commandant of the Coast Guard.
              (10) The Coastal Advisor to the Governor.
              (11) The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural
            Resources.
              (12) A representative of the Louisiana Governor's Advisory
            Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation.
      (b) Duties of Task Force.--The Task Force shall--
              (1) make recommendations to the Secretary regarding policies,
            strategies, plans, programs, projects, and activities for
            addressing protection, conservation, and restoration of the
            coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
              (2) prepare financial plans for each of the agencies
            represented on the Task Force for funds proposed for the
            protection, conservation, and restoration of the coastal
            Louisiana ecosystem under authorities of each agency,
            including--
                      (A) recommendations that identify funds from current
                    agency missions and budgets; and
                      (B) recommendations for coordinating individual
                    agency budget requests; and
              (3) submit to Congress a biennial report that summarizes the
            activities of the Task Force and progress towards the purposes
            set forth in section 7002(c)(1).
      (c) Procedures and Advice.--The Task Force shall--
              (1) implement procedures to facilitate public participation
            with regard to Task Force activities, including--
                      (A) providing advance notice of meetings;
                      (B) providing adequate opportunity for public input
                    and comment;
                      (C) maintaining appropriate records; and
                      (D) making a record of proceedings available for
                    public inspection; and
              (2) establish such working groups as are necessary to assist
            the Task Force in carrying out its duties.
      (d) Compensation.--Members of the Task Force or any associated
    working group may not receive compensation for their services as
    members of the Task Force or working group.
      (e) Travel Expenses.--Travel expenses incurred by members of the Task
    Force, or members of an associated working group, in the performance of
    their service on the Task Force or working group shall be paid by the
    agency or entity that the member represents.
      (f) Application of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Task Force
    and any working group established by the Task Force shall not be
    considered an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee
    Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

    SEC. 7004. INVESTIGATIONS.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct feasibility studies for
    future authorization and large-scale studies substantially in
    accordance with the Plan at a total cost $130,000,000.
      (b) Existing Federally Authorized Water Resources Projects.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall review existing
            federally authorized water resources projects in the coastal
            Louisiana ecosystem in order to determine their consistency
            with the purposes of this section and whether the projects have
            the potential to contribute to ecosystem restoration through
            revised operations or modified project features.
              (2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
            $10,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

    SEC. 7005. CONSTRUCTION.

      (a) Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Program.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a coastal
            Louisiana ecosystem program substantially in accordance with
            the Plan, at a total cost of $50,000,000.
              (2) Objectives.--The objectives of the program shall be to--
                      (A) identify uncertainties about the physical,
                    chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline
                    conditions in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
                      (B) improve the State of knowledge of the physical,
                    chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline
                    conditions in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
                      (C) identify and develop technologies, models, and
                    methods that could be useful in carrying out the
                    purposes of this title.
              (3) Working groups.--The Secretary may establish such working
            groups as are necessary to assist in carrying out this
            subsection.
              (4) Procedures and advice.--In carrying out this subsection,
            the Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts and
            cooperative agreements with scientific and engineering experts
            in the restoration of aquatic and marine ecosystems, including
            a consortium of academic institutions in Louisiana and
            Mississippi for coastal restoration and enhancement through
            science and technology.
      (b) Demonstration Projects.--
              (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
            Secretary may carry out projects substantially in accordance
            with the Plan for the purpose of resolving critical areas of
            scientific or technological uncertainty related to the
            implementation of the comprehensive plan to be developed under
            section 7002(c)(3).
              (2) Maximum cost.--
                      (A) Total cost.--The total cost for planning, design,
                    and construction of all demonstration projects under
                    this subsection shall not exceed $100,000,000.
                      (B) Individual project.--The total cost of an
                    individual demonstration project under this subsection
                    shall not exceed $25,000,000.
      (c) Initial Projects.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out the
    following projects substantially in accordance with the Plan:
              (1) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Environmental Restoration
            at a total cost of $105,300,000.
              (2) Small Diversion at Hope Canal at a total cost of
            $68,600,000.
              (3) Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration at a total
            cost of $242,600,000.
              (4) Small Bayou Lafourche Reintroduction at a total cost of
            $133,500,000.
              (5) Medium Diversion at Myrtle Grove with Dedicated Dredging
            at a total cost of $278,300,000.
      (d) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--The Secretary, substantially
    in accordance with the Plan, shall implement in the coastal Louisiana
    ecosystem a program for the beneficial use of material dredged from
    federally maintained waterways at a total cost of $100,000,000.

    SEC. 7006. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE.

      (a) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
    of the cost of a study authorized by section 7004 or a project
    authorized by section 7005 the cost of work carried out in the coastal
    Louisiana ecosystem by the non-Federal interest before the date of the
    partnership agreement for the study or project, as the case may be, if
    the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the study or
    project, as the case may be.
      (b) Treatment of Credit Between Projects.--Any credit provided under
    this section toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a study
    authorized by section 7004 or a project authorized by section 7005 may
    be applied toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any other study
    authorized by section 7004 or any other project authorized by section
    7005, as the case may be.
      (c) Periodic Monitoring.--
              (1) In general.--To ensure that the contributions of the non-
            Federal interest equal the non-Federal share of the cost of a
            study authorized by section 7004 or a project authorized by
            section 7005, during each 5-year period beginning after the
            date of commencement of the first study under section 7004 or
            construction of the first project under section 7005, as the
            case may be, the Secretary shall--
                      (A) monitor the non-Federal provision for each study
                    authorized by section 7004 or each project authorized
                    by section 7005, as the case may be, of cash, in-kind
                    services and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-
                    way, relocations, and disposal areas; and
                      (B) manage, to the extent practicable, the
                    requirement of the non-Federal interest to provide for
                    each such project cash, in-kind services and materials,
                    and land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and
                    disposal areas.
              (2) Other monitoring.--The Secretary shall conduct monitoring
            separately for the study phase, construction phase, the
            preconstruction engineering and design phase, and the planning
            phase for each project authorized on or after date of enactment
            of this Act for all or any portion of the coastal Louisiana
            ecosystem.
      (d) Audits.--Credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations,
    and disposal areas (including land value and incidental costs) provided
    under this section, and the cost of work provided under this section,
    shall be subject to audit by the Secretary.

    SEC. 7007. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.

      (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood Control Act
    of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision of law, in carrying
    out any project or activity authorized by or under this title or any
    other provision of law to protect, conserve, and restore the coastal
    Louisiana ecosystem, the Secretary may determine that--
              (1) the project or activity is justified by the environmental
            benefits derived by the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
              (2) no further economic justification for the project or
            activity is required if the Secretary determines that the
            project or activity is cost effective.
      (b) Limitation on Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to
    any separable element intended to produce benefits that are
    predominantly unrelated to the protection, conservation, and
    restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.

    SEC. 7008. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

      (a) Existing Authority.--Except as otherwise provided in this title,
    nothing in this title affects any authority in effect on the date of
    enactment of this Act, or any requirement relating to the participation
    in protection, conservation, and restoration projects and activities in
    the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including projects and activities
    referred to in subsection (a) of--
              (1) the Department of the Army;
              (2) the Department of the Interior;
              (3) the Department of Commerce;
              (4) the Environmental Protection Agency;
              (5) the Department of Agriculture;
              (6) the Department of Transportation;
              (7) the Department of Energy;
              (8) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
              (9) the Coast Guard; and
              (10) the State of Louisiana.
      (b) New Authority.--Nothing in this title confers any new regulatory
    authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity that carries out any
    project or activity authorized by or under this title.

        TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM

    SEC. 8001. DEFINITIONS.

      In this title, the following definitions apply:
              (1) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the project for navigation
            and ecosystem improvements for the Upper Mississippi River and
            Illinois Waterway System: Report of the Chief of Engineers,
            dated December 15, 2004.
              (2) Upper mississippi river and illinois waterway system.--
            The term ``Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
            System'' means the projects for navigation and ecosystem
            restoration authorized by Congress for--
                      (A) the segment of the Mississippi River from the
                    confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to
                    Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul,
                    Minnesota, River Mile 854.0; and
                      (B) the Illinois Waterway from its confluence with
                    the Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile
                    0.0, to T.J. O'Brien Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River
                    Mile 327.0.

    SEC. 8002. NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTORATION.

      Except as modified by this title, the Secretary shall undertake
    navigation improvements and restoration of the ecosystem for the Upper
    Mississippi River and Illinois Water System substantially in accordance
    with the Plan and subject to the conditions described therein.

    SEC. 8003. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS.

      (a) Small Scale and Nonstructural Measures.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
                      (A) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18,
                    20, 22, 24, and LaGrange Lock;
                      (B) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and
                      (C) conduct development and testing of an appointment
                    scheduling system.
              (2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of
            projects authorized under this subsection shall be
            $235,000,000. Such costs shall 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.
      (b) New Locks.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall construct new 1,200-foot
            locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi
            River and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois
            Waterway.
              (2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of
            projects authorized under this subsection shall be
            $1,795,000,000. Such costs shall 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.
      (c) Concurrence.--The mitigation required for the projects authorized
    under subsections (a) and (b), including any acquisition of lands or
    interests in lands, shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently with
    lands and interests in lands for the projects authorized under
    subsections (a) and (b), and physical construction required for the
    purposes of mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with the
    physical construction of such projects.

    SEC. 8004. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZATION.

      (a) Operation.--To ensure the environmental sustainability of the
    existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, the
    Secretary shall modify, consistent with requirements to avoid adverse
    effects on navigation, the operation of the Upper Mississippi River and
    Illinois Waterway System to address the cumulative environmental
    impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological integrity
    of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River.
      (b) Ecosystem Restoration Projects.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, consistent
            with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation,
            ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain the
            sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River
            and Illinois River in accordance with the general framework
            outlined in the Plan.
              (2) Projects included.--Ecosystem restoration projects may
            include--
                      (A) island building;
                      (B) construction of fish passages;
                      (C) floodplain restoration;
                      (D) water level management (including water
                    drawdown);
                      (E) backwater restoration;
                      (F) side channel restoration;
                      (G) wing dam and dike restoration and modification;
                      (H) island and shoreline protection;
                      (I) topographical diversity;
                      (J) dam point control;
                      (K) use of dredged material for environmental
                    purposes;
                      (L) tributary confluence restoration;
                      (M) spillway, dam, and levee modification; and
                      (N) land and easement acquisition.
              (3) Cost sharing.--
                      (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs
                    (B) and (C), the Federal share of the cost of carrying
                    out an ecosystem restoration project under this
                    subsection shall be 65 percent.
                      (B) Exception for certain restoration projects.--In
                    the case of a project under this section for ecosystem
                    restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying
                    out the project shall be 100 percent if the project--
                              (i) is located below the ordinary high water
                            mark or in a connected backwater;
                              (ii) modifies the operation of structures for
                            navigation; or
                              (iii) is located on federally owned land.
                      (C) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection
                    affects the applicability of section 906(e) of the
                    Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
                    2283(e)).
                      (D) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding
                    section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42
                    U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)), for any project carried out under
                    this title, a non-Federal sponsor may include a
                    nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected
                    local government.
              (4) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or an
            interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a
            willing seller through conveyance of--
                      (A) fee title to the land; or
                      (B) a flood plain conservation easement.
      (c) Ecosystem Restoration Preconstruction Engineering and Design.--
              (1) Restoration design.--Before initiating the construction
            of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the Secretary
            shall--
                      (A) establish ecosystem restoration goals and
                    identify specific performance measures designed to
                    demonstrate ecosystem restoration;
                      (B) establish the without-project condition or
                    baseline for each performance indicator; and
                      (C) for each separable element of the ecosystem
                    restoration, identify specific target goals for each
                    performance indicator.
              (2) Outcomes.--Performance measures identified under
            paragraph (1)(A) shall include specific measurable
            environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality,
            hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the
            population and distribution of which are representative of the
            abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic and
            terrestrial species.
              (3) Restoration design.--Restoration design carried out as
            part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan
            for the performance measures identified under paragraph (1)(A),
            including--
                      (A) a timeline to achieve the identified target
                    goals; and
                      (B) a timeline for the demonstration of project
                    completion.
      (d) Specific Projects Authorization.--
              (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
            carry out this subsection $1,580,000,000, of which not more
            than $226,000,000 shall be available for projects described in
            subsection (b)(2)(B) and not more than $43,000,000 shall be
            available for projects described in subsection (b)(2)(J).
              (2) Limitation on available funds.--Of the amounts made
            available under paragraph (1), not more than $35,000,000 in any
            fiscal year may be used for land acquisition under subsection
            (b)(4).
              (3) Individual project limit.--Other than for projects
            described in subparagraphs (B) and (J) of subsection (b)(2),
            the total cost of any single project carried out under this
            subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
      (e) Implementation Reports.--
              (1) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2007, and every 4
            years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
            on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
            on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
            Representatives an implementation report that--
                      (A) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and
                    priorities for ecosystem restoration projects; and
                      (B) measures the progress in meeting the goals.
              (2) Advisory panel.--
                      (A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint and
                    convene an advisory panel to provide independent
                    guidance in the development of each implementation
                    report under paragraph (1).
                      (B) Panel members.--Panel members shall include--
                              (i) 1 representative of each of the State
                            resource agencies (or a designee of the
                            Governor of the State) from each of the States
                            of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and
                            Wisconsin;
                              (ii) 1 representative of the Department of
                            Agriculture;
                              (iii) 1 representative of the Department of
                            Transportation;
                              (iv) 1 representative of the United States
                            Geological Survey;
                              (v) 1 representative of the United States
                            Fish and Wildlife Service;
                              (vi) 1 representative of the Environmental
                            Protection Agency;
                              (vii) 1 representative of affected
                            landowners;
                              (viii) 2 representatives of conservation and
                            environmental advocacy groups; and
                              (ix) 2 representatives of agriculture and
                            industry advocacy groups.
                      (C) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall serve as
                    chairperson of the advisory panel.
                      (D) Application of federal advisory committee act.--
                    The Advisory Panel and any working group established by
                    the Advisory Panel shall not be considered an advisory
                    committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
                    U.S.C. App.).
      (f) Ranking System.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
            Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed
            projects.
              (2) Priority.--The ranking system shall give greater weight
            to projects that restore natural river processes, including
            those projects listed in subsection (b)(2).

    SEC. 8005. COMPARABLE PROGRESS.

      (a) In General.--As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering, design,
    and construction for projects authorized under this title, the
    Secretary shall--
              (1) select appropriate milestones; and
              (2) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the
            projects are being carried out at comparable rates.
      (b) No Comparable Rate.--If the Secretary determines under subsection
    (a)(2) that projects authorized under this subsection are not moving
    toward completion at a comparable rate, annual funding requests for the
    projects shall be adjusted to ensure that the projects move toward
    completion at a comparable rate in the future.

                             Purpose of Legislation

        The Water Resources Development Act of 2005 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 eight 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 2005 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 2005 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 damage reduction 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. These projects have prevented an
    estimated $706 billion in flood damage, most of that within the
    last 25 years. The cumulative cost for building and maintaining
    these projects to date is $119 billion. That means for every
    dollar spent, more than six dollars in potential damages have
    been saved.
        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 a $4.5 to $5.5 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 and lasting 12 months) during which the Corps of
    Engineers determines if there is a Federal interest and a
    potentially feasible project. Currently, there are 148 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
    feasibility study 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 227 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 affect 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 found problems with analyses
    conducted by the Corps of Engineers, leading to calls for
    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. 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 outside 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. Once
    fully implemented, the Committee expects that the improvements
    to the Corps planning process contained in this bill will
    result in fewer delays, less litigation, and increased public
    acceptance of proposed projects.

          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 2005''.
        (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) Akutan, Alaska.--
        Location of Study Area: The City of Akutan is a relatively
    small, remote community in the eastern Aleutians of Alaska,
    approximately 766 air miles southwest of Anchorage. Although
    Akutan is one of the most important fishing ports in the United
    States in terms of volume and value of seafood production, it
    has very little infrastructure.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: There are
    no facilities in Akutan for long-term moorage. There are two
    primary marine facilities in the Akutan city area, the city/
    ferry dock and the Trident Seafoods' dock which are working
    docks and do not have protection from storm waves. There is
    also a fair weather skiff and small boat mooring facility
    adjacent to the city/ferry dock for a limited number of boats
    and does not have protection from storm waves. All skiffs and
    small boats must be taken from the water during inclement
    weather.
        The navigation problems for vessels at Akutan include: (1)
    the necessity to travel to other ports in-season in order to
    secure safe moorage; (2) the necessity of travel to the Pacific
    Northwest each year; and (3) problems associated with the
    practice of rafting. In addition, residents of Akutan are
    hampered in their ability to develop a small boat commercial
    fishery and their subsistence harvests are also being
    constrained by the lack of available protected moorage.
        Alternative Plans Considered: The array of alternatives
    evaluated included five sites near Akutan. Various protected
    moorage configurations with differing fleet sizes were
    developed at 2 sites with final site selection at the head of
    the Bay. The final harbor size and layout provides a balance
    between harbor needs and competing environmental concerns.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
    not the plan that maximizes net national economic development
    benefits. The recommended plan provides protected permanent
    moorage for 38 vessels of the Bering Sea fishing fleet and 20
    smaller vessels of the local Akutan fleet. The plan reduces
    impacts to adjacent wetlands and avoids the threatened
    Steller's eider intertidal and subtidal habitat.
        Physical Data on Project Features: Major construction items
    of the recommended plan include an entrance channel with a
    depth of -18 feet MLLW and rubblemound breakwaters totaling 700
    feet in length. The plan provides an inland harbor with mooring
    basin and turning basin, both with stepped depths from -18 feet
    to -14 feet MLLW and provides protected moorage for vessels
    ranging in length from 24 to 180 feet.
        Mitigation for the project includes restoration of habitat,
    establishing 41.7 acres of mitigation lands (wetlands
    conservation easement), eye-bolts on the breakwaters for
    attaching spill containment booms and fish benches, and
    shielding harbor lighting.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Non Federal
    Sponsor has provided a financing plan, dated May 2, 2002,
    indicating their commitment to the project and financial
    responsibility.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: There are no
    unresolved issues related to this project.
        Status of NEPA Document: The ROD is pending completion of
    final reviews.
        Estimated Implementation Costs: $19,700,000.
        The Secretary is directed to consider headlands dredging
    for the mooring basin as a general navigation feature, to be
    cost-shared as such.
        Estimated Annual O&M Costs:

    Corps of Engineers............................................   $14,000
    Aleutians East Borough........................................    35,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

                Total.............................................    49,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Non-Federal O&M costs
    account for yearly float maintenance and replacement after 30
    years.
        Estimated Effects:

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average annual
                                                equivalent    Average annual
                     Account                    beneficial        adverse
                                                  effects         effects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NED, Commercial Navigation..............          $2,267          $1,242
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................           2,267           1,242
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.8.
        Current Discount Rate: 5\5/8\%.
        NED plan recommended? No.
        The NED plan is a 20 acres or larger basin providing
    protected moorage for 80 or more boats. The recommended plan is
    the 12 acre locally and environmentally preferred plan
    reconfigured to further reduce impacts to adjacent wetlands.
        Direct Beneficiaries: The project would provide permanent
    protected moorage for some of the vessels of the Bering Sea
    fishing fleet and the Akutan local fleet.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 20 December 2004.
        (2) Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska.--
        Location of Study Area: The Haines Borough is located in
    the northern portion of Southeast Alaska, the region of the
    state commonly referred to as ``the panhandle'', approximately
    129 air kilometers northwest of Juneau. City boundaries
    straddle a peninsula that separates the Chilkat River Valley
    from Chilkoot Inlet, an embayment near the northern end of Lynn
    Canal.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The
    existing harbor is inadequate in terms of size and design to
    accommodate the needs of the existing demands of resident and
    transient users. During the summer season, extending from June
    through September, the harbor is overcrowded and numerous
    vessels are either turned away or simply avoid the harbor
    because vessel captains know that the harbor is full beyond its
    design capacity. The current harbor configuration is exposed to
    southeast winds, causing reduced maneuverability and damage to
    vessels and harbor facilities. Overcrowded conditions in the
    harbor result in (1) delays in entering and maneuvering in the
    harbor; (2) hot-berthing where transient vessels are moored in
    stalls of resident vessels left vacant; (3) rafting of
    transient vessels; and (4) damages to vessels and harbor
    facilities. Additional moorage is also needed to improve or
    provide services such as oil spill response, water taxi
    service, and to reduce costs associated with subsistence
    harvesting.
        Alternative Plans Considered: The final array of
    alternatives evaluated focused on various plans to expand the
    existing harbor. Various protected moorage layouts with
    differing fleet scenarios were developed for the Portage Cove
    site. To accomplish the improvements basin dredging and
    rubblemound breakwaters were designed to provide improved
    protection to the existing harbor and accommodate the moorage
    demand experienced at Haines.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
    not the plan that maximizes net national economic development
    benefits. The recommended plan provides additional protection
    to the existing 2.25-hectare mooring and maneuvering basin and
    adds a new adjacent 6.60-hectare basin with an additional
    entrance channel. It would provide protected moorage for a
    total of 279 permanent stalls and 961 linear meters of
    transient floats for vessels ranging in length from 5.5 meters
    to 42.7 meters. The plan would replace the existing floats and
    provide properly sized slips for the smaller vessels in the
    existing fleet, and the larger existing and additional vessels
    needing moorage would use the new basin.
        Physical Data on Project Features: Major construction items
    of the recommended plan include breakwaters consisting of a
    103-meter long north spur breakwater, a 154-meter long first
    portion of the main breakwater, a turnaround portion of the
    main breakwater with a radius of 18.5 meters, a 316-meter long
    second portion of the main breakwater, a 46.7-meter long stub
    breakwater attached to the existing breakwater, a 51.2-meter
    long extension of the existing breakwater to the south, and a
    33.3-meter long south spur breakwater. These breakwaters will
    provide the additional moorage area and improve protection to
    the existing moorage area. Dredging and relocation of the
    existing entrance channel will be necessary because of the
    breakwater extension providing additional protection for the
    existing basin. Dredging of the new mooring area and
    construction of the float system will provide required and
    properly sized moorage for the fleet utilizing the harbor. The
    existing south basin entrance channel depth would remain the
    same at -4.6 m MLLW. The depth required for the entrance
    channel for the north basin is -5.5m MLLW, which occurs
    naturally. Basin depths would range from -4.3 m MLLW near the
    entrance channel to -4.9 m MLLW at the far end of the north
    basin. The south basin would remain unchanged with depths
    ranging from -3.3 m MLLW to -4.3 m MLLW.
        Mitigation for the general navigation features includes the
    restoration work proposed on Sawmill Creek to improve fish
    passage and habitat.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Non Federal
    Sponsor has provided a Letter of Intent, dated 3 March 2004,
    indicating their commitment to the project and financial
    responsibility. The State Department of Transportation and
    Public Facilities provided a letter dated 1 March 2004,
    indicating their support for the project.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: There are no
    unresolved issues related to this project.
        Status of NEPA Document: The FONSI was signed for this
    project on 29 November 2002.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers............................................$9,700,000
    Haines Borough................................................ 2,500,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total.............................................      12,200,000

        There also will be approximately $9,400,000 in costs for
    local service facilities that are not part of the authorized
    project.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Non-Federal O&M costs
    account for yearly float maintenance and replacement after 30
    years.
        Estimated Effects:

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average annual
                                                equivalent    Average annual
                     Account                     benefical        adverse
                                                  effects         effects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NED, Commercial Navigation..............          $1,202          $1,122
    NED, Recreation (Incidental)............             294              96
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................           1,496           1,218
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.2.
        Current Discount Rate: 5\5/8\%.
        Direct Beneficiaries: The project would provide properly
    sized stalls for mooring and increase wave protection from the
    southeast resulting in reduced damages to existing floats and
    to vessels incurred from the overcrowded conditions in the
    existing harbor. The newly created harbor would provide
    additional protected moorage to reduce travel costs incurred
    from the overcrowded conditions in the existing harbor.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 20 December 2004.
        The Committee understands that the Haines Borough would
    like to convert the breakwater structures planned for the
    project into a causeway which could be used to service vessels
    which are too large to enter the proposed new boat harbor. The
    Committee supports this initiative because it will provide
    long-term al economic benefits to the project above those
    projected in the Chief's Report. The construction of this
    breakwater involves the use of a bridge to move materials over
    a channel. The Committee therefore instructs the Corps to leave
    this infrastructure in place and work with the Haines Borough
    to develop a plan which would allow for a finished causeway,
    road and bridge on the causeway should funds be identified for
    this additional feature.
        (3) Tanque Verde Creek, Pima County, Arizona.--
        Location of Study Area: Tanque Verde Creek is located in
    the City of Tucson, approximately 100 miles southeast of
    Phoenix, Arizona.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Tanque
    Verde Creek is an ephemeral stream, draining a 219 square mile
    watershed that extends into the Catalina and Tanque Verde
    Mountains, north and east of Tucson, Arizona, respectively. It
    combines with another major regional watercourse, Pantano Wash,
    to become the Rillito River, which continues west along the
    northern edge of Tucson. The reach of Tanque Verde Creek
    between Craycroft Road and Sabino Canyon Road is approximately
    two miles long and is partially bank protected. The study reach
    extends a short distance downstream of Craycroft Road and a
    short distance upstream of Sabino Canyon Road. The study reach
    is better defined as the unprotected portion of Tanque Verde
    Creek from the area of Craycroft Road to Sabino Canyon Road.
        The localized approach to bank protection in the study area
    has left large areas with little or no protection. These areas
    continue to experience rapid erosion during significant flow
    events. Two large gaps in the bank protection measuring 4,220
    and 2,830 feet are currently found on the south bank of Tanque
    Verde Creek. These gaps are found along the outer edge of a
    broad bend in the creek, are subjected to continued erosion by
    low flows, and flood flows on Tanque Verde Creek. On the north
    bank, immediately upstream of the Craycroft Road Bridge, the
    existing bank continues to migrate north, and has begun to
    expose areas of soil cement that are keyed into the sideslope,
    thereby potentially compromising its integrity. Additionally,
    upstream of the Craycroft Road Bridge, an old meander bend
    extends south of the existing channel. Flood flows and
    subsurface flows tend to follow this meander and have resulted
    in the undermining of the roadway embankment in the past.
    Periodic repairs to the road surface and to an interceptor
    sewer line are required due to these flows. In the event of a
    catastrophic flood, flows could undermine and break through the
    roadway embankment, washing out the roadway and the sewer
    interceptor. Such an event could also cause inundation and
    erosion damages to houses and other development west of
    Craycroft Road, including within the Fort Lowell Historic
    District.
        The opportunity exists to provide bank protection between
    Craycroft Road and Sabino Canyon Road to halt the channel
    migration and protect existing structures, property, and
    riparian areas. The study area contains many areas of high
    quality desert riparian habitat. These areas are becoming
    increasingly scarce, due primarily to development encroachment.
    The opportunity exists to acquire the rights-of-way to a 500-
    foot-wide buffer along the north bank. Public ownership would
    prevent future development of this area, and would preserve the
    existing riparian values.
        Alternative Plans Considered: The Los Angeles District in
    its preparation of the ``Survey Report & Environmental
    Assessment, Rillito River & Associated Streams,'' conducted
    extensive analyses of the economic and engineering viability of
    various structural techniques on the Rillito River to which
    Tanque Verde Creek is a tributary. The Corps examined gabions,
    stone revetment, grouted stone, and soil cement revetment. The
    Corps determined that gabions and stone revetment were cost
    inefficient in comparison to grouted stone and soil cement
    revetment, and were dropped from further consideration. Current
    cost data suggest that the cost efficiencies of grouted stone
    and soil cement revetment still exist; gabions and stone
    revetment, therefore, are not considered viable candidates for
    evaluation. Grouted stone is economically viable; however,
    current costs and its requirement for additional land maintain
    its cost ineffectiveness in comparison to soil cement
    revetment, as was determined in the Survey Report. Web cellular
    confinement systems were investigated as potential
    alternatives. These systems would require the addition of
    concrete into the cells as flow velocities exceed 15 feet per
    second (fps), thus defeating their intended environmental
    advantage. Soil cement revetment remains an engineering and
    economically viable solution.
        An array of soil cement revetment alternatives identified
    as satisfying all the criteria were evaluated, in addition to
    the no-action plan.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan,
    Alternative 4, best satisfies the project objectives. It
    provides the desired flood damage protection, produces the
    highest environmental outputs, is designated as the National
    Economic Development (NED) Plan and is locally preferred.
        The recommended plan, fully addresses the identified
    problems along the Tanque Verde Creek between Sabino Canyon
    Road and Craycroft Road while including both structural and
    non-structural measures. The structural measures include
    installing soil cement bank protection in the existing gaps in
    bank protection on the south bank, and installing approximately
    1,550 feet of bank protection upstream of the Craycroft Road
    Bridge on the north bank. The horizontal alignment of the
    proposed bank protection would be along smooth curves that
    generally follow the existing bank. Where applicable, the ends
    would match the existing soil cement. On the south bank, at the
    downstream end, the proposed soil cement would key into the
    bank just upstream of the confluence with Pantano Wash.
        On the north bank, at the upstream end, the soil cement
    would key into the existing bank and be tied back to high
    ground. The soil cement would match the top of the existing
    bank, and the toedown would extend 10 feet below the existing
    thalweg. In addition, limited bank protection will be
    constructed for the preserve area. This limited bank protection
    will be a low soil cement berm (approximately 5,000 feet in
    length) with ``weep holes'' to maintain the hydrologic
    connection between the creek and the preserve. The berm will
    stabilize the slope and allow for the continued overtopping of
    flood waters with events greater than approximately 10-years in
    size by its low 2-foot height. The soil cement mixture provides
    a hard and durable surface that is expected to last well over
    the project life of 50 years.
        The recommended plan would affect desert riparian habitat,
    including mesquite bosque habitat, along Tanque Verde Creek. A
    total of approximately 9.9 acres of habitat would be lost,
    including approximately 1.9 acres of moderate to high quality
    mesquite bosque habitat and 8.0 acres of disturbed desert wash
    habitat. Impacts to wildlife in the disturbed desert wash area
    will be minor because relatively few species inhabit these
    areas; and most are relatively common. Impacts to wildlife
    found in the mesquite bosque habitats would include temporary
    and permanent displacement and mortality of some wildlife that
    is unable to escape.
        Mitigation of the recommended plan, in addition to the
    berm, involves acquiring the rights-of-way to establish a
    permanent 500-foot buffer along the north bank. Public
    ownership of this land (approximately 48 acres) would prevent
    additional development and the associated flood damages, while
    preserving the riparian values of this heavily vegetated area.
        Physical Data on Project Features: The project reach is
    approximately 2 miles of the Tanque Verde Creek immediately
    upstream of Rillito River at its confluence with Pantano Wash
    from Craycroft Road to just downstream of Sabino Canyon Road.
    The selected plan includes:
               Complete bank erosion control on the
            southern bank with the construction of two segments of
            which one is approximately 4,220 linear feet and the
            other 2,830 linear feet;
               North bank erosion control (1,550 linear
            feet) protecting vulnerable public infrastructure and
            5,000 feet of modified bank protection along the
            mitigation preserve area; and
               Establishment of a 48-acre riparian habitat
            area.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: Pima County
    Department of Transportation and Flood Control has indicated
    its support for the selected plan and has provided a Letter of
    Intent acknowledging sponsorship requirements for the Selected
    Plan.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Both the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish have
    indicated their support for the project. The opinion received
    through the Draft Coordination Act Report and through ongoing
    coordination favors the project, which addresses the flood
    damage problem and yield environmental benefits that are
    necessary to preserve the environmental community in this area.
    It is the recommendation of the Arizona Game and Fish that
    softer protection for the riparian preserve be investigated
    during the design phase of this project.
        Status of NEPA Document: The Environmental Assessment was
    included with the LRR, which was drafted in May of 2002 and
    approved on 30 Sept 02.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................      $3,236,000
    Pima County Flood Control District......................       1,742,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................       4,978,000

        The non-Federal sponsor, Pima County Department of
    Transportation and Flood Control, has developed a plan to
    protect a portion of the study area in advance and in
    connection with the Federal project for an approximate 4,220
    linear foot section along the creek. With this plan, the non-
    Federal sponsor has petitioned and received preliminary
    approval from the Secretary for credit for the advanced
    construction of this portion of the Federal plan.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Expected maintenance
    activities will include sediment removal, minor structural
    repair might be needed after infrequent larger events. It is
    estimated that future maintenance activities will cost $17,900
    annually.
        Estimated Effects:

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Average annual
                                       equivalent     Average annual adverse
                Account                beneficial            effects
                                         effects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annualized Flood Damage                 714,100  Not Applicable.
     Reduction.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.1. (Current Discount Rate: 6.625).
        Direct Beneficiaries: Expected flood damage reduction for
    the City of Tucson along the lower portion of Tanque Verde
    Creek between Sabino Canyon Road and Craycroft Road.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 22 July 2003.
        (4) Va Shily' Ay Akimel, Salt River Restoration, Arizona.--
        Location of Study Area: The Va Shily' Ay Akimel study area
    is approximately 14 miles on the Salt River in Arizona, located
    within the jurisdiction of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
    Community and the City of Mesa, between Granite Reef Dam and
    Price Freeway Bridge.
        The study area consists of that portion of the river
    extending from the Granite Reef Dam at the upstream end down to
    the Pima Freeway (SR 101). The study area is located in
    Maricopa County, Arizona within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
    Indian Community (SRPMIC) and the City of Mesa. The study
    boundary encompasses an area approximately 14 miles long,
    averaging two miles in width, and encompassing approximately
    17,435 acres. The Salt River originates in eastern Arizona and
    flows from east to west along the southern boundary of the
    SRPMIC, westward to its confluence with the Gila River, west of
    downtown Phoenix.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Although
    flood damages occur in some portions of the study area, Corps
    of Engineers flood control studies have demonstrated the lack
    of justification for further single purpose flood damage
    reduction measures. The primary problem is the severe
    degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Salt River
    since the early 20th century. The Salt River once flowed
    perennially and supported substantial growth of cottonwoods,
    willows, and mesquites. The river channel carried abundant
    water that supported early irrigation projects. Increasing
    appropriation of surface and ground water to support expansion
    of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the
    transformation of the Salt River to a dry river that flows only
    ephemerally in response to storm runoff.
        As a result of this change, stands of native riparian
    habitat are rare in the study area, as they are throughout
    Maricopa County. Loss of riparian habitat is extremely
    significant in the arid southwest. Originally comprising a mere
    3% of the landscape historically, over 95% of riparian habitat
    has already been lost in Arizona. This type of river-connected
    riparian and fringe habitat is of an extremely high value due
    to its rarity. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are
    designated as a critically endangered habitat type. It has been
    estimated that 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid
    southwest is riparian dependent during some part of its life
    cycle. As a direct consequence of the extent of the lost or
    degraded riparian habitat, the area has experienced a major
    reduction in species diversity and in the population of
    remaining species.
        In addition, destruction of native riparian habitat
    facilitates an increase in invasive plant species that are more
    tolerant of disturbed conditions. Such plants consume more
    water than native vegetation, placing additional strains on
    limited water resources.
        Ecosystem function was evaluated using a functional
    assessment model. The average annual functional capacity is
    forecast to deteriorate from its current capacity of 812 AAFCU
    to 705 units in 50 years. Multiplying the Functional Capacity
    Index scores by the number of acres of riparian area and taking
    the average provides this score.
        Presently, there are still adjacent parcels of undeveloped
    land in the Salt River area, and potential sources of water for
    restoration still exist. As long as these conditions remain
    unchanged, there is an opportunity to accomplish significant
    restoration in the study area. Restoration alternatives have
    the potential to increase riparian habitat acreage and quality
    and thereby expand wildlife diversity and quantity, control
    invasive plant species and provide an ecological resource that
    is significant and valuable to the SRPMIC and to the region.
        The Federal objective for ecosystem restoration studies is
    to contribute to National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) through
    increasing the net quality and/or quantity of desired ecosystem
    resources. The specific objectives for environmental
    restoration within the study area are as follows:
               Restore the riparian ecosystem to the degree
            that it supports native vegetation and wildlife through
            the Salt River from immediately downstream of the
            Granite Reef Dam to the Pima Freeway (SR 101).
               Establish a functional floodplain in
            unconstrained river reaches of the study area that is
            ongoing and mimics the natural processes found in other
            naturalized riparian corridors in Arizona.
               Provide passive recreation opportunities for
            visitors of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds that
            are in harmony with the SRPMIC's management of its
            culture and native ecology.
               Create awareness through ongoing educational
            opportunities of the significance of the cultural
            resources relating to the Salt River.
               Create awareness through ongoing educational
            opportunities of the significance of the Salt River
            ecosystem.
               Create awareness through ongoing educational
            opportunities of the ecological connection between
            other ongoing riparian restoration projects along the
            Salt River.
        Alternative Plans Considered: A number of restoration
    measures were developed based upon the study objectives and
    constraints, public input and suggestions, and Corps and other
    federal and state agencies input, and were formulated to
    address problems and opportunities identified in the early
    phases of the study process.
        Through an iterative process, the final array of 6
    alternatives was identified, including the no action
    alternative. Additional refinement of those alternatives and
    subsequent analysis of costs and ecosystem restoration benefits
    relative to their effectiveness, acceptability, completeness,
    and efficiency led to the selection of the recommended plan.
        Description of Recommended Ecosystem Restoration Plan: The
    recommended plan is Alternative O2. It provides the desired
    ecosystem restoration, produces high environmental outputs, is
    designated as the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan and
    is locally preferred. The recommended plan fully addresses the
    identified problems along this reach of the Salt River while
    including both structural and non-structural measures.
        Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan
    includes:
               Restoration of 883 acres cottonwood/willow,
            380 acres of mesquite, 200 acres of wetland, and 24
            acres of Sonoran desert scrub shrub planted in the
            channel, on channel banks and at stormwater outlets;
               A surface braided irrigation network will
            allow surface water to be directed to areas of
            vegetation. Additional water will be collected from a
            new groundwater well and also diverted using the
            surface braided network;
               A grade control structure at the mid-point
            of the abandoned SRS&R Beeline One pit (Gilbert Quarry)
            to provide stream stabilization and protection to the
            newly established vegetation;
               A recreation plan including approximately 5
            miles of maintained trails and a cultural center to
            highlight the SRPMIC culture.
        Selected Recreation Plan Description: The proposed
    recreation plan was selected based on the evaluation of
    combined measures and the desires of the SRPMIC and City of
    Mesa. Alternatives varied from a plan with 5.1 miles of trail
    leading from the proposed Cultural Center south to Thomas Road,
    to a plan with 13.6 miles of trail connecting to the City of
    Mesa's existing trail system and to the arterial street grid.
    Economic analysis resulted in a final alternative for
    recreation with a benefit cost ratio of 1.5 with annual
    recreation benefits of $170,800. The first cost of the plan is
    $1,337,600. This is less than 1.5% of the costs of the Federal
    share of the restoration plan. Cost sharing for recreation is
    50% Federal and 50% non-Federal. Annual operation and
    maintenance costs are $256,500.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Salt River
    Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the City of Mesa have
    indicated their support for the recommended plan and have
    provided a Letter of Intent acknowledging sponsorship
    requirements for the recommended plan. The Arizona Department
    of Environmental Quality and the Arizona Game and Fish have
    provided statements of support for the restoration efforts.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service indicated support for the project. The opinion
    received through the Final Coordination Act Report and on going
    coordination favors the project, which addresses ecosystem
    restoration that is important to restore the environmental
    community in this area. The Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) has said it supports the restoration effort. During the
    draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) public comment
    period the EPA provided a letter stating its support, but
    outlined additional areas of impacts it would like addressed.
    Those areas have been addressed in the final EIS.
        Status of NEPA Document: The draft Environmental Impact
    Statement was released for public and agency review May 7,
    2004, and the review period closed June 21, 2004. The Final
    Environmental Impact Statement was completed and filed with EPA
    in the Federal Register on November 12, 2004.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $90,129,000
    The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the
        City of Mesa........................................      48,839,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     138,968,000

        Estimated Effects: This project is part of the growing
    effort to restore portions of the former riparian communities
    in the Arid Southwest thereby providing increased areas of
    threatened vital wildlife habitat.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Average annual
                                       equivalent     Average annual adverse
               Account                 beneficial             effects
                                        effects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annualized Functional          1006 AAFCU.......  Not Applicable.
     Capacity Units Net Increase.
    Annualized Recreational        $170,800.........  Not Applicable.
     Benefits.
    Annualized Incidental Flood    32,300...........  Not Applicable.
     Damage Reduction (Base Year
     Only).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio (Recreation): 1.50. (Current Discount
    Rate: 5.625).
        Direct Beneficiaries: Expected ecosystem restoration and
    recreation benefits for Maricopa County, the Salt River Pima-
    Maricopa Indian Community, and the City of Mesa along the Salt
    River between the Granite Reef Dam and Pima Freeway (SR 101).
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 3 January 2005.
        (5) Hamilton City, California.--
        Location of Study Area: Hamilton City is in Glenn County,
    California, along the west bank of the Sacramento River, about
    85 miles north of the City of Sacramento. The study area
    includes Hamilton City and the surrounding rural area. It is
    bounded by the Sacramento River to the east and the Glenn
    Colusa Canal to the west and extends about two miles north and
    six miles south of Hamilton City. Hamilton City has a
    population of about 2,000. An existing private levee,
    constructed by landowners in about 1904 and known as the ``J''
    levee, provides some flood protection to the city and
    surrounding area. Surrounding land use is agricultural with
    fruit and nut orchards as the primary crops.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Flooding
    threatens public safety in and around the community of Hamilton
    City. The primary risk of flooding to Hamilton City is from the
    upstream, unregulated tributary streams along the Sacramento
    River between Shasta Dam and Hamilton City. The community
    relies on the ``J'' levee to contain flows in the Sacramento
    River. The ``J'' levee does not meet Corps of Engineers or any
    other levee construction standards and could fail at river
    levels well below the top of the levee. The Sacramento River is
    prevented from meandering. A primary problem of the riverine
    ecosystem in the study area is the loss of the river's natural
    function to erode its banks and migrate through its floodplain.
    Confinement of the river by levees, bank protection, and
    channel stabilization have limited erosion and deposition of
    sediment and the formation of essential riverine and riparian
    habitats. In addition, in the Hamilton City area, private
    levees protecting the community and surrounding agricultural
    lands have severed the Sacramento River from its historic
    floodplain. The levees greatly reduce the area subject to
    relatively frequent, ecologically significant flooding, which
    reduces the establishment of riparian vegetation and associated
    components. The lack of the disturbance pattern from flooding
    in riparian areas has resulted in a reduction in the natural
    mosaic of vegetative patterns. As a result, the quantity and
    quality of riparian and related floodplain habitat and
    dependent species has been diminished.
        Alternative Plans Considered: Alternative plans were
    formulated for the primary project purpose, ecosystem
    restoration, to ensure a al Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan
    could be identified. Combined alternative plans were also
    formulated for both flood damage reduction and ecosystem
    restoration. In general, the most cost efficient plans aligned
    a new levee as far from the river as possible. This allowed the
    greatest extent of floodplain flooding and habitat restoration,
    maximizing ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction
    benefits. To identify the NER plan, an incremental cost
    analysis was performed. Two alternatives were identified as
    ``best buys'' in that they provide the greatest increase in
    output for the least increase in cost and have the lowest
    incremental costs per unit of output relative to the other
    cost-effective plans. The comparison of the incremental outputs
    for the two ``best buy'' plans resulted in the identification
    of ecosystem alternative #6 as the NER plan. With the
    identification of alternative #6 as the NER plan, flood damage
    reduction measures were reevaluated and combined alternative
    plans were formulated to address other problems and
    opportunities. The preliminary combined alternative plans were
    screened against the four planning criteria of completeness,
    effectiveness, efficiency and acceptability. An incremental
    cost analysis was performed for the cost effective combined
    alternatives. Combined alternative 6 is determined to be the
    alternative plan that reasonably maximizes both ecosystem
    restoration and flood damage reduction benefits when compared
    to costs, and is identified as the Combined Plan. The non-
    Federal sponsor has indicated its willingness to sponsor this
    plan.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan
    consists of actively restoring about 1,500 acres of native
    vegetation, constructing a setback levee about 6.8 miles long,
    starting at about 7.5 feet high and transitioning in two
    increments down to 6 feet high and then to three feet high, and
    breaching the existing ``J'' levee in several locations. The
    levee would provide the community with a 90% level of
    confidence of passing the 75-year, 35-year, and 11-year events,
    respectively, by increment.
        Views of States and Non-Federal Interests: The State of
    California Reclamation Board has agreed to be the non-Federal
    sponsor for the project.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Federal and
    regional agencies offered no comments.
        Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact
    Statement/Report (FSEIS/R) was completed for the project.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $33,000,000
    The State of California Reclamation Board...............      17,600,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      50,600,000
        Estimated Effects: Full implementation of the recommended
    plan would result in the restoration of 1,500 acres of habitat,
    providing 888 average annual habitat units (AAHUs). It reduces
    expected annual flood damages by about $604,000 (including
    avoided flood-fighting costs). The FDR benefit-to-cost ratio is
    about 1.9 to 1.
        Annual Benefits:
        Ecosystem restoration--888 Average Annual Habitat Units.
        FDR--$604,000 (BCR = 1.9 to 1).
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 22 December 2004.
        (6) Imperial Beach, CA.--
        Location of Study Area: The Silver Strand shoreline is
    located at the City of Imperial Beach approximately 12 miles
    south of San Diego, California.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The
    shoreline at the City of Imperial Beach is severely impacted by
    this erosion. Estimates of the sediment budget indicate that
    approximately 76,000 cubic meters (100,000 cubic yards) per
    year is eroding from the Imperial Beach reach, corresponding to
    a shoreline retreat rate of two meters per year (6.6 feet per
    year). Many private property owners have constructed stone
    revetments or vertical seawalls to protect their property, but
    these non-continuous protection structures do not solve the
    erosion issue, and may fail as the beach recedes. Intermittent
    beach fills have been constructed, but not at a sufficient
    quantity to halt the shoreline retreat. At the current retreat
    rate, the shoreline in the north reach is expected to reach the
    first line of development by 2007.
        Alternative Plans Considered: The Los Angeles District in
    its preparation of the General Reevaluation Report considered a
    broad range of potential structural and non-structural measures
    to prevent further erosion. The Corps examined (1) beach
    nourishment alone, (2) breakwaters with beach nourishment, (3)
    additional and extended groins with beach nourishment, (4) a
    new continuous revetment in the north reach of the study area,
    (5) a new continuous revetment in the north reach and a raised
    revetment in the south reach, and (6) a new seawall in the
    north reach. The Corps determined that the only project
    alternative that met the planning objectives of economic
    efficiency and public and regulatory acceptability was the
    beach nourishment alternative. Breakwaters have met with
    considerable public resistance at this location in the past. An
    array of 4 beach alternatives and 5 sacrificial nourishment
    intervals corresponds to a total of 20 project alternatives
    that were evaluated. The no-action plan was also evaluated.
        Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is the plan that
    maximizes net national economic development benefits. The
    recommended plan, Alternative 1, fully addresses the problems
    of loss of structures and land due to erosion, and of structure
    damage due to direct wave attack, although some residual
    damages due to inundation and damage to existing revetments
    remain. The plan also retains a wide sandy beach for
    recreational use. The recommended plan involves construction of
    a base beach fill consisting of 450,000 cubic meters (589,000
    cubic yards) of suitable beach sand, plus a sacrificial advance
    beach fill of 764,000 cubic meters (1,000,000 cubic yards), for
    a total initial beach fill of 1,214,000 cubic meters (1,589,000
    cubic yards). The placement would be 2,165 meters (7,100 feet)
    long extending from the northerly groin to the southern end of
    the development, providing a base nourishment beach width of 12
    meters (39 feet) at an elevation of +4 meters (+13 feet) MLLW.
    The foreshore slope would be set to 15H:1V. The additional
    sacrificial beach width would be 20 meters (66 feet), so that
    initially the nourished beach would be 32 meters (105 feet)
    wider than the existing beach. The nourished beach is expected
    to erode to the 12-meter (39-foot) width after 10 years. It
    would be renourished with a sacrificial advance beach fill of
    764,000 cubic meters (1,000,000 cubic yards) every 10 years
    within the 50-year project lifetime.
        The sand used for beach nourishment would be dredged from
    offshore, from one of two borrow areas. Borrow Area A is
    located approximately 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) north of the
    Imperial Beach pier. Borrow Area B is located approximately 4.5
    kilometers (2.8 miles) south of the Imperial Beach pier. Both
    borrow areas contain beach compatible sand, and enough sand is
    believed to be present in either borrow area alone for the
    recommended plan.
        The initial and periodic beach nourishment will provide a
    wide beach that is expected to remain in place over the project
    life of 50 years and will both provide protection against
    storm-related damage to structures, and maintain existing
    recreational facilities. Residual storm-related damages are
    anticipated from storm-related structure inundation, clean-up
    costs, and costs to maintain the existing revetment in the
    north reach.
        Physical Data on Project Features: The project reach is
    2,165 meters (7,100 feet) of the Silver Strand shoreline
    running from the south end of development at Seacoast Drive to
    the north limits of the City of Imperial Beach. The selected
    plan includes:
               Complete erosion control throughout the
            project reach with the construction of the initial and
            periodic sacrificial beach fills.
               A high degree of protection against storm-
            related damage to structures.
               Maintenance of recreational facilities
            through the provision of a sandy beach that is 12
            meters (39 feet) wider than the year 2002 condition.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The City of
    Imperial Beach has indicated its support for the selected plan
    and has provided a Letter of Intent acknowledging sponsorship
    requirements for the recommended plan.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Both the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and
    Game have indicated their support for the project.
        Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Impact
    Statement/Environmental Impact Report were finalized in October
    2002.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................      $7,592,000
    Imperial Beach..........................................       4,270,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      11,862,000

        In addition, the cost of periodic renourishment over the
    50-year life of the project is estimated to be $38,004,000, or
    $650,000 a year. These costs are cost shared at 50% Federal,
    50% non-Federal.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: At least twice
    annually and after storm events, perform surveillance of the
    beach to determine losses of nourishment material from the
    project design section and provide the results of such
    surveillance to the Federal Government, at an estimated annual
    cost of $60,000.
        Estimated Effects (October 2004 price levels at 5\3/8\%
    discount rate):

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Average annual
                Account                beneficial     Average annual adverse
                                         effects             effects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Storm Damage Reduction.........      $2,395,000  Not Applicable.
    Recreation.....................         744,000  Not Applicable.
          Total....................       3,139,000  Not Applicable.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project Economic Life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.16.
        Direct Beneficiaries: Expected storm damage reduction for
    the City of Imperial Beach along the developed area between the
    south end of development at Seacoast Drive to the north limits
    of the City of Imperial Beach.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final Chiefs
    Report was signed on 30 December 2003.
        (7) Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California.--
        Location of Study Area: The study area includes most of the
    Ventura River and one of its tributaries, Matilija Creek, in
    Ventura County approximately 70 miles from Los Angeles. A major
    feature within this area is the Matilija Dam, which is located
    on Matilija Creek near the City of Ojai. The dam was
    constructed in the late 1940s and the reservoir has since
    filled with sediments. It is an impediment to fish passage and
    has degraded the natural processes in the river system.
        Physical Description of the Study Area: The study area
    consists of the Ventura River watershed, particularly the
    Matilija Creek sub-watershed and Ventura River and surrounding
    areas, from the confluence of the north fork of Matilija Creek
    to the Ventura River. The study area is located in Ventura
    County, California near the Cities of Ojai (upstream) and
    Ventura (downstream). The study boundary encompasses an area of
    approximately 223 square miles and over 33 miles of riverine
    habitat. The total acres included in the modified Habitat
    Evaluation Procedure (HEP) are about 2,814 acres. The Matilija
    Creek watershed begins in the Los Padres al Forest at
    elevations exceeding 5,000 feet and a drainage area of about 55
    square miles. The elevation quickly drops to about 1,000 feet
    at Matilija Dam, located about 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean.
    The confluence of the two forks of Matilija Creek is located
    about \1/2\ mile downstream of the dam. The confluence
    establishes the beginning of the Ventura River, which flows
    from north to south and empties into the Pacific Ocean.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study:
    Construction of the 190-foot high Matilija Dam was completed in
    1947 by the Ventura County Watershed Protection District
    (VCWPD, formerly the Flood Control District) to provide water
    storage for agricultural needs and limited flood control.
    Problems associated with the dam became evident within a couple
    of decades after construction and include: large volumes of
    sediment deposited behind the dam and the loss of the majority
    of the water supply function and designed flood control
    capability; the deteriorating condition of the dam; the non-
    functional fish ladder and overall obstruction to migratory
    fishes; the loss of riparian and wildlife corridors between the
    Ventura River and Matilija Creek; and the loss of sediment
    transport contributions from upstream of the dam, with
    resulting erosion to downstream reaches of the Ventura River,
    the estuary and the sand-starved beaches along the Ventura
    County shoreline.
        Sedimentation behind the dam has rapidly reduced the
    ability to store a significant amount of water for future use.
    It is estimated that approximately 6 million cubic yards of
    sediments (silts, sands, gravels, cobbles and boulders) have
    accumulated behind the dam. The remaining shallow reservoir is
    about 500 acre-feet or seven percent (7%) of the original
    capacity and is expected to disappear by 2020. Storm flows
    carry mostly suspended fine sediments downstream; the coarser
    sediments remain trapped behind the dam. By approximately year
    2040, the reservoir basin is expected to have reached an
    equilibrium condition and be completely filled with sediment
    totaling over 9 million cubic yards.
        Matilija Dam has had many adverse effects on stream ecology
    and wildlife since its construction. Sediment trapped by the
    dam has deprived downstream reaches of sand and gravel sized
    materials necessary to sustain a suitable substrate for
    spawning, including the creation of riffle and pool formations,
    sandbars, and secondary channels. These conditions help promote
    habitat diversity capable of supporting many sensitive wildlife
    species such as the southern steelhead, southwestern pond
    turtle, the arroyo toad and the California red-legged frog. The
    dam has blocked upper watershed natural river flows and
    therefore has altered natural stream and habitat dynamics.
    Water that has been impounded and subsequently released
    downstream is typically of poorer quality, affected by higher
    temperature, lower dissolved oxygen, and potentially higher
    nutrient loads. The cumulative adverse effects of Matilija Dam
    on downstream ecology will continue for at least 100 years,
    long after the reservoir is completely filled with sediment.
        Historically southern steelhead, a species of migratory
    trout, was common inhabitants of California coastal streams as
    far south as San Diego. In the last 50 years there has been a
    dramatic decline from historic estimates of returning adults.
    This decline has been attributed in large measure to the
    numerous dams and diversions that have blocked steelhead access
    into historic habitat in the tributaries of major river
    systems, and the degradation to quality of habitat in rivers
    due to agricultural influence and urbanization. In 1997, the
    southern steelhead was listed as federally endangered. The
    Ventura River system once supported approximately 4,000 to
    5,000 spawning southern steelhead. Current population estimates
    are less than 100 adult individuals for the Ventura River
    system. The steelhead habitat upstream from Matilija Dam was
    historically the most productive spawning and rearing habitat
    in the Ventura River system. It is estimated that about fifty
    percent (50%) of this remaining prime habitat was lost due to
    the construction of the dam.
        Steelhead and other aquatic species (fish, including the
    Arroyo chub--a California State species of special concern, and
    amphibians) would regain access to approximately 17.3 river
    miles of high quality spawning and rearing habitat by removing
    Matilija Dam. Without removal of the dam, fish passage cannot
    be restored, as even a fish ladder facility could not provide a
    viable solution for a dam of this size.
        Matilija Dam has contributed to streambed erosion in the
    riverine system. Where erosion of the streambed has been most
    severe and the active channel has become entrenched, the
    adjacent alluvial deposits in the floodplain are now abandoned.
    Flood flows up to the 100-year event can remain in the main
    channel and do not inundate the floodplain. Native habitats
    dependent on an active floodplain as a result are significantly
    impacted and drastically altered. The greatest influence of
    Matilija Dam to riverine sediment supply and transport are
    within the 8.5 river miles between the structure and San
    Antonio Creek. In this stretch of the river, the majority of
    sediment supply is from the North Fork Matilija Creek. Without
    the dam in place however, Matilija Creek would be the largest
    sediment contributor in these reaches. Immediately downstream
    of Matilija Dam, about 4 feet of erosion has occurred since
    1971. Bedrock control limits the amount of erosion. In the
    reach downstream of Robles Diversion Dam, there has been up to
    10 feet of erosion, as there is detention of sediment at that
    facility. However, if Matilija Dam were removed, degradation
    would not be a significant problem in this reach. Downstream of
    San Antonio Creek, a reach between river mile 2 and 5.5
    (measured from the river mouth) has experienced up to 10 feet
    of erosion. This is attributed to a combination of sediment
    supply deficits resulting from the presence of Casitas Dam and
    Matilija Dam, as well as debris basins in San Antonio Creek
    watershed, and channel constriction by bridges.
        Beach erosion, attributed to the influence of human
    activities including the construction of dams, has also been a
    problem along most of the local coastline. Over the last 50
    years, Emma Wood State Beach, west of the mouth of the Ventura
    River, has eroded approximately 150 feet, indicating an erosion
    rate of 2 to 3 ft/yr. Surfer's Point just down coast of the
    river mouth, once a sandy beach, is now mostly cobble. Loss of
    upper sand beach zones has caused a loss of spawning habitat
    for the California grunion, and to foraging and breeding
    habitat for the federally listed threatened western snowy
    plover. The extent of coastal dunes on both sides of the river
    mouth has been diminishing over the years as a result of the
    loss of protective beachfront and erosion by wave action.
    Coastal dunes and their habitats, which once supported the
    silvery legless lizard, a California-State species of special
    concern, are diminishing and will eventually be lost entirely.
        The removal of Matilija Dam would release approximately 4
    million cubic yards of sands, gravels and more coarse-grained
    sediment to Ventura River reaches downstream of the dam, and to
    the nearby coastline. The downstream channel degradation trends
    would reverse, and equilibrium (roughly pre-dam) channel bed
    elevations would be restored in about 10 years versus the
    approximate 100 years it would take if the dam were to remain
    in-place.
        Recreation trails exist upstream and downstream of the
    Matilija Dam area, but not in the vicinity of the dam. The
    upper trails are located in the Los Padres al Forest.
    Downstream trails are primarily located along Highway 33,
    roughly parallel to the Ventura River. Opportunities exist to
    link the trail systems, particularly in combination with dam
    removal.
        The natural streamflow in the Ventura River and associated
    subsurface alluvial groundwater is impacted by several major
    water extraction operations in the watershed: Matilija Dam,
    Casitas Dam, Robles Diversion Dam, Foster Park diversion
    facility and other smaller water extractors. The average annual
    extraction operations in the Ventura River are about 18,000
    acre feet. Matilija Dam provides an average of 590 acre feet/
    year to Robles Diversion Dam located two miles downstream of
    Matilija Dam (owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and leased to
    Casitas Municipal Water District, CMWD) and diverts water
    during large storm events from the Ventura River to Lake
    Casitas, the primary surface water supply for the County of
    Ventura. The effects of these extractions limit the duration
    and magnitude of river flow necessary for successful steelhead
    migration, and in addition, adversely affect in-stream habitat
    characteristics. During the summer/fall period when natural
    flows are low, fish and aquatic organisms that become isolated
    as a result of receding stream flows are subjected to
    predation, impaired water quality, and desiccation once flows
    cease. This diversion dam has impacted steelhead migration,
    spawning and rearing throughout the lower Ventura River. CMWD
    has constructed a fish passage that is intended to restore the
    capability for fish to pass the Robles Dam. The only remaining
    upstream obstruction to fish passage along Matilija Creek will
    be Matilija Dam.
        Discharges into the Ventura River, including point source
    contributions from a wastewater treatment facility, and non-
    point source contributions from agricultural and urban
    development have affected the water quality of the river. The
    California Regional Water Quality Control Board has classified
    the Ventura River as a Category I (impaired) watershed and has
    approved the river's status on the 303(d) list and TMDL
    priority schedule for pollutants including DDT, copper, silver,
    zinc, algae (eutrophication) and trash.
        Planning Objectives: The Federal objective for ecosystem
    restoration studies is to contribute to al Ecosystem
    Restoration (NER) through increasing the net quality and/or
    quantity of desired ecosystem resources. The Corps, the
    sponsor, resource agencies and stakeholders based on public
    input, meetings, and identification of the problems and needs,
    developed the primary objectives for this study. The primary
    ecosystem restoration study objectives are:
               Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat
            along Matilija Creek and the Ventura River to benefit
            native fish and wildlife species, including the
            endangered Southern California steelhead trout.
               Restore the hydrologic and sediment
            transport processes to support the riverine and coastal
            regime of the Ventura River Watershed.
               Create recreational opportunities along
            Matilija Creek and the downstream Ventura River system.
        Alternative Plans Considered: Multiple iterations of
    formulation and screening of measures and alternatives were
    conducted during the plan formulation process. These activities
    involved the multi-agency members represented in the various
    groups formed to address specific issues related to dam fate,
    sediment management, the ecosystem, fish migration barriers,
    water supply, flood control, recreation, air quality, noise,
    and traffic. Measures that address the study objectives were
    considered, discussed, combined in different manners and
    screened during this process.
        Description of Recommended Ecosystem Restoration Plan:
    Alternative 4b best satisfies the project objectives. It
    provides the desired ecosystem restoration, produces high
    environmental outputs, and is designated as the National
    Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan and, with the addition of an
    associated feature that will be paid for by the sponsor, it is
    the Locally Preferred Plan and the Recommended Plan. The
    selected plan fully addresses the identified problems along the
    Matilija Creek and the Ventura River.
        Physical Data on Project Features: Project features
    include:
               Slurry of approximately 2 million cubic
            yards (\1/3\ of total deposits) of fine sediments
            (silts and clays) from behind Matilija Dam
            approximately 5 miles downstream to slurry disposal
            sites;
               Construction of levees/floodwalls at Casitas
            Springs, Live Oak and Meiners Oaks;
               Addition of two wells at Foster Park;
               Construction of high-flow sediment bypass
            structure at Robles Diversion Dam;
                Contouring of remaining 4 million cubic
            yards of deposited sediments into sediment storage
            areas as source for future natural erosion/transport
            downstream during storm events;
               Construction of 100-foot wide meandering
            fish passage channel through former sediment deposition
            area;
               Addition of soil cement to two downstream
            sediment storage areas;
               Dam removal by controlled blasting in 15-
            foot increments;
               Construction of recreation trail along
            slurry pipeline alignment;
               Construction of desilting basin adjacent to
            Robles Canal (to be paid for by the Sponsor)
        Selected Recreation Plan Description:
        A new trail system includes a hiking trail linking the
    existing Los Padres al Forest Matilija Wilderness Area trails
    to the Matilija Reservoir Area. The dirt trail would then be
    designed for multiple uses (hiking, equestrian and mountain
    biking) along the existing unimproved access road that
    parallels the eastern edge of the Matilija Reservoir Area to
    the road entrance below the dam site. The multi-use trail would
    continue downstream along the Ventura River using the slurry
    pipeline and service road alignment after completion of that
    phase of the project. The trail would extend from Matilija Road
    to the Highway 150 Bridge (Baldwin Road) crossing. The Sponsor
    would pursue a link between the lower end of this proposed
    trail at Highway 150 Bridge crossing to the County of Ventura
    Ojai Valley Trail located along Highway 33, about a \1/4\ mile
    away. The total length for this trail system is about 7 miles.
        Vegetative barriers, such as chaparral, would be used along
    portions of the trail to protect adjacent private properties
    and environmentally sensitive habitat areas from unwanted
    access by trail users. Fencing would be installed where
    vegetative barriers could not be used.
        Two trailheads would be constructed for the multi-use
    recreation trail. The lower site would be located at the
    Highway 150 Bridge as part of the restoration plan for the
    disposal site, and the upper site would be at a rest area at
    the current location of Matilija Dam. Consideration would be
    given to including turnarounds, parking, footbridges and other
    measures for access and circulation as well as safety measures
    along the trails.
        Three rest areas are proposed for the project area based on
    existing facilities and landscape features. Specific facilities
    at these areas could include comfort stations, shelters, picnic
    areas, drinking fountains and faucets, interpretive signs and
    markers, and similar features consistent with Corps of
    Engineers guidance.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Ventura
    County Watershed Protection District has indicated its strong
    support for the Recommended Plan.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The NOAA, al Marine
    Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    Bureau of Reclamation, the California Regional Water Quality
    Control Board, the California Coastal Conservancy, and multiple
    other wide, regional and local environmental groups have
    expressed strong support for the Recommended Plan.
        Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Impact
    Statement/ Environmental Impact Report has been completed.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $78,973,000
    Ventura County Watershed Protection District............      51,362,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     130,335,000

        Estimated Effects: This project will restore a vital link
    to a fragmented ecosystem in Ventura County and will provide
    access to pristine habitat areas within the Los Padres al
    Forest. This dam removal project is the first of its kind with
    Corps of Engineers participation based on the scope and scale
    of the effort. The economic analysis is presented in the
    following summary table.

                      ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED PLAN
    Average Annual Cost per Habitat Unit....  $10,127
    Avg. Annual Equivalent Cost per Acre....  2,723
    First Cost per Acre.....................  $43,984
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        These values are based on Fiscal Year 2004 price levels,
    and an interest rate of 5.625 percent and a 50-year period of
    economic analysis. The costs for associated features and the
    recreation Plan are not included in the average annual cost
    calculations for the NER analysis. The average annual benefits
    reflect the increase in habitat units based on HEP values,
    reflecting non-monetary benefits.

                             HEP COMPARISON OF NO ACTION TO RECOMMENDED PLAN (HABITAT UNITS)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Steelhead     Riparian habitat       Natural           Totals
                                                   habitat          component         processes    -----------------
                                                  component    ------------------     component
                   Target year               ------------------                  ------------------    No      With
                                                 No      With      No      With      No      With    action  project
                                               action  project   action  project   action  project
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.......................................      177      177     1032     1032      228      228     1437     1437
    5.......................................      234      501     1029     1125      228      240     1491     1866
    20......................................      234      543      944     1145      228      520     1406     2208
    50......................................      234      544      782     1183      286      570     1302     2297
    AAHUS...................................      231      514      917     1147      245      464     1393     2128
    Change in AAHUs.........................  .......      283  .......      229  .......      219  .......      731
    % Change................................  .......      122  .......       25  .......       89  .......       53
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio (Recreation): 4:1 (Discount Rate used:
    5.625).
        Direct Beneficiaries: Ecosystem restoration and recreation
    features of the Recommended Plan directly benefit the Ventura
    County Watershed Protection District and the local communities
    and residents of the Ventura River Watershed.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A Chief's
    report was signed on 20 December 2004.
        (8) Middle Creek, Lake County, California.--
        Location of Study Area: Middle Creek is located in Lake
    County, approximately 80 miles north of San Francisco and is
    the main tributary into Clear Lake, the largest natural lake
    entirely within the borders of California.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Flood-
    related problems in the study area include potential damages
    from inundation to structures and extensive areas of
    agriculture from overflow from Rodman Slough. Prior to
    agricultural reclamation efforts, the study area was also part
    of Clear Lake. Although surrounded by levees, the study area
    remains at risk from flooding from both Clear Lake and Rodman
    Slough because of levee settlement. The majority of the study
    area is now included in the FEMA 100-year flood plain even
    though the Corps' Middle Creek Project was constructed in the
    1960's to provide 100-year protection to the area.
        Considerable ecosystem degradation has taken place in the
    study area. Historically, the area was a portion of Clear Lake
    and consisted of tule marsh and open water. Shoreline wetlands
    served an important function to Clear Lake, providing fish and
    wildlife habitat, and trapping sediments. These wetlands were
    converted to agricultural fields during the last century.
    Problems associated with this degradation have increased over
    time. These problems include loss of natural habitat, loss of
    ecosystem function, and degraded water quality. Opportunities
    presented to reduce flood damage reduction and restore the
    ecosystem.
        Alternative Plans Considered: Five alternative plans were
    included: (1) no action; (2) restoring the 100-year flood plan
    boundary, approximately 1,650 acres of potential open water,
    wetland, riparian and upland habitat, breaching existing levees
    acquiring property, relocation of 22 structures and a ring
    levee around tribal trust lands; (3) similar to alternative 2
    but smaller, only approximately 1,127 acres, construction of a
    cross levee and ring levee; (4) similar to 2 and 3 but smaller
    area of 890 acres to include a cross levee and ring levee; and
    (5) a non-structural flood damage reduction alternative with no
    ecosystem restoration, area of approximately 1,650 acres,
    similar to alternative 2 without the habitat restoration.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
    not the plan that maximizes net national economic development
    benefits. Alternative 2 encompasses about 1,650 acres,
    extending from the current shoreline of Clear Lake to the 100-
    year flood plain boundary. This alternative would restore the
    entire flood plain in the study area, with the exception of the
    Tribal lands adjacent to the study area. Alternative 2 was
    formulated to address both planning objectives. This
    alternative plan focuses on reconnecting the flood plain of
    Middle Creek to the historic Robinson Lake wetland area by
    breaching the existing levee system to create inlets that
    direct flows into the study area and providing flood damage
    reduction by relocating residents from the flood plain.
        Physical Data on Project Features: A portion of the Middle
    Creek Project levee from the confluence of Scotts and Middle
    Creeks to Clear Lake [would need to be] [is] deauthorized to
    allow it to be breached. Channels and sloughs will be
    constructed to direct creek flows from the breaches through the
    study area to Clear Lake. A ring levee will be constructed to
    provide an existing level of protection for the Tribal lands.
    Implementation of this alternative will result in 765 acres of
    wetlands, 230 acres of riparian, 405 acres of open water, and
    250 acres of upland habitat.
        This alternative also will require that all structures and
    personal property be removed from the study area. A total of 22
    structures and associated infrastructure (septic tanks,
    plumbing, and electrical) would be demolished and removed from
    the project area. Wells will be abandoned and capped as
    required by County and State standards. Property owners will be
    compensated and relocated outside the flood plain. All current
    agricultural practices within the flood plain will be
    discontinued.
        Alternative 2 provides $285,000 in average annual National
    Economic Development (NED) benefits. The average annual costs
    for allocated flood damage reduction is $252,000, resulting in
    net NED benefits of $30,000 and a benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio
    of 1.12. Alternative 2 produces 869 Average Annual Habitat
    Units with an incremental cost per unit of $547.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The sponsor,
    Lake County Flood Control and Water 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: At this time, 4 of
    the 6 native American tribes within the Clear Lake Basin have
    expressed support of the project, the local Bureau of Indian
    Affairs also has expressed support of the project provided
    continued coordination with all tribes and BIA, U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife and EPA supports the project based on their review of
    the draft report.
        Status of NEPA Document: The Integrated Feasibility Report
    and Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
    are complete.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $27,256,000
    Lake County.............................................      14,537,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      41,793,000

        Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
    Federal implementation costs include $18,229,000 in land
    acquisition, $2,497,000 in relocations and $645,000 in design
    and construction management costs, total Non-federal
    $21,371,000 costs, Federal reimbursement of $6,834,000, for
    total Non-Federal cost of $14,537,000.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The OMRR&R cost for
    the ecosystem restoration consists of $104,000 for systematic
    thinning of terrestrial vegetation to maintain unimpeded
    hydraulic flows in the study area and to provide maintenance to
    the ring levee. Costs would also be associated with the
    adaptive management plan.
        Estimated Effects: Construction of the restoration area
    will cause temporary effects to the environment. Once
    construction is complete, approximately 765 acres of wetlands,
    230 acres of riparian, 405 acres of open water and 250 acres of
    upland habitat will be restored. Approximately 22 structures
    will be removed.
        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.12 (Oct 2002 price levels, 6\1/8\%).
        Habitat Benefits: 869 AAHUs.
        Alternative 4 was the NED plan with the NED benefits of
    $35,000 but the NER plan was Alternative 2 with 869 AAHUs
    versus Alternative 4 with only 127 AAHU's habitat benefits. The
    combined NED/NER plan was selected with benefits of $30,000 and
    869 AAHUs.
        Direct Beneficiaries: The project would provide flood
    damage reduction, improve ecosystem values in the Middle Creek
    area; improve fish and wildlife habitat, increase wetland,
    riparian, and upland/foraging habitats; reestablish native
    historic plant and wildlife communities within the historic
    Robinson Lake area; reconnect Middle Creek to the historical
    flood plain and increase ecosystem habitat values to the
    watershed.
        Relationship to Other Plans: Construction of the Middle
    Creek Flood Control Project was completed by the Corps in 1966.
    The project, which included 14.4 miles of levees, diversion
    structures, and a pumping station, separated the historic
    Robinson Lake wetlands area (about 1,500 to 2,000 acres) and a
    shallow bay of the Upper arm of Clear Lake from Rodman Slough
    located upstream of Clear Lake. The project included levees and
    incidental channel improvements along 7 miles of Middle Creek
    (including Rodman Slough), a channel to divert Clover Creek
    overflow around the town of Upper Lake, levees along lower
    Scotts Creek creating the Middle Creek Reclamation area, and
    pumps to discharge drainage. This ecosystem restoration project
    will modify 7 miles of levees along Middle Creek, which were
    part of the Middle Creek Flood Control Project.
        Current Status of the Chief of Engineers Report: A Chief's
    report was signed on 29 November 2004.
        (9) Napa River Salt Marsh, California.--
        Location of the Study Area: The study area is located
    approximately 30 miles northeast of the City of San Francisco,
    in unincorporated portions of Napa, Sonoma, and Solano
    Counties, California. The study area is located on the
    northeast side of San Pablo Bay, immediately west of the Napa
    River, and immediately east of Sonoma Creek. The study area
    consists of the Napa River Unit of the Napa-Sonoma Marshes
    State Wildlife Area (NSMWA), which is comprised of 12 ponds
    formerly used for solar salt production.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Diking or
    filling has destroyed nearly 90 percent of the original tidal
    wetlands of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The project site,
    historically dominated by tidal salt marsh, was diked and
    converted to hayfields approximately 150 years ago.
    Subsequently, in the early 1950s, the diked areas were
    converted to solar evaporation salt ponds. The project is a
    part of a larger effort to restore a portion of diked Baylands
    to tidal action to support endangered and special species (such
    as the salt marsh harvest mouse and California clapper rail)
    recovery, improve water quality, and restore greater ecological
    balance to the San Francisco Bay area.
        Alternative Plans Considered: Initially, twenty-four
    salinity reduction, seven habitat restoration, and three
    supplemental water delivery alternatives were considered in the
    alternative screening process. The screening process narrowed
    consideration to seventeen alternatives, including the No
    Action Plan, that were carried forward. All possible
    combinations of salinity reduction options and habitat
    restoration options were considered.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan is
    the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration
    benefits and would involve salinity reduction of Ponds 4, 5, 6
    and 6A through water discharges to the Napa River, and bittern
    removal/salinity reduction of Ponds 7, 7A and 8 through water
    discharges to Napa Slough. The Recommended Plan would use a
    combination of natural water sources to achieve the salinity
    and bittern reductions, including seasonal rainfall and flows
    from neighboring waters (Napa Slough and Mud Slough.) This plan
    was recommended because it provides a balanced mix of pond and
    tidal habitat, manages restoration related risk through
    effective use of adaptive management, and is determined to be
    the most cost effective based on cost effectiveness/incremental
    cost analysis evaluation. The Secretary is authorized to carry
    out the recommended plan. However, the Secretary is directed to
    include as part of the project, construction of a recycled
    water pipeline and restoration of Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
        Physical Data on Project Features: The plan would be
    constructed with two broad categories of outputs in mind: (1)
    desalination; and (2) habitat restoration. Features aimed at
    the desalination portion would include a combination of water
    conveyance and control structures--including intakes, fish
    screens, outfalls, diffusers, siphons, mixing chambers, and
    levee breaches. The recycled water pipeline that is included in
    the project extends from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation
    District Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation
    District Wastewater Treatment Plant. Habitat restoration
    features would include construction of starter channels and
    berms, levee lowering, blocking ditches, breaching of ponds to
    reestablish tidal actions, and maintenance of ponds that
    currently provide good habitat. The Recommended Plan would
    result in the restoration of approximately 4,534 acres of high-
    quality pond and tidal marsh habitat.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The State of
    California responded verbally with no comment during the 30-day
    State and Federal agency review period, which began on 20
    August 2004 and expired on 20 September 2004.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Department
    of Interior responded via letter dated 22 September 2004 with
    no comment. FEMA, Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Coast
    Guard responded verbally with no comment. The Environmental
    Protection Agency responded via Federal Register notice dated
    10 September 2004 with no comment.
        Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact
    Statement/Report (SEIS/EIR) was completed for the project. The
    Notice of Availability for the Final SEIS/EIR was published in
    the Federal Register on 20 August 2004; the final date for
    comments was 20 September 2004. No significant comments have
    been received.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $64,000,000
    Non-Federal Interest....................................      36,500,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
        Total...............................................     100,500,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The CDFG will assume
    ownership of the constructed project and be responsible for all
    operations and maintenance (O&M) activities associated with the
    ponds. O&M responsibilities for the project include levee
    inspection and maintenance, repair and replacement of water
    conveyance and control structures, operator's labor,
    maintenance materials, equipment and labor, inspection reports,
    utilities, removal of invasive exotic vegetation such as
    Spartina and other major replacements.
        Estimated Effects:
        NER Effects: Average Annual Habitat Units: 2,000.
        Recreation annual benefit: $1,170,000.
        Direct Beneficiaries: Native species of flora and fauna
    (including special-status species), the general public, and
    users of the recycled water pipeline after the project is
    completed.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 22 December 2004.
        (10) 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 access constraining 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
    revegetation, 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).
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
    the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration
    benfits. 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, and Non-Federal Interests: 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 9 March 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 2 December 2002 had a few minor
    concerns that have been formally addressed by the Omaha
    District in a letter dated 25 February 2003.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service letter dated 14 February 2001 States directly
    that the proposed project would not negatively impact any
    threatened and endangered species. The Environmental Protection
    Agency provided two letters, dated 15 March 2001 and 26
    February 2003, supporting the project.
        Status of NEPA Document: The finding of no significant
    impact was signed on 7 August 2002, following public review. No
    opposing or negative responses were encountered or submitted.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $12,236,000
    Non-Federal.............................................       6,588,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      18,824,000

        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.
        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 more natural 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.
        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 Section 1135, Colfax Reach Project.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 16 May 2003.
        (11) Miami Harbor, Florida.--
        Location of Study Area: Miami Harbor is located on the east
    coast of Florida in Biscayne Bay near the southern end of the
    Florida peninsula.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Currently
    vessels using the harbor must light-load to enter or leave the
    harbor causing increased transportation costs. Entrance channel
    and inner harbor widths and depths are not adequate for safe,
    cost-efficient transiting of many existing and future container
    ships. Difficult crosscurrents at the beginning of the entrance
    channel and the transition from Cut-3 to Lummus Island Cut have
    resulted in groundings. Ships transiting the Lummus Island Cut
    pass extremely close to vessels docked at the gantry crane
    berths, which results in a surge effect on those ships at dock.
    The surge effect produces a force that tends to pull ships away
    from their moorings and makes unloading difficult.
        Proposed wideners at the beginning of the entrance channel,
    along the southern intersection of Cut-3 with Lummus Island
    Cut, and along the southern edge of Lummus Island Cut will
    improve navigation safety, and reduce tug assists. The proposed
    channel deepening will provide a reduction or elimination of
    light loading costs. Expanding the Fisher Island Turning Basin
    will decrease transit times for ships due to an additional
    turning basin. Those transportation efficiencies will allow the
    existing and future container ships to carry more cargo and
    reduce transportation costs.
        Alternative Plans Considered: To achieve the cost reduction
    benefits mentioned above six initial measures or components
    received consideration. As a result of information received
    during the coordination process, modifications to those
    components resulted in reduced environmental impacts to reef
    and seagrass areas while increasing navigation safety.
    Iterative reviews involving resource agencies, ship simulation
    results, and the harbor pilots resulted in modifications to the
    original six components to provide fourteen total components
    that received consideration. Continued dialogue with interested
    parties completely avoided one reef area at the entrance
    channel and produced similar reductions in seagrass impacts and
    construction costs for the other proposed components. For
    evaluation of benefits different combinations of components
    resulted in nine alternative plans. The nine alternative plans
    include a no action plan, a channel widening alternative
    (Components 1C, 2A, and 5A), an expansion of Fisher Island
    Turning Basin (Component 3B), deepening the previously
    authorized channel configuration to depths of 43-50 feet, four
    combinations of deepening and widening alternatives, and a 36-
    foot deepening and widening alternative (Components 6 and 6A
    involving extension and widening of the Dodge Island Channel
    and construction of the Dodge Island Turning Basin). Component
    4 involved a non-structural alternative, which shifts the
    cruise ship channel or Cut-4 to an area of existing deep water.
        The NED plan consists of widening components 1C, 2A, and 5A
    optimized at a depth of 49 feet. The NED plan would provide
    AAEQ benefits of $14,710,000 and AAEQ costs of $10,010,000,
    which resulted in net AAEQ benefits of $4,700,000 and a
    benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1.
        The sponsor is willing to pay for an additional foot of
    depth, which provides for a locally preferred plan of 50 feet.
    The LP plan has AAEQ benefits of $14,740,000 and AAEQ costs of
    $10,650,000, which provides net AAEQ benefits of $4,090,000 and
    a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.4 to 1.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
    not the plan that maximizes net national economic development
    benefits. The recommended plan is the locally-preferred plan
    and consists of:
               Component 1C--Widen seaward portion of Cut-1
            from 500 to 800 feet and deepen Cut-1 and Cut-2 from a
            project depth of 44 to 52 feet for the LP plan;
               Component 2A--Add turn widener at the
            southern intersection of Cut-3 with Fisherman's Channel
            and deepen to a project depth of 50 feet for the LP
            plan;
               Component 3B--Increase the Fisher Island
            Turning Basin from 1200 to 1500 feet. Truncate the
            northeast section of the turning basin to minimize
            seagrass impacts. Deepen from a project depth of 42
            feet to 50 feet for the LP plan;
               Component 4--Realign the western end of the
            existing 36-foot main channel about 250 feet to the
            south, no dredging required; and
               Component 5A--Expand the Sponsor's berthing
            area by 60 feet and widen the southern edge of
            Fisherman's Channel (Lummus Island Cut) about 40 feet
            for a 100-foot increase in total width, reduce the
            Lummus Island (Middle) Turning Basin to a 1500-foot
            diameter from the currently authorized 1600-foot
            diameter, and deepen from a project depth of 42 feet to
            50 feet for the LP plan.
        Mitigation for channel widening includes construction of
    artificial reef areas and filling existing borrow sites for
    seagrass restoration. Based upon the extent of impacts and the
    ratios discussed, restoration of approximately 24 acres of
    seagrass beds would occur as compensation for unavoidable
    impacts. Seagrass impacts include the permanent loss (removal)
    of 0.2 acres of mixed seagrass beds and the indirect loss of
    7.7 acres of seagrass due to the natural equilibration of side
    slopes for a total of 7.9 acres. In order to replace local
    seagrass functions and values, restoration would be implemented
    within Biscayne Bay, preferably in areas where seagrass once
    occurred and is now absent due to past borrow site excavation
    for causeway construction. New impacts to low relief
    hardbottom/reef and high relief hardbottom/reef total 1.4 and
    3.1 acres, respectively. Based on the Habitat Equivalency
    Analyses calculations, direct impacts to hardbottom/reef
    habitats would require the construction of artificial reef
    habitat at an effective mitigation ratio of 2:1 for high relief
    hardbottom/reef habitat and an effective mitigation ratio of
    1.3:1 for low relief hardbottom/reef habitat. Construction of
    mitigation reefs would occur in two different designs to
    reflect the differences in the habitat structure of the two
    types of hardbottom/reefs impacted. For the high relief reef/
    reef habitat development of a total of 6.2 acres would occur.
    For the low relief hardbottom/reef habitat development of a
    total of 1.82 acres would take place. Reef construction would
    occur at proposed artificial sites located south of the
    entrance channel. The sponsor will have responsibility for five
    years of post-construction monitoring of both the seagrass and
    reef mitigation sites.
        Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan
    would consist of dredging approximately 6.0 million cubic yards
    of limestone and sands. Mitigation for impacts to entrance
    channel reef areas and seagrass beds is described in the
    paragraph above.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: Public and
    agency views including correspondence and informal comments
    received to date from coordination of the Draft GRR/EIS and
    public meeting on May 6, 2003, have been addressed and are
    included in Appendix N of the final EIS. Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection/State Clearinghouse letter dated May
    14, 2003, described the project at this stage as consistent
    with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) based on
    information contained in the Draft GRR and EIS. All subsequent
    environmental documents prepared for this project must be
    reviewed to determine the project's continued consistency with
    the FCMP. The state's continued concurrence with the project
    will be based, in part, on the adequate resolution of issues
    identified during this and subsequent reviews. The Department's
    Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources issued a state water
    quality certification in the form of a Consolidated Notice of
    Intent to Issue an Environmental Resource Permit and
    Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands on December 23,
    2002, for the channel maintenance dredging and deepening
    project to complete construction of the 42-foot depth along the
    Lummus Island Cut (phase II dredging--not proposed new work).
    The potential environmental impacts of the project have been
    addressed in the permit, water quality certification and
    authorization to use sovereign submerged lands (Permit No.
    0173770-001-EI), pursuant to Chapters 161, 253, and 373,
    Florida Statutes. Final agency action on the permit application
    will constitute the State of Florida's final consistency
    determination. Local agencies included Miami-Dade County
    Department of Environmental Resources management, South Florida
    Regional Planning Council, and the City of Miami. Non-
    Government Organizations/Institutions included the Biscayne Bay
    Pilots, and the Biscayne Bay Regional Coordination Team
    (formerly the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative).
        Additionally, numerous National and local environmental
    organizations were coordinated with through the draft EIS
    review and public meeting processes. Reviewers and commenter
    included: The Sierra Club; Save the Manatee; Tropical Audubon
    Society; Surfrider Foundation; Caribbean Conservation Corps and
    Reefkeeper Interal. Reviewers and Commenter expressed concerns
    about impacts of the project to seagrass and coral reef
    habitats, sufficiency of the mitigation plan presented in the
    DEIS as well as impacts to endangered, threatened and protected
    marine species that inhabit the project area. These comments
    are addressed in Appendix N of the FEIS.
        The sponsor, the Miami-Dade County Florida Seaport
    Department (Port of Miami), in a letter dated April 26, 2004,
    strongly supports the findings and recommendations of the
    General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement
    with one reservation. Regarding the calculation of the cost
    sharing from depths of 0 to 42 feet in Component 5A of the GRR,
    the sponsor believes the recommended widening in this area is
    required for navigational safety due to surge affects and
    conditions due to currents and winds and therefore should be
    cost shared as a general navigation feature.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Public and agency
    views including correspondence and informal comments received
    to date from coordination of the Draft GRR/EIS and public
    meeting on May 6, 2003, have been addressed and are included in
    Appendix N of the final EIS. As a result of that coordination
    seagrass mitigation has increased from 6.3 acres in the draft
    to 24 acres in the final EIS. Monitoring of those proposed
    seagrass rehabilitation sites has increased from three years to
    five years from the date the mitigation site construction is
    completed. Mitigation monitoring for artificial reef areas has
    increased from three years to five years. The monitoring will
    be conducted by the sponsor and will include coordination with
    resource agencies. Federal agencies included the U.S. Coast
    Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Park
    Service--Biscayne Bay National Park.
        Status of NEPA Document: Coordination of the draft EIS for
    public review occurred from March 14, 2003 through May 20, 2003
    and comments provided during that review period were
    incorporated in the final report. Coordination of the final EIS
    occurred along with the proposed report of the Chief of
    Engineers and the report of the district engineer from 31 Aug
    04 through 30 Nov 04 with receipt of the Florida Department of
    Environmental Protection Clearinghouse Consistency
    Determination.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $64,843,000
    Miami-Dade County Seaport Department....................      56,284,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     121,127,000

        In addition, the Secretary is directed to determine the
    non-Federal share of the cost of preparing the general
    reevaluation report for this project based on construction
    cost-sharing. As a general rule, made express in section 2039
    of this bill, cost-sharing for all studies should be 50%.
    However, in this case, the Jacksonville District made erroneous
    commitments to the non-Federal interest and subparagraphs (B)
    and (C) of section 1001(a)(11) ensure that those commitments
    are met. In the future, the Committee expects the Jacksonville
    District to apply correct cost-sharing to project studies.
        Estimated Effects:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average annual
                     Account                    equivalent    Average annual
                                                 benefits          costs
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Economic................................     $14,740,000     $10,650,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.4 (Current Discount Rate: 5.375%).
        Direct Beneficiaries: The benefits of the recommended plan
    are based on transportation cost reductions and reflect the
    economy of scale savings resulting from vessels being able to
    load deeper and reduce harbor transit times.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 25 Apr 2004.
        (12) East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.--
        Location of the Study Area: The study area is located in
    Madison and St. Clair counties, Illinois, along the east bank
    of the Mississippi River between river miles 175 and 195 above
    the mouth of the Ohio River.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The study
    area consisted of approximately 166 square miles (about 105,000
    acres). The area has historically experienced widespread
    interior flooding and the loss or serious degradation of the
    floodplain ecosystems. Some examples of the ecosystem
    degradation include: 60 to 70 percent loss of forest, over 99.9
    percent loss of prairie, 65 to 85 percent loss of wetlands, 35
    to 50 percent loss of lakes and ponds, and about 66 percent
    loss of floodplain streams (by length). This has resulted in a
    loss of biodiversity, fragmentation of natural systems, loss of
    the historic ecosystem disturbances (such as flooding and
    wildfire), and degradation or loss of habitat quality.
        Alternative Plans Considered: A wide array of alternatives
    was considered for each of the 8 action areas. Cost-
    effectiveness and incremental cost analyses were performed to
    identify the NER plan.
        Description of the Recommended Plan: The recommended plan
    is the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration
    benefits and is an extensive restoration of the ecosystem in
    the vicinity of East St. Louis, Illinois, on the Mississippi
    River. The project provides for the restoration of
    approximately 4,500 acres of ecosystem habitat that will also
    provide temporary storage and detention areas for stormwater
    events that now exceed the existing capacity of the interior
    drainage system. The recommended plan will restore
    approximately 1,700 acres of bottomland forest habitat, 1,100
    acres of prairie wetland habitat, 840 acres of marsh and shrub
    swamp habitat, 460 acres of lake habitat, and 380 acres of
    riparian forest. In addition, the recommended plan also
    includes restoration of 10.4 miles of floodplain stream,
    installation of 650 wood duck boxes and 870 prairie bird
    perches, improvement of 20 acres of lacustrine over wintering
    and shoreline habitat, construction of 130 tributary sediment
    detention basins and riffle and pool complexes in 178 miles of
    streams, 15.5 miles of earthen embankments, and associated
    water control features (i.e., culverts, flap gates, and new
    channels). A very small amount of recreational features have
    also been added to the project. All project features are
    located within the State of Illinois. Because the recommended
    plan would not have any significant adverse effects, no
    mitigation measures (beyond management practices and avoidance)
    or compensation measures are required. The recommended plan is
    the national ecosystem restoration plan.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: A strong
    partnership exists between state, Federal and local interests.
    Two counties, the Levee District and Illinois Department of
    Natural Resources joined in sponsorship of the general
    reevaluation study. Letters of Intent have been received from
    the two counties and the Illinois Department of Natural
    Resources for project sponsorship.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Natural
    Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    and the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 were active
    participants in the study process and strongly support the
    report's recommendations.
        Status of NEPA Document: An Environmental Impact Statement
    was integrated into the General Reevaluation Report. A Draft
    Record of Decision was prepared in January 2005.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................    $123,807,000
    Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Madison and
        St. Clair counties..................................      67,351,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     191,158,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: Operation and
    Maintenance by the non-Federal sponsor will include the removal
    of debris at all control structures and upland dry detention
    basins; installment of sediment panels in upland dry detention
    basins; periodic erosion repair; periodic inspection to
    maintain smooth operation of all flap gates; and the mowing and
    burning, as necessary, of berms and prairie areas. None of the
    features of the recommended plan have any manual or automated
    operational components.
        Estimated Effects:
        Environmental Effects. The recommended plan provides both
    feeding and resting resources for the federally-threatened bald
    eagle and will protect and propagate the decurrent false aster.
    The project contributes to the life cycle requirements of more
    than 50 migratory bird species covered by internal treaties and
    the state-threatened Illinois chorus frog. The palustrine
    wetland resources to be restored are considered scarce with
    over 85 percent of the wetlands in Illinois and other
    midwestern states lost since the 1780s, and the decline is
    continuing. The plan connects 5 habitat areas and enlarges 3
    isolated habitats to improve overall resource sustainability.
    The project produces approximately 8,332 average annual habitat
    units (AAHU) at a cost of approximately $1,350 per AAHU. The
    recommended plan also provides incidental flood damage
    reduction benefits estimated at $1,445,000 annually. Total
    average annual costs, including initial construction and
    OMRR&R, are $11,193,000 based on an interest rate of 5.375
    percent and a 50-year period of analysis. Average annual
    recreation benefits are estimated at $25,000 and average annual
    costs are estimated at $18,000, for a recreation benefit-to-
    cost ratio of 1.3 to 1.
        Direct Beneficiaries: The recommended plan is anticipated
    to directly benefit the federally-threatened bald eagle and
    will protect and propagate the decurrent false aster. The
    project contributes to the life cycle requirements of more than
    50 migratory bird species covered by interal treaties and the
    state-threatened Illinois chorus frog.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 22 December 2004.
        (13) Peoria Riverfront, Illinois.--
        Location of Study Area: The study area includes the Lower
    Peoria Lake area watershed on the Illinois River and
    tributaries between river miles 162 and 167, and in the
    vicinity of Peoria and East Peoria, Illinois.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Peoria
    Lake, the largest lake on the Illinois River, has lost 61
    percent of its volume and related aquatic habitat since 1903
    due to sedimentation. A statewide planning process determined
    that this loss of aquatic habitat is the greatest threat to the
    Illinois River ecosystem. Areas outside of the navigation
    channel have experienced more extreme losses of depth and
    volume, which have severely impacted off-channel overwintering,
    spawning, and nursery habitats for fish. Shallow water areas
    are subject to wave action that resuspends sediment, further
    limiting fish, aquatic vegetation, macroinvertebrate, and
    mussel production. Sedimentation has reduced depths in off-
    channel areas from 8 feet to only 1 or 2 feet in recent years.
    This has transformed Peoria Lake into a narrow navigation
    channel bordered by shallow, wind-swept areas and has adversely
    impacted fish and wildlife habitat and also reduced the
    aesthetic values and recreation opportunities. Opportunities
    explored included the restoration of aquatic habitat with
    incidental recreation benefits.
        Alternative Plans Considered: Alternative plans included
    dredging various locations in Peoria Lake at various depths in
    order to restore aquatic habitat diversity. Connecting channels
    and closure structures were included to control future sediment
    movements. The plans included using the dredged material to
    construct islands to restore terrestrial habitat and aquatic
    habitat structure.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
    the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration
    benefits and includes dredging approximately 200 acres,
    including connecting channels and deeper holes to create depth
    diversity in the aquatic habitat. The dredged material would be
    placed to create three islands, which in turn would add
    shoreline and terrestrial habitats. Rock jetties placed around
    the islands would further improve the aquatic habitat by
    providing structure and more edge areas. The islands would
    provide resting, nesting, and feeding areas for waterfowl and
    shorebirds. In addition, the islands would reduce waves in the
    study area, which would further improve aquatic habitat
    usefulness by lowering turbidity levels.
        Physical Data on Project Features: A 55-acre shallow, open
    water area upstream of the McClugage Bridge (U.S. Highways 24
    and 150) would be dredged to construct an adjacent 21-acre
    island. A 144-acre shallow, open water area downstream of the
    McClugage Bridge would be dredged to construct two adjacent
    islands, 17 and 37 acres respectively. Each island would have
    an outer embankment with a top elevation of 450 feet MSL (10
    feet above the normal lake elevation) and a top width of 20-275
    feet. Each island center would have an approximate elevation of
    448 feet MSL. The island side slopes would include a flat area
    20- to 40-feet-wide at elevation 444 feet MSL.
        The dredging would create a 3,650-foot-long flowing side
    channel between the two downstream islands and a similar
    channel along the upstream island. Dredging depths at both
    sites would vary from 6 feet to 16 feet, including holes and
    connecting channels. Rock riprap would be placed on the island
    sides facing the navigation channel side to control erosion.
    Rock jetties about 20-feet-long and 2-feet-high would be placed
    about every 250 feet around the islands to provide additional
    aquatic structure and edge habitat. Rock closure structures
    would be constructed at the upstream end of the channels to
    minimize sediment movements.
        The plan would restore 675 average annual habitat units
    (AAHU's) of aquatic habitat in the dredged areas and 125 AAHU's
    of terrestrial and shoreline habitat on the islands.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: All
    participating stakeholders fully support the recommended plan.
    The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) is the non-
    Federal sponsor has indicated their support for the project and
    interest to assume cost-shared financial obligations for
    implementing the project. Further, the Fon du Lac Park
    District, East Peoria, Illinois, has agreed to allow use of its
    property for project implementation. The Audubon Society, The
    Nature Conservancy, Heartland Water Resources Council, Peoria
    Lakes Basin Alliance, and the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce
    have provided letters of support.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: No outstanding
    coordination issues exist with other Federal or Regional
    Agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided a letter
    of support.
        Status of NEPA Document: A Finding of No Significant Impact
    for the Environmental Assessment was signed 20 December 2002.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $10,400,000
    Non-Federal (IDNR)......................................       5,600,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      16,000,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: The non-Federal O&M
    costs consist primarily of future monitoring of sediment
    deposition and maintenance dredging if necessary at
    approximately year 26.
        Estimated Effects: Beneficial effects consist of
    approximately 800 average annual habitat units, with no average
    annual adverse effects.
        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: N/A (Current Discount Rate: 5.875%).
        Direct Beneficiaries: Residents of Peoria, East Peoria,
    Tazewell and Peoria Counties, the Illinois River valley, and
    the Nation will benefit from the restored habitat. Wide,
    aquatic and riparian ecosystems are very important vanishing
    resources. The functions they provide are more significant in
    the Illinois River valley because of their scarcity resulting
    from the impacts of sedimentation. The restored aquatic habitat
    would be especially valuable for helping to reestablish the
    health of the Illinois River, once a ally renowned fishery. The
    Illinois River valley is part of the interally significant
    Mississippi Flyway, a major migration route for waterfowl,
    shorebirds, and neotropical migrant birds. The restored
    shoreline and terrestrial habitats would be especially valuable
    as resting, nesting, and feeding areas for these migratory
    birds. These functions include wildlife habitat and travel
    corridors for terrestrial and aquatic species including
    endangered species, neo-tropical migratory birds, shorebirds,
    herons and egrets, and waterfowl.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 28 July 2003.
        (14) Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana.--
        Location of the Study Area: This study focuses on the
    replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock located on the Morgan City-to-
    Port Allen Alternate Route of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
    Bayou Sorrel Lock is located in Iberville Parish in south
    central Louisiana, approximately 20 miles south of Baton Rouge,
    Louisiana.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Bayou
    Sorrel Lock is an integral feature of the Atchafalaya Basin,
    Louisiana Project feature of the Mississippi River and
    Tributaries project. The project flood flow line was revised
    because of changes and projected changes in the Atchafalaya
    Basin and Atchafalaya Bay. The top of wall of Bayou Sorrel Lock
    is 5 feet lower than the current approved project flood flow
    line and 8 feet below the project flood design grade. The lock
    is stable for its original design loading conditions and is in
    good operating condition; however, the structure cannot be
    raised to accommodate the higher flow line. The lock must be
    replaced or other structural measures must be implemented to
    pass the project flood. These measures have been authorized for
    construction under the authority of the Flood Control,
    Mississippi River and Tributaries project. There is a need to
    develop and implement a plan to safely pass the project flood
    at Bayou Sorrel Lock. There also is a need to increase the
    capacity of Bayou Sorrel Lock to reduce the cost to navigation
    caused by delays at the lock, which averaged 4.7 hours per tow
    in 1999 and are projected to climb to 12.7 hours by the year
    2010. Although delays cannot be eliminated, they can be
    significantly reduced with a larger chamber.
        Lockage congestion at Bayou Sorrel results from both the
    growth in traffic volumes and the increase in the size and
    configuration of the tows. The traffic congestion in Bayou
    Sorrel causes excessive delays and has increased lock transit
    time to a point where it is the highest west of the Mississippi
    River. Lockage delays represent a significant economic loss to
    the shipping industry and, ultimately, to the consumer.
        The need to develop and implement a plan to safely pass the
    project flood at Bayou Sorrel Lock provides an opportunity to
    address current and projected delays to barge tows at the lock.
    The portion of the cost of the construction of a new navigation
    lock at Bayou Sorrel that would be allocated to navigation
    could be decreased if the new lock also provided for the flood
    control objective.
        Alternative Plans Considered:
        Flood Control Plans: Three plans were considered for
    passing the Atchafalaya Basin project flood in the vicinity of
    Bayou Sorrel Lock; (1) an independent float-in floodgate
    located on the flood side of the lock, (2) a replacement-in-
    kind lock, that is, a lock with the same chamber dimensions as
    the existing Bayou Sorrel Lock, 56 feet wide by 796 feet long,
    and (3) flood fighting.
        Flood Control/Navigation Plans: Alternative navigation
    plans include (1) the construction of a larger replacement lock
    at Bayou Sorrel Lock; 75 feet and 110 feet wide, (2) the
    replacement of bridges crossing the Atchafalaya River; and (3)
    small scale improvements to increase the navigation efficiency
    at the other locks in the GIWW system.
        Description of the Recommended Plan: The recommended plan,
    which is the National Economic Development (NED) plan, provides
    for: construction of a new, larger lock located adjacent to the
    existing lock at Bayou Sorrel, construction of approach
    channels to the new lock, closure of the existing lock,
    measures to mitigate the impacts of the project on fish and
    wildlife resources, erosion protection, and mooring buoy
    facilities.
        Physical Data on Project Features:
        New Lock. The new lock would have a U-shaped concrete
    chamber, with dimensions of 75 feet by 1,200 feet. The sill
    depth of the lock would be at an elevation of -15 feet NGVD.
    Each set of lock gates would consist of two, 70-degree steel
    sector gate leaves, which would be electrically operated.
    Emptying and filling of the lock would be accomplished by the
    controlled opening of the gates. The guide walls, 1,200 feet
    long on the west side of the lock and 400 feet long on the east
    side, would be constructed of a high density synthetic material
    attached to timber piles. The gates and gate bays on the
    floodway side of the lock, which tie into the East Atchafalaya
    Basin Protection Levee, would have an elevation of 31.7 feet
    NGVD, and the chamber walls and landside gates and gate bays
    would have an elevation of 26.8 feet NGVD.
        Closure of Existing Lock. When the new lock structure is
    completed and becomes operational, the existing lock would be
    closed by an earthen levee extending from the East Atchafalaya
    Basin Protection Levee south of the existing lock across the
    floodway side approach channel to the floodway end of the new
    lock. The existing lock would be abandoned in place and its
    approach channels and chamber would be filled with dredged
    material during periodic maintenance of the Morgan City-to-Port
    Allen Alternate Route.
        Approach Channels. The construction of the new lock would
    require the construction of new approach channels on the
    northern, or protected, side of the lock and on the southern,
    or floodway side, of the lock. The Atchafalaya Basin Floodway
    East Access Channel, which currently joins the south approach
    channel of the existing lock immediately south of the lock,
    would be relocated west of its existing alignment and extended
    southward to tie into the Morgan City-to-Port Allen Alternate
    Route about 5,000 feet south of the new lock. During high
    water, cross currents from the East Access Channel cause
    significant problems to tows approaching the south guide wall.
    Relocating the channel west and extending its junction with the
    new lock's south approach channel will allow barge traffic
    ample time to negotiate the cross currents before reaching the
    lock guide walls.
        The northern approach channel to the new lock, on the
    protected side of the floodway levee, would parallel the
    existing northern approach channel for about 3,500 feet and
    then merge with the existing navigation channel.
        Erosion Protection. Bank stabilization extending 1\1/2\
    miles to the north and south of Bayou Sorrel Lock will be
    placed to minimize the effect on residences of marine
    transportation activities in the vicinity of Bayou Sorrel Lock.
    Hydraulic analysis required a minimum 2-foot blanket of stone
    from the waters edge to natural ground elevation to protect
    against the most severe wave damage resulting from prop-wash.
    Geotextile separator fabric will be placed between the existing
    bankline and the stone paving.
        Mooring Buoy Facility. In connection with the erosion
    protection feature of the recommended plan a floating mooring
    buoy facility will be incorporated to provide a safe location
    for barges to utilize if needed when using the Lock. The
    locations will include 14 mooring buoys in the vicinity of the
    new lock and 13 mooring buoys north of the Bayou Sorrel Bridge.
    In order to place the 13 mooring buoys north of the Bayou
    Sorrel Bridge dredging will be required to provide at least 9-
    feet in the vicinity of the mooring buoy.
        Disposal Areas. Material to be dredged from the new tailbay
    channel would be placed into two existing borrow pits. There
    would be impacts from the conversion of bottomland hardwood
    forest to open water resulting from the channel cut, but no net
    adverse impacts associated with the dredged material disposal.
    The new forebay channel would be cut through existing disposal
    areas and bottomland hardwood forest. Dredged material from
    this new channel would be placed in existing disposal areas to
    the west of the lock. After the new lock is operational, the
    East Access Channel would be relocated. Relocating this channel
    would also impact existing disposal areas and bottomland
    hardwood forest. Dredged material from this channel would be
    placed into the old lock's forebay and tailbay channels and the
    old lock chamber. Mitigation credit would come from the
    planting and management of disposal areas. The area between the
    new forebay channel and the relocated East Access Channel would
    become an uneconomic remnant of real estate to be acquired in
    fee by the Government. This area would be planted and managed
    as a hardwood forest. Mitigation credit would also come from
    eliminating the need for dredged material disposal in the
    Atchafalaya Basin. In the absence of a new Federal project,
    cypress swamp and bottomland hardwood would continue to be
    converted to disposal areas. With the project, existing
    channels would be used for disposal of material dredged during
    routine maintenance, for up to 35 years after project
    completion. These disposal areas would be planted and managed
    as hardwood forest when they are filled to capacity.
        Mitigation Features. The recommended plan was developed
    with the objective of avoiding and minimizing adverse impacts
    to fish and wildlife habitats and compensating for remaining
    adverse impacts. Most of the impacts of the project could
    result from dredging of the connecting channels, relocating the
    East Access Channel, and dredged material disposal. A primary
    focus of mitigation planning was to minimize adverse impacts to
    cypress swamp and bottomland hardwood forest within the
    Atchafalaya Basin. The habitat assessment models do not
    adequately capture the environmental effects of the conversion
    of wet, bottomland hardwood forest to more upland-type habitat
    that does not get periodically flooded. Also, the habitat
    assessment models cannot adequately capture the effect that
    dredged material disposal areas have on nearby cypress swamps
    by blocking-off headwater flows. In order to mitigate for these
    two effects, additional mitigation is planned. A new ditch
    would be constructed through existing dredged material disposal
    sites to connect the East Access Channel with the swamp to the
    west of the disposal sites. A sediment trap would also be built
    on an existing ditch located along the northern boundary of
    existing disposal sites. These features would be built during
    project construction and would serve two purposes--mitigation
    and environmental restoration. The costs associated with
    planting and reforestation are those costs necessary for
    preparing the mitigation areas for planting, reducing competing
    vegetation, replanting as necessary to replace dead seedlings,
    and monitoring the mitigation sites.
        Views of the Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service do not oppose the recommended plan. The
    Environmental Protection Agency gave the EIS its highest rating
    of ``LO'', or Lack of Objection. The Louisiana Department of
    Transportation has responded by letter in support of the
    feasibility report.
        Status of NEPA Document: An EIS has been prepared for the
    project. The draft EIS was filed with the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) on 15 November 2002, and the final EIS
    was filed with the EPA on 23 July 2004.
        Estimated Implementation Costs: The total estimated cost of
    implementing the recommended plan is $97,500,000. The only new
    costs authorized by this bill to carry out this project are the
    $9,000,000 allocated to navigation improvements needed to
    reduce delays. The costs of construction of the inland
    navigation improvements of the project are to be paid half from
    amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and
    half from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust
    Fund. The remainder of the proposed modification of the Bayou
    Sorrel Lock project allocated to safely pass the project flood
    in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway is a feature of the
    authorized Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
    project, and as such, no additional authority is required.
        Description of O&M costs: The Corps would assume operation
    of the lock as part of the Federal operation and maintenance of
    the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
        Estimated effects of navigation feature:

    Total Average Annual Benefits...........................     $16,586,115
    Total Average Annual Cost...............................         863,784
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
    Average Annual Net Benefits.............................      15,722,331

        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 19.2: 1.
        Direct Beneficiaries: Residents of the Bayou Sorrel
    community and the Inland Waterway users.
        Relationship to Other Plans: Bayou Sorrel Lock is an
    integral feature of the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana Project
    feature of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project. The
    lock must be replaced or other structural measures must be
    implemented to pass the project flood. These measures have been
    authorized for construction under the Flood Control,
    Mississippi River and Tributaries project. The need to develop
    and implement a plan to safely pass the project flood provides
    an opportunity to address current and projected delays to barge
    tows at the lock.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 3 January 2005.
        (15) Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.--
        Location of the Study Area: The study area is located in
    south Louisiana between the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers.
    Bayou Lafourche forms the eastern study boundary and Bayou du
    Large and Louisiana Highway 311 form the western boundary. The
    eastern and western boundaries form the apex of a triangle 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. The
    three most recent flooding events (Isidore and Lili in 2002,
    and Bill in 2003) have been from the southeast, confirming the
    study findings that prevailing flood events are from that
    direction causing extensive damage (in excess of $170,000,000)
    in Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes.
        The Morganza to the Gulf project will protect a population
    of over 120,000 and safeguard an area of 1700 square miles
    containing residential, commercial and industrial property, and
    unique Louisiana coastal area. Opportunities to be realized
    from a completed project also include enhancement of the
    environmental habitat, navigation industry, commercial and
    recreational fishing, salinity intrusion, and fresh water and
    sediment diversion, as well as coastal preservation and
    restoration.
        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 agains 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 the Selected Plan: The recommended plan,
    known as the Highway 57 Alignment, is the National Economic
    Development (NED) plan. It consists of the construction of
    approximately 72 miles of levee south of Houma, Louisiana,
    varying in elevation from +15.0 ft NGVD to +9.0 ft. NGVD. Also
    required for flood protection is the construction of nine 56-
    foot wide sector gate structures in various waterways and three
    125-foot floodgates in the GIWW. Another significant feature of
    the plan is the 110-ft wide x 800-ft multipurpose lock
    structure and an abutting floodgate for the Houma Navigation
    Canal. Two existing 56-foot wide floodgates would require
    removal and replacement: one at Bayou Terrebonne and one at the
    Humble Canal. At twelve locations along the levee alignment, a
    series of 6-foot by 6-foot concrete box culverts will be
    constructed through the earthen levees to maintain tidal ebb
    and flow. Six existing pump stations would be modified during
    construction. Construction would require 1,265 acres of
    perpetual levee right-of-way, 1,415 acres of borrow area, 433
    acres of temporary construction easement and 289 acres of fee-
    owned land for all flood control structures, including the
    lock. At twelve locations along the levee alignment, a series
    of 6-foot by 6-foot concrete box culverts will be constructed
    through the earthen levees to maintain tidal ebb and flow.
    Several plans were generated as possible mitigation
    alternatives by the Habitat Evaluation Team, a team composed of
    Federal, state and local environmental commenting agencies.
    Alternatives were generated for fresh marsh and brackish marsh.
    The focus of the plans was to restore marsh to offset direct
    impacts rather than rely on possible future marsh improvement
    by manipulating hydrology.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Louisiana
    Department of Transportation and Development (lead sponsor),
    Terrebonne Parish, City of Houma, Terrebonne Levee and
    Conservation District, and Congressional representatives
    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: No outstanding
    coordination issues exist with other Federal or Regional
    Agencies. None of the agencies objected to the project. The
    project will mitigate for all direct adverse impacts resulting
    from construction.
        Status of NEPA Document: The Final Programmatic EIS (PEIS)
    and Feasibility Report was filed with the EPA on 26 April 2002.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................    $512,200,000
    Non-Federal.............................................     275,800,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
                Total.......................................     788,000,000

        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 (LERRD's) worth an estimated $49,241,000. The
    sponsor would also provide work-in-kind and cash worth
    $209,759,000. The Terrebonne Levee and Conservation District is
    seeking credit for in-kind services for design and construction
    of various features of the proposed project. This request was
    addressed in the supplemental report of the Chief of Engineers
    dated July 22, 2003, and is authorized by this section. The
    credit request does not affect the project costs.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: This cost covers the
    general operation and maintenance of floodgate structures, the
    lock to be located in the Houma Navigation Canal, environmental
    water control structures and levees including levee
    inspections, mowing and erosion control.
        Estimated Effects:

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average annual
                                                equivalent    Average annual
                     Account                    beneficial        adverse
                                                  effects         effects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Purposes:
        NED Hurricane Protection............         $80,772             N/A
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................          80,772             N/A
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.72 (Discount Rate: 5.875%).
        Direct Beneficiaries: This project will directly benefit
    the residents and businesses of Terrebonne and Lafourche
    Parishes, and help preserve the Louisiana coastal ecosystem.
        Relationship to Other Plans: This plan is consistent with
    the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
    program, the Lower Atchafalaya Basin project, Donaldsonville to
    the Gulf project, and the Louisiana Coastal Area Study to
    include all contained projects within the study.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed 23
    August 2002; and a supplemental Chief of Engineers Report
    addressing the sponsor's request for credit for in-kind
    services was signed July 22, 2003.
        (16) Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri.--
        Location of Study Area: The Swope Park Industrial area is
    near the intersection of 75th Terrace and Manchester Trafficway
    in southeastern Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. The
    upstream study boundary is at river mile 18.84 from the mouth
    of the Blue River and the downstream boundary is at river mile
    18.25.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 50-acre
    industrial park was built in the early 1960s and is within an
    area with a 1 percent chance of flooding each year. Of the 10
    structures in the park, 6 are within the regulated floodway
    boundary. Study objectives included investigating the
    feasibility of developing an environmentally, socially, and
    technically acceptable project to reduce recurring flood
    damages in the Swope Park area. The project area also presents
    an opportunity to contribute to Jackson County's Blue River
    Parkway by allowing the establishment of additional riparian
    habitat in conjunction with the flood control project.
        Alternative Plans Considered: The initial screening of
    potential solutions included evaluation of flood insurance/
    floodplain regulation, flood warning systems and temporary
    evacuation, floodproofing of the structures, permanent
    evacuation/buy-out of the area, upstream detention dams,
    levees, floodwalls, channel modification and no Federal action.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The report recommends a
    levee and a floodwall system estimated to be 90 percent
    reliable in protecting the area from a flood which has a 1-
    percent chance of occurring in any year. The proposed project
    is also estimated to be 64-percent reliable in protecting
    against a flood with 0.2-percent chance of occurrence in any
    year. The recommended plan, which is the National Economic
    Development (NED) plan, accommodates the sponsor's newly
    developed access plan which changes the primary Industrial Area
    access to the south end. The recommended plan incorporates a
    floodwall and levee on an alignment that protects the
    industrial park and revised access corridor and then ties to
    high ground. The alignment also encloses and borders the
    interior drainage pond at the east end of the site. The project
    area also presents an opportunity to contribute to Jackson
    County's Blue River Parkway by allowing restoration of
    currently degraded riparian habitat and establishment of
    additional riparian habitat in conjunction with the flood
    control project. The plan would reduce flood damage costs,
    reduce the threat to loss of life, reduce health and safety
    services disruptions, and preserve the environmental resources
    of the area.
        Physical Data on Project Features: The reporting officers
    recommend construction of a combined floodwall and levee on an
    alignment that protects the Swope Industrial Park and access
    corridor, then ties in to high ground. The recommended plan
    consists of 1,215 meters of reinforced concrete floodwall and
    869 meters of compacted earthen levee for a combined project
    length of 2,084 meters. The alignment encloses and borders an
    interior drainage pond at the east end of the site and protects
    the sponsor's newly developed access plan which changes the
    primary access from the northwest to the southwest side.
    Interior drainage to the ponding area would pass through a
    total of 1,100 meters of reinforced concrete pipe ranging in
    diameter from 30 to 135 centimeters. A rolling-gate closure
    would be constructed at the existing 75th Street entrance.
    Environmental design features include selected riparian and
    woodland tree plantings on 5.3 hectares and creation of a small
    wetland.
        Views of State, and Non-Federal Interests: The Draft
    Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (EA) was
    distributed for a 30-day public review from August 6, 2002,
    until 9 September 2002. During a public meeting in Kansas City,
    Missouri, on 22 August 2002, all public and local entities
    expressed strong support. Extensive coordination was conducted
    with all known local, regional, and State stakeholders.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Coordination with
    Federal agencies included U.S. EPA Region VII and the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service. No negative comments or concerns were
    expressed during the agency review process.
        Status of NEPA Document: The Kansas City District Engineer
    signed a Finding of No Significant Impact on 10 January 2003.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $10,194,000
    Non-Federal.............................................       5,489,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      15,683,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The non-Federal
    sponsor will be responsible for periodic maintenance of
    structures and debris removal after flood events, mowing and
    occasional landscaping, repair of the floodwall and earthen
    levee, and testing and servicing of gated structures and the
    rolling gate.
        Estimated Effects: (October 2002 price level)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average annual
                                                equivalent    Average annual
                     Account                    beneficial        adverse
                                                  effects         effects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NED Flood Damage Reduction..............      $1,402,000        $922,000
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       1,402,000         922,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-cost ratio: 1.5 (current discount rate = 5.375
    percent).
        Direct Beneficiaries: The direct beneficiaries of the plan
    are the approximately 9 business enterprises and their
    employees in approximately 400 jobs who would receive improved
    economic viability and increased safety and stability of
    employment with a reduced threat of flooding.
        Current Status of Chief Engineers Report: A final Chief's
    report was signed on 30 December 2003.
        (17) Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets, New Jersey.--
        Location of Study Area: The study area is located in Ocean
    County, New Jersey, and extends approximately 24 miles from
    Manasquan Inlet south to Barnegat Inlet.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: The
    principal cause of economic damages along the Atlantic Coast of
    New Jersey is storms. Storm damage includes wave attack,
    inundation and storm-induced erosion. Major storms have
    occurred in September 1944, March 1962, March 1984, September
    1985, October 1991, December 1992, and March 1993. The 1962
    Northeaster caused damage estimated at $43,400,000 (1996
    dollars) in the study area.
        Storm activity during the 1970's and 1980's was relatively
    low and coastal development during this period accelerated.
    This has increased the potential for storm damages exceeding
    the 1962 storm despite progress made in some areas to minimize
    losses associated with storm damage. Such advances include
    structural and building code improvements. However, many
    portions of the developed coast remain vulnerable due to the
    proximity of structures to the beach. The December 1992 storm
    caused extensive beach and dune erosion within the study area,
    and damages estimated at approximately $10,000,000 according to
    records provided by the Federal Insurance Administration.
        Alternative Plans Considered: Both non-structural and
    structural alternatives were considered, including permanent
    evacuation from areas subject to storm damage, regulation of
    future development, berm restoration, dune restoration, berm
    and dune restoration with groin field, berm and dune
    restoration with offshore detached breakwater, berm and dune
    restoration with submerged reef, berm and dune restoration with
    perched beach, bern and dune restoration with geotextile tube
    core, seawall/bulkhead, offshore submerged feeder berm, and
    beach dewatering.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
    the National Economic Development plan and consists of a berm
    and dune utilizing sand obtained from offshore borrow sources.
    In all areas except northern Point Pleasant Beach and Seaside
    Heights, the dune crest will have an elevation of +22 ft NAVD,
    and the berm will extend 75 ft from the seaward toe of the dune
    at an elevation of +8.5 ft NAVD. In northern Point Pleasant
    Beach and Seaside Heights the dune will have an elevation of
    +18 ft NAVD and the berm will extend 100 ft from the seaward
    toe of the dune at an elevation of +8.5 ft NAVD at Seaside
    Heights and +11.5 ft NAVD at northern Point Pleasant Beach. In
    all areas, the berm will slope at 1 V: 10 H from the berm crest
    down to approximately Mean High Water (MHW) at elevation +1.5
    ft NAVD. Below MHW, the design template parallels the existing
    profile slope to the depth of closure.
        The plan extends from the Manasquan Inlet south jetty in
    Point Pleasant Beach southward to the northern boundary of
    Island Beach State Park in Berkeley Township for a total length
    of approximately 14 miles. Initial sand quantity is estimated
    at 10,689,000 cu yards. Periodic nourishment estimated at
    961,000 cubic yards is scheduled to occur every 4 years.
        Physical Data on Protect Features: see following table.

                        DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED PLAN
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Design component          Dimension/quantity        Remarks
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Berm Elevation..................  +8.5 ft NAVD......  Same as average
                                      +11.5 ft NAVD at     existing
                                       northern Point      condition.
                                       Pleasant Beach
    Berm Width......................  75 ft.............  Berm width
                                      100 ft at Seaside    measured from
                                       Heights and         seaward base of
                                       northern Point      dune to berm
                                       Pleasant Beach      crest.
    Seaward Berm Slope..............  1:10..............  Same as average
                                                           existing
                                                           condition.
    Dune Elevation..................  +22 ft NAVD.......
                                      +18 ft NAVD at
                                       Seaside Heights
                                       and northern
                                       Point Pleasant
                                       Beach.
    Dune Width at Crest.............  25 ft.............  Standard Caldwell
                                                           section.
    Dune Side Slopes................  1:5...............  Standard Caldwell
                                                           section.
    Dune Offset for Maintenance of    20 ft (as           Required dune
     Existing Structures.              required).          offsets are
                                                           reflected in
                                                           selected plan
                                                           layout.
    Length of Fill..................  13.7 miles........
    Initial Sand Quantity...........  10,689,000 cu yds.  Includes advanced
                                                           nourishment with
                                                           overfill.
    Periodic Nourishment Quantity...  961,000 cu yds/4    Includes overfill.
                                       year cycle.
    Major Replacement Quantity......  1,788,000 cu yds..  Includes periodic
                                                           nourishment with
                                                           overfill; same
                                                           dune grass and
                                                           sand fence
                                                           quantities as
                                                           initial fill.
    Taper Section...................  Tapers to existing  Manasquan Inlet
                                       within project      south jetty
                                       reach at southern   functions as
                                       end; no taper at    terminal
                                       northern end.       structure at
                                                           northern end.
    Borrow Source Location..........  Area A--            Overfill factor of
                                       approximately 2     1.5 for borrow
                                       miles offshore of   material.
                                       Island Beach
                                       State Park;.
                                      Area B--
                                       approximately 2
                                       miles offshore of
                                       Mantoloking
    Dune Grass......................  175 acres.........  18'' spacing.
    Sand Fence......................  206,000 feet......  Along base of dune
                                                           and at
                                                           crossovers.
    Outfall Extensions..............  None..............
    Pedestrian Dune Crossovers......  247...............  Includes handicap
                                                           access ramps.
    Vehicle Dune Crossovers.........  11................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The New Jersey
    Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is the non-
    Federal sponsor. NJDEP has indicated interest in entering into
    a partnership with the Corps of Engineers to provide storm
    damage reduction to the study area.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: No objections to
    project.
        Status of NEPA Document: EIS finalized September 2001.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $42,800,000
    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.......      23,000,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      65,800,000

        In addition, 50 years of periodic nourishment will cost
    $108,000,000, approximately $2,160,000 a year, cost-shared 50%
    by the Corps of Engineers and 50% by the non-Federal sponsor.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The annual operation
    and maintenance of the project includes maintaining of the
    dunes (including sand fence and dune grass), pedestrian
    accesses, and beach shaping. The beach will be maintained by
    shaping the sand with heavy equipment to help ensure the
    presence of the design template. Dune walkovers for beach
    access will be the responsibility of the Non-Federal sponsor.
        Estimated Effects:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Discount Rate........................................               7.0%
    Period of Economic Analysis..........................           50 years
    Price Level..........................................     September 2000
    Base Year............................................               2006

                             Average Annual Benefits

    Storm Damage Reduction...............................         $8,294,000
    Local Costs Foregone.................................            865,000
    Recreation...........................................          2,011,000
                                                          ------------------
          Total Average Annual Benefits..................         11,170,000

                              Average Annual Costs

    Initial Construction (includes $76,000 in monitoring           4,260,000
     costs)..............................................
    Periodic Nourishment (includes $264,000 in monitoring          1,795,000
     costs)..............................................
    Subtotal Average Annual Cost (includes $340,000 in             6,055,000
     monitoring costs)...................................
    Interest During Construction (IDC)...................            195,000
    Operations and Maintenance (OMRR&R)..................            100,000
                                                          ------------------
          Total Average Annual Cost......................          6,350,000
    Net Benefits.........................................          4,820,000
    Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)..........................                1.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Direct Beneficiaries: The direct beneficiaries of the
    proposed hurricane and storm damage reduction project are the
    municipalities of Point Pleasant Beach, Bay Head, Mantoloking,
    Brick Township, Dover Township, Lavallette, Seaside Heights,
    Seaside Park, and Berkeley Township.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 30 December 2003.
        (18) South River, New Jersey.--
        Location of Study Area: The South River watershed is
    located within the lower Raritan River Basin in Middlesex
    County, New Jersey. The South River is the first major
    tributary of the Raritan River, located approximately 8.3 miles
    upstream of the Raritan River's mouth at Raritan Bay. The South
    River is formed by the confluence of the Matchaponix and
    Manalapan Brooks, just above Duhernal Lake, and flows northward
    from Duhernal Lake a distance of approximately 7 miles, at
    which point it splits into two branches, the Old South River
    and the Washington Canal. Both branches flow northward into the
    Raritan River. The study investigates flooding and ecosystem
    degradation problems facing the communities of South River,
    Sayreville, and East Brunswick, New Jersey.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study:
    Periodic hurricanes and storms have caused severe flooding
    along the South River. Flood damages downstream of Duhernal
    Lake are primarily due to storm surges with additional damages
    associated with basin runoff. The communities repeatedly
    affected by storm surges are the Boroughs of South River and
    Sayreville, the Township of Old Bridge, and the Historic
    Village of Old Bridge in East Brunswick Township. There are
    approximately 1,247 structures (1,082 residential; 165
    commercial) in the 100-year floodplains of these communities
    and 1,597 structures in the 500-year floodplains (1,399
    residential; 198 commercial). Storm surges create the greatest
    damages in the study area occurring during hurricanes and
    northeasters that generate sustained onshore winds through
    multiple tidal cycles. For example, the northeaster of March
    1993 (a 25-year event) resulted in approximately $17 million
    damage (2001 dollars) and closed the highway bridge connecting
    the Boroughs of South River and Sayreville.
        The area under consideration for ecosystem restoration
    encompasses 1,278 acres along the Old South River and the
    Washington Canal and includes the 380-acre Clancy Island
    bounded by these waterways and by the Raritan River. Wetland
    plant communities account for 786 acres (61 percent) of the
    study area land cover. Uplands account for the remaining 492
    acres, of which 234 acres are occupied by residential,
    commercial, and industrial development. These wetlands and
    uplands are ecologically degraded. Approximately 527 acres (41
    percent of the study area) are dominated by monotypic stands of
    common reed (Phragmites australis). Other wetland communities
    are scattered around the site in a patchwork of fragmented
    parcels. The uplands are dominated by low quality scrub-shrub
    land cover. The current degraded ecological conditions appear
    to be the result of (1) construction and maintenance dredging
    associated with the Federal navigation channels in the South
    River, Washington Canal, and Raritan River, and (2) clay
    excavation and industrial activity associated with the defunct
    Sayreville brick industry.
        Alternative Plans Considered: In addition to the No Action
    Plan, numerous structural and non-structural alternatives were
    considered to reduce damages associated with hurricanes and
    storm surges. These include: a storm surge barrier/gate at the
    confluences of the South River and Washington Canal with the
    Raritan River; multiple levee and floodwall configurations;
    stream modification; detention basin; acquisition of flood-
    prone properties; floodplain zoning; flood proofing; and a
    flood warning system.
        Ecosystem restoration alternatives included the following:
    control of Phragmites, an invasive weed; restoration of salt
    marsh habitat; restoration of tidal creeks and permanently
    flooded ponds; restoration of intertidal mudflats; and
    restoration of wetland forest/scrub-shrub habitat.
        Description of Recommended Plan: Economic analysis of the
    hurricane and storm damage reduction plans indicated that the
    levee/floodwall system with upstream storm surge barrier would
    result in the greatest net benefits. Subsequent optimization of
    this plan determined that a 500-year level of protection would
    provide the greatest net benefits. Consequently, the levee/
    floodwall system with upstream storm surge barrier providing a
    500-year level of protection was designated the National
    Economic Development (NED) plan and selected as the recommended
    plan. Using a combination of levees, floodwalls, and a storm
    surge barrier, structural protection will extend to an
    elevation of +21.5 feet NGVD. The levees will extend 10,712
    feet in length, and the floodwalls will extend 1,655 feet in
    length. The storm surge barrier will span the South River for a
    length of 320 feet and will have a clear opening of 80 feet.
    Interior drainage features will also be provided.
        Implementation of the recommended hurricane and storm
    damage reduction plan will result in some unavoidable impacts
    to the natural resources in the South River study area. To
    offset these impacts, mitigation will be provided. Based on an
    analysis of the acreages, costs, benefits, and incremental
    cost/output for each of the mitigation alternative plans
    developed, the selected mitigation plan will entail the
    conversion of 11.1 acres of degraded wetland Phragmites and
    disturbed habitat to a combination of wetland scrub-shrub (7.8
    acres) and salt marsh (3.3 acres).
        The National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan will restore
    100 percent of the 379 acres of degraded wetlands in the
    potential restoration areas. The NER plan will restore the
    following habitats: low emergent marsh (151 acres: 40 percent),
    wetland forest/scrub-shrub (170 acres: 45 percent; plus an
    additional 19 acres, or 5 percent, as upland forest/scrub-
    shrub), mudflat (19 acres: 5 percent), and open water (19
    acres: 5 percent).
        Physical Data on Project Features:

    Level of Protection (storm with          0.002 (500-year event)
     probability of exceedence).
    Levee/Floodwall:
        Levee Length.......................  10,712 feet.
        Floodwall Length...................  1,655 feet.
        Top Elevation......................  21.5 feet NGVD.
        Levee Crest Width..................  10 feet.
        Levee Slopes.......................  2.3:1.
        Fill Volume........................  304,400 cubic yards.
    River Segment:
        Storm Surge Barrier Length.........  320 feet.
        Clear Opening......................  80 feet.
        Top Elevation......................  21.5 feet NGVD.
    Interior Drainage......................  Gravity outlets and pump
                                              stations.

        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The New Jersey
    Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is the non-
    Federal sponsor. It responded by letter dated 7 March 2003 in
    which it confirmed a common goal to maximize reduction of flood
    damages while protecting and restoring the environment in a
    cost effective manner and provided a list of activities to be
    accomplished during the Pre-construction Engineering and Design
    phase.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3, responded by letter dated 28
    January 2003 which expressed concerns about the project's air
    quality and wetland impacts and recommended that the Record of
    Decision for the project commit to preparing a subsequent NEPA
    document which would include the projects General Conformity
    Determination and increased details about the wetlands
    mitigation and restoration plans. The U.S. Department of the
    Interior (DOI), Office of the Secretary, responded by letter
    dated 4 March 2003 stating DOI had no comments to offer and did
    not object to the proposed project. The Department of Commerce
    and Federal Emergency Management Agency, responded by e-mail on
    25 March 2003 and 26 March 2003, respectively, that each had no
    comments to offer.
        Status of NEPA Document: The Integrated Feasibility Report/
    Environmental Impact Statement (IFR/EIS) was finalized
    September 2002.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $73,205,000
    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.......      39,418,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     112,623,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: Maintenance and
    operation of the project is the responsibility of the non-
    Federal sponsor and will be conducted as follows:
        Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction:
         Levees and floodwalls require maintenance to
    assure continued required performance levels such as vegetation
    maintenance, control of earthen settlements and sloughs,
    piping, animal borrows, repair of damaged wall joints and wall
    caps and maintenance of drainage ditching adjacent to levees
    and walls by removing debris.
         Maintenance of all drainage structure chambers and
    flap and sluice gates, including cleanout, concrete repair,
    pipe repair, gate performance with required repair maintenance
    and operation and replacement (every 25 years).
         Pump stations require trash removal, cleanout,
    testing of pumping systems 4 times/year, repair and replacement
    (every 20 years) of pumps and controls, gate repair and
    replacement (every 25 years).
         Closure gate (interior drainage)--operation and
    maintenance includes pertinent lubrication, testing, periodic
    painting and replacement of gates and seals and concrete
    repair.
         Sector gate requires testing 4 times per year plus
    use during storm occurrences, repair of electrical/mechanical
    systems including gate members and gate and equipment
    replacement (approximately 25 years).
        Ecosystem Restoration:
         Maintain tidal flushing of creeks and ponds.
         Preventing encroachment of invasive species
    (Phragmites).
        Estimated Effects:

                     BENEFIT-COST SUMMARY FOR SELECTED PLAN

    Discount rate....................  5.375%.
    Period of economic analysis......  50 years.
    Price level......................  October 2004.
    Base year........................  2010.

                             AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS

    Storm Damage Reduction...........  $10,260,800.
    Ecosystem Restoration............  *334.9 AAHU's.

    *AAHU's = Average Annual Habitat Units.

                              AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS

    Storm Damage Reduction:
        Initial Construction.............................         $3,478,600
        Interest During Construction.....................            440,200
        Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R)...............            244,200
                                                          ------------------
          Total Average Annual Costs.....................          4,163,000
                                                          ==================
    Net Benefits.........................................          6,097,800
    Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)..........................                2.5
    Ecosystem Restoration:
        Initial Construction.............................          3,051,300
        Interest During Construction.....................            377,500
        Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R)...............             88,900
                                                          ------------------
          Total Average Annual Costs.....................          3,517,700
                                                          ==================
    Benefits.............................................          \1\ 334.9
    Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem
     Restoration:
        Initial Construction.............................          6,529,900
        Interest During Construction.....................            817,700
        Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R)...............            333,100
                                                          ------------------
          Total Average Annual Costs.....................         7,680,700

    \1\ AAHU's.

        Direct Beneficiaries: The direct beneficiaries of the
    proposed hurricane and storm damage reduction and ecosystem
    restoration project at the study area would be the communities
    of the Boroughs of South River and Sayreville, the Township of
    Old Bridge, and the Historic Village of Old Bridge in East
    Brunswick Township.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 22 July 2003.
        (19) Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.--
        Location of the Study Area: The study area covers
    approximately 180-square miles encompassing the Southwest
    Valley and its contributing mesa areas of Bernalillo County and
    portions of Albuquerque, New Mexico. The study area is located
    west of the Rio Grande and comprises three physiographic
    regions: the relatively flat West Mesa, the steeply sloping
    ``ceja'' or mesa edge, and the very flat valley proper. The
    West Mesa drains into Westgate Dam or Cedar Wash. The ceja
    drains into the five other dams owned by the Albuquerque
    Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority (AMAFCA) or
    directly onto the valley. Elevations range from 6,000 feet on
    the West Mesa to 4,870 feet at the Rio Grande. The study area
    encompasses 177.7 square miles, including 23.5 square miles of
    valley area and 154.2 square miles of West Mesa and ceja area.
    Six detention dams constructed by AMAFCA control 41.4 square
    miles of the West Mesa drainage area. Another 17.4 square miles
    of mesa area that contributes to valley flooding is
    uncontrolled. The 95.4 square mile Cedar Wash drainage area
    discharges at the extreme southern end of the Southwest Valley.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Portions of
    the Southwest Valley are subject to flooding from a variety of
    sources. The runoff from the West Mesa is largely controlled by
    a series of dams, detention basins, and diversion channels
    constructed by AMAFCA, Bernalillo County, and the City of
    Albuquerque. Most of these facilities release controlled
    discharges directly or indirectly into Middle Rio Grande
    Conservancy District (MRGCD) agricultural drainage facilities.
    Flood damages occur when large floods overwhelm the capacity of
    these facilities, or the capacity of the MRGCD drains or canals
    is exceeded. Some portions of the West Mesa are directly
    tributary to the valley. The runoff consists of high peak and
    low volume discharges that, due to the steep slopes, typically
    transport large quantities of sediment. Runoff from the valley
    floor also causes flooding. A series of irrigation canals,
    laterals, acequias, and drains traverse the valley; most of
    which have embankments from one to three feet high. These
    embankments and raised roadways divide the valley into many
    small subareas. Some subareas discharge into the MRGCD
    agricultural drains where confining embankments are low or do
    not exist. Others discharge into adjacent subareas or pond on-
    site, inundating residential, commercial, or agricultural land.
    The depth of the 1-percent chance event flood in irrigated
    fields is often less than the depth of water that accumulates
    during routine flood irrigation. The flows from subareas that
    discharge into irrigation drains combine with the runoff from
    the mesa, groundwater, and agricultural return water to exceed
    the capacity of the drains, inundating adjacent lands. The
    valley is also subject to flooding from the Rio Grande. The
    Albuquerque west levee, a major flood control structure,
    constructed by the Corps of Engineers in 1958, protects the
    northern half of the Southwest Valley and has a design
    discharge of 42,000 cfs.
        Alternative Plans Considered: Various flood damage
    reduction alternatives were developed in cooperation with the
    non-Federal sponsor and evaluated relative to their
    effectiveness, acceptability, completeness, and incremental
    economic efficiency. Alternatives were formulated to capture
    West Mesa flood flow utilizing existing Middle Rio Grande
    Project Features surface drainage facilities. Alternatives were
    formulated and sized to safely convey the 1%, 4%, 10%, and 20%
    chance flood events.
        Description of the Recommended Plan: Alternative 3 (10%
    plan) is the National Economic Development plan and is
    recommended. This plan would use existing Middle Rio Grande
    Conservancy District (MRGCD) surface drain facilities to
    capture flood flow from the West Mesa. The main features of the
    proposed work involve using existing easements, widening
    existing drains, constructing a large storm water detention
    ponding area, and constructing two new channels.
        Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan has
    the following features:
        Enlarging the following MRGCD drains:
               22,700-feet of the Isleta Drain beginning
            near Bridge Boulevard and continuing 4,200 feet south
            of Rio Bravo Boulevard;
               8,100 feet of the Armijo Drain from
            Robertson Road to its intersection with the Isleta
            Drain just north of Rio Bravo Boulevard; and
               4,600 feet of the Los Padillas Drain from
            the southern boundary of Anderson Farms to its
            intersection with a newly constructed flood-flow
            channel.
        Rehabilitating and/or enlarging existing road-crossings to
    facilitate the proposed improvements and additions to the
    drainage system. This alternative includes overflow spill
    collection from the Arenal Canal with conveyance to the Isleta
    Drain.
        Constructing a 25-acre detention pond (Pond 187) in an
    existing agricultural field situated east of the Isleta Drain
    to detain a portion of flood-flow during large storms. Proposed
    capacity of this pond for alternative 3 is 325 Acre Feet.
        Constructing a 4,300-foot-long by 120-foot-wide earthen
    channel along the southern property boundary of Anderson Farms
    below Rio Bravo Boulevard to connect the existing Isleta Drain
    to the existing Los Padillas Drain. New 15-foot-wide access
    roads would be placed on each side of the new channel.
        Constructing a new 3,800-foot-long by 45-foot-wide (top
    width) concrete-lined channel (near Metzgar Road) from the Los
    Padillas Drain to the Rio Grande levee. Flood Gates would be
    built at the Rio Grande Levee. An engineered outfall would
    continue from the levee for approximately 700 feet through the
    floodplain to the Rio Grande. This work would occur entirely
    within an existing power line easement. New 15-foot wide access
    roads would run along each side of this channel.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The State of
    New Mexico responded verbally with no comment. There were no
    additional comments.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Correspondence was
    received in response to the 30-day comment period for State and
    agencies. The U.S. Department of Interior's response stated
    that the sponsors will be required to apply for Bureau of
    Reclamation's Discharge Urban Storm Water Drainage Permit into
    existing Reclamation Delivery and Drainage Facilities, but they
    did not object to the project. The Fish and Wildlife Service
    provided recommendations to ensure that impacts are minimized
    during the implementation phase of the project. The
    Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Emergency
    Management Agency responded verbally with no comment.
        Status of NEPA Document: An Environmental Assessment (EA)
    was completed for the project. The Finding of No Significant
    Impact was signed on 20 April 2004.

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $12,671,000
    Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority
        and Bernalillo County...............................       6,823,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      19,494,000

        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: The Albuquerque
    Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority and Bernalillo
    County will assume responsibility for the operation and
    maintenance of facilities constructed by this project. An
    operation and maintenance agreement between the two
    organizations will designate the responsibilities.
        Estimated Effects:
        Average annual benefits: $1,697,200.
        Benefit to cost ratio: 1.4.
        Discount Rate: 5\5/8\ percent, 50-year planning period.
        Direct Beneficiaries: Residents and businesses located with
    the southwest valley of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 29 November 2004.
        (20) 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 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 installation of 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.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan
    consists of the following improvements:
        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.
        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).
        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
    seagrass adjacent to the La Quinta extension will mitigate for
    project impacts to approximately 5 acres of seagrass.
        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, saltmarsh,
    blue-green algae flats, sandflats and associated uplands.
    Additionally, protect 40 acres of highly productive seagrass.
    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 their loads.
    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, and Non-Federal Interests: The selected
    beneficial use plan is the least cost, implementable plan 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. 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 18 April 2003.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $80,086,000
    Non-Federal interest....................................      92,854,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     172,940,000

        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 implement 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:

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average annual
                                                equivalent    Average annual
                     Account                    beneficial        adverse
                                                  effects         effects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NED:
        CCSC................................         $32,501         $15,562
        Barge Shelves.......................             135              81
        La Quinta...........................           9,234           5,330
        Ecosystem Restoration...............             \1\            267
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.

        Project Economic Life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: CCSC 2.1; Barge Lanes 1.7; La Quinta
    1.7.
        Current Discount Rate: 5.375%.
        NED Plan Recommended? Yes.
        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: A final Chief's
    report was signed on 2 June 2003.
        (21) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos
    River, Texas.--
        Location of Study Area: Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
    from mile 318 to 400, between High Island and the Brazos River.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Rollover
    Pass is a man-made cut through a barrier island that causes
    several problems near this section of the GIWW. The study
    identified problems with high frequency of dredging and
    placement of material. Other concerns for this section are
    traffic collisions and groundings caused by the high shoaling
    rate.
        Sievers Cove is a residential canal subdivision located
    along the GIWW where there is no barrier between the channel
    and East Bay. The gap poses a navigation problem for pilots
    during prevailing north winds. Also, area waterway users
    reported that a private mooring basin has barges moored too
    close to the GIWW. This condition causes recurring accidents
    and collisions.
        Texas City Wye is a turning channel between the GIWW and
    the Galveston Ship Channel. The existing eastbound turning
    channel for barge traffic is too narrow and is often shoaled
    and difficult to locate. In addition to high winds and strong
    currents, the south end of the Texas City Wye channel
    intersects the north end of the Pelican Island Mooring Basin,
    complicating navigation when barges are moored there. Many
    towboat pilots have abandoned the Texas City Wye in favor of
    using the main intersection of the Texas City Channel and GIWW.
    This causes time delays and creates unsafe conditions as tows
    try to maneuver a 120-degree turn into a congested area used by
    deep-draft vessels.
        The Pelican Island Bridge is a hazard to navigation due to
    the difficulty that tow operators have in lining barges up to
    pass through the bridge. A strong tidal current in the channel
    causes barges to drift into the bridge fender system.
    Consistently, there are at least four barge accidents at the
    fenders systems each year.
        The Galveston Island Causeway Bridge, and railroad bridge,
    are major navigation hazards due to width limitations. The
    primary factor in barge collisions is the restriction in
    navigation span 104 to 109 feet in width. The United States
    Coast Guard's data showed ninety-nine collisions between
    commercial vessels near the causeway between 1991 and 1999.
        Greens Lake contains no mooring facilities. Waterway users
    have stressed a need for a mooring facility west of Galveston
    Bay so tows can be moored when the high winds and currents do
    not allow for safe passage. Currently tow operators must push
    onto the bank in a sheltered area near Greens Lake.
    Constructing a mooring facility at this location would allow
    tows to break down and trip barges through the Galveston
    Causeway to the Pelican Island moorings on the other side.
        A contiguous artificial land barrier flanking the GIWW on
    the West Bay side has been washed out due to severe erosion by
    the rough environment of the bay system. Although maintenance
    material has prolonged the protective service life of the
    barrier, it has not been able to keep pace with the erosion
    reclaiming the barrier. In these areas navigation is difficult
    due to strong southeasterly winds since there is no structure
    to attenuate the high current velocities and wave amplitude.
    Further erosion could breach the land, increasing shoaling in
    the GIWW and allowing saltwater into Halls Lake, damaging
    existing habitat.
        Alternative Plans Considered: For Rollover Pass, four
    alternatives were developed and analyzed. Preliminary
    alternatives include taking no action, narrowing the pass to
    limit the tidal currents, completely closing Rollover Pass, and
    the construction of a sediment trap.
        For Sievers Cove, three alternatives were developed and
    analyzed. Alternatives included no-action, bank stabilization,
    and channel widening.
        For Texas City Wye, three alternatives were developed and
    analyzed. Alternatives include the future without project
    condition (no-action plan), widening the existing turning
    channel, and widening the intersection between the GIWW and
    Texas City Channel (main channel).
        For Pelican Island Moorings, three alternatives were
    developed and analyzed. Alternatives include the future without
    project condition (no-action plan), realignment of the GIWW
    adjacent to the mooring, and moving existing mooring further
    landward from GIWW.
        For Pelican Island Bridge, four alternatives were developed
    and analyzed. Alternative plans include the future without
    project condition (no-action plan), bridge replacement,
    construction of moorings on each side of the bridge, and the
    construction of dolphins on each side of the bridge.
        For Galveston Island Causeway Bridge, four alternatives
    were developed and analyzed. Alternatives include the future
    without project condition (no-action plan), flare alternatives,
    channel realignment and bridge replacement.
        For Greens Lake, three alternatives were developed and
    analyzed. Alternative plans included the future without project
    condition (no-action plan), construction of the mooring
    facility on the bay side of the GIWW, and construction of the
    mooring facility within the mouth of Greens Lake.
        Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
    the National Economic Development Plan. The recommended plan
    for Rollover Pass is to construct a sediment trap to intercept
    the sediment before it reaches the GIWW. Trapping the sediment
    and storing it in a basin would reduce the rate of its
    accumulation within the channel, thus reducing the number of
    times the channel has to be dredged. A numerical model reveals
    that a properly configured basin constructed in Rollover Bay
    will likely be effective in trapping enough sediment volume to
    significantly reduce the rate of shoaling occurring within the
    channel. Material trapped in the basin would be dredged and
    placed on the beach, at Federal cost, approximately every 2-3
    years depending on the sedimentation rate.
        The recommended plan for Sievers Cove is to widen the GIWW
    along the west approach to the opening to give pilots
    sufficient maneuvering room to position their tows northward
    when crossing the opening during prevailing northerly winds.
    Based on the existing conditions, engineering, and user input,
    it was determined that the north side of the channel should be
    widened 75 feet. The length of the widened area will extend
    westward 1400 feet, including transitions. The widened area
    will be excavated to a depth of elevation--17.0 feet Mean Low
    Tide (MLT) and have 1V to 3H side slopes. Upland placement
    would use the existing GIWW placement site located adjacent to
    the channel in Placement Area #41.
        The recommended plan for the Texas City Wye simply
    acknowledges and improves upon what is already taking place
    under current navigation practices. The plan was modified to
    include the parabolic curve based on reviews of the tract
    plots. With the improved intersection in place, the existing
    channel will be abandoned, and navigational aides removed.
    Marsh creation to extend the Pelican Island Spit was determined
    to have the least cost with the most environmentally acceptable
    disposal plan.
        The recommended plan for the Pelican Island Moorings is to
    widen the facility 80 feet to the north, more than doubling its
    present width of 75 feet, yielding a total width of 155 feet.
    The depth of the basin will be--16.0 feet MLT with an
    additional 1-foot allowable overdepth. Along with the widening,
    13 existing mooring buoys will be cut away from their anchors
    and set back 80 feet.
        The recommended plan for the Pelican Island Bridge is the
    no-action alternative as none of the other alternatives
    provided enough benefits to overcome the cost. No further
    action will be taken at this site under this study.
        The recommended plan for the Galveston Causeway is to wait
    until the Texas Department of Transportation replaces the
    highway and railroad bridges, and then dredge the channel to
    the authorized width of 125 feet. Bridge replacement, as part
    of this project, was not economically justified due to the high
    costs.
        The recommended plan for mooring facilities in the area of
    Greens Lake is to construct Greens Lake Moorings at the mouth
    of the lake. This area was selected because open water is
    available, the area is somewhat sheltered, and the channel's
    north shoreline would be minimally impacted. Pilots surveyed
    stated that currents and waves from the lake do not cause
    appreciable navigational concerns or problems, and they were
    supportive of the site chosen. The mooring facility's design
    was developed jointly with the waterway users to assure their
    needs were completely satisfied, while minimizing impacts to
    the existing environment. The depth of the mooring basin will
    be--16.0 feet MLT with an additional 1-foot allowable
    overdepth. Placing material on the adjacent barrier island
    provides the mooring facility additional protection from wind
    and current. However, additional erosion protection is
    required. It was determined that a hydraulic filled levee with
    concrete matting be constructed on two sides of the PA.
        The recommended plan for the West Bay Washout calls for a
    single 24-foot circumference, 10,000 foot geotube to be
    constructed between the GIWW and the West Bay. The geotube will
    be tied into the existing marsh creation site on the southwest
    end and to the existing barrier island on the northeast end. A
    cellular concrete mattress will be installed along the
    channel's north shoreline that separates the channel from Halls
    Lake. The mattress will be used to supplement the riprap placed
    by the State of Texas to provide the required 50-year project
    life.
        Views of States and Non-Federal Interests: The local
    sponsor, Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT), has
    actively participated throughout the planning process. TXDOT
    supports the recommended plans as outlined in this report and
    the continuation of shallow draft navigation of the state's
    coastal waters.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Final U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service Coordination Act Report, dated September
    2002, was coordinated with Texas Parks and Wildlife. The final
    coordination report was received 9 October 2003. There were no
    outstanding issues on the draft.
        Status of NEPA Document: An Environmental Assessment was
    completed as part of the Feasibility Report. The Finding of No
    Significant Impact was signed on 9 October 2003.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $13,104,000

        One half of the costs will be paid out of General Revenues
    and one half of the costs will be paid out of the Inland
    Waterways Trust Fund.
        Estimated Effects:

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average annual
                                                equivalent    Average annual
                     Account                    beneficial        adverse
                                                  effects         effects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Economic Development (NED)
     Plan:..................................
        Navigation..........................          $3,272          $1,430
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.3 (Current Discount Rate: 5\3/8\
    percent).
        Direct Beneficiaries: The waterway users are the direct
    beneficiaries of the project.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 16 April 2004.
        (22) Matagorda Bay, Texas.--
        Location of Study Area: The 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 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 a maintenance dredging nightmare and 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 cross-currents 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. 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 trucks 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 as
    not fully addressing 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 Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
    the National Economic Development plan and 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: Several ecosystem
    restoration features and beneficial use of dredged material
    features are included in the recommended placement plan. The
    area south of the shoreline east of Palacios Point is suitable
    for marsh creation using the new work 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 new
    work material from Reach 1.
        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
    seagrass 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 new work 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.
        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. Because of 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. The northwestern 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.
        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
    new work material of approximately 200,000 cubic yards. The use
    of this beach as a beneficial use site may be considered once
    or twice during the 50-year maintenance dredge plan.
        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, material is used to create a 10-acre marsh at
    Palacios Point. The remainder of the material is deposited in
    the offshore surf zone. Maintenance material from each 10-year
    dredging event is used to create an additional 25-acre marsh at
    Palacios Point.
        --For Reach 2, all of the material is placed in the
    offshore surf zone.
        --In Reach 3, material is 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 is
    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 is placed offshore in the surf zone.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: 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. There are no known significant issues.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The local sponsor
    for the existing project, the Texas Department of
    Transportation, has actively participated throughout the
    planning process. 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 recommended
    plan and no outstanding issues remain.
        States of NEPA Document: The Final Feasibility Report and
    Final EA have been approved by all necessary Environmental
    Agencies. An EIS was not required for this report.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $15,960,000

        One half of the costs will be paid from General Revenues
    and one half will be paid from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
        Estimated Effects:

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Average annual
                                                equivalent    Average annual
                     Account                    beneficial        adverse
                                                  effects         effects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NED:
        Re-Route............................          $1,600          $2,356
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Project Economic Life: 50 years.
        Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.5.
        Current Discount Rate: 5.375%.
        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 Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 24 December 2002.
        (23) 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 U.S. 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 hydroperiod 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, not the National Ecosystem
    Restoration Plan. 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, which is located on the south side of IH-30.
    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, and Non-Federal Interests: 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.
        Implementation Costs of Recommended LPP Plan:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $10,400,000
    Tarrant Regional Water District.........................      14,800,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      25,200,000

        The Secretary is directed to credit toward the non-Federal
    share of the cost of the project the cost of design and
    construction work on the Beach Street Dam and associated
    features if the Secretary determines that this work is integral
    to the project.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: O&M responsibilities
    include mowing, trash collection and, as needed, replacements
    or rehabilitation of any of its components.
        Estimated Effects: The LPP would restore an additional 112
    acres and 25.83 AAHU's. The restoration will benefit the trail
    system and the habitat for song birds and migratory wading
    birds.
        Project economic life: 50 years.
        Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area
    are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 29 May 2003.
        (24) Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.--
        Location of the Study Area: The 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 which
    surrounds the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.
        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 21 March 1996, the city of Chesapeake
    requested that the Corps of Engineers 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.
        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 minimize highway 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.
        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 al
    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.
        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
    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.
    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.
        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.
        New Policy Directions Recommended: The Federal Government
    would pay 100 percent of the bridge replacement and approach
    road cost of the recommended plan, including LERRD. In
    addition, non-Federal interests would be responsible for
    operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, including assuming full
    ownership for the recommended plan.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The
    Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality,
    responded by letter dated 20 August 2001. This letter forwarded
    a copy of the Commonwealth's 29 January 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 8 August 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 26 February
    2002 and 21 August 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 25 April 2001. The
    final Feasibility report and EA, with the signed FONSI, were
    circulated for State and Agency review on 10 July 2001. The
    State and Agency review period ended on 9 August 2001.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $35,573,000

        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: The estimated average annual costs are
    $2,458,000 and the estimated average annual benefits are
    $18,750,000. The benefit to cost ratio is 7.6, applying a
    discount rate of 5-3/8 percent over a 50-year planning period.
        Direct Beneficiaries: Highway users. Increased safety to
    boating traffic.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 3 March 2003.
        (25) Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington.
        Location of the Study Area: The study area is about 50
    miles east of the Pacific Ocean and about 25 miles south on
    Interstate Highway 5 (I-5) of the state capital, Olympia. The
    study area includes the mainstem Chehalis River, its floodplain
    and tributaries from the South Fork Chehalis River confluence
    to Grand Mound, and includes the Cities of Centralia and
    Chehalis, in Lewis County, Washington.
        Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The cities
    of Centralia and Chehalis have been subject to repeated
    flooding for many years. This flooding has caused extensive
    damage to private and public property and periodic closure of
    critical transportation routes resulting in significant
    economic losses. The most recent flood events were in 1990 and
    1996. The 1996 event alone resulted in tens of millions of
    dollars worth of damages.
        Lewis County and other project stakeholders have recognized
    the critical need for a comprehensive solution to flooding
    issues in the urban areas of Centralia and Chehalis. This
    includes the Washington State Department of Transportation,
    which will save millions of dollars that would have been used
    to raise the interstate highway I-5 to protect it from
    flooding. Flood damages to be prevented include substantial
    urban flooding and the periodic closure of Interstate 5, a
    major north-south highway that was closed due to flooding most
    recently in December 2001.
        Alternative Plans Considered: The possible solutions
    examined in the feasibility study included: (1) Skookumchuck
    Dam modifications, (2) overbank excavation and flowway bypass,
    (3) a levee system, (4) upstream flow restriction structures
    and upstream storage, (5) a non-structural alternative, and (6)
    an Interagency Committee alternative that included restricted
    development measures and small structural measures. The non-
    Federal sponsor and the Corps worked closely with the local,
    Federal and state agencies, local tribes and the public to
    develop a comprehensive list of alternatives for reducing flood
    damages.
        Description of the Recommended Plan: The recommended plan
    is the Locally Preferred Plan, not the National Economic
    Development Plan. To reduce flood damages to the community the
    recommended plan includes modifying Skookumchuck Dam,
    constructing a system of levee/floodwalls, and raising in
    elevation 8 structures that would incur induced damages from
    increased inundation as a result of the project.
        Dam Modification.--The recommended plan would modify
    Skookumchuck Dam to add flood control capabilities to the
    existing reservoir. Skookumchuck Dam would be modified for
    storage by raising the pool and create a new outlet scheme.
    Because the recommended dam feature needs additional
    evaluation, as the proposed conversion of the existing
    uncontrolled fixed crest spillway to a gated spillway conflicts
    with Corps of Engineers guidance on spillway design.
    Accordingly the recommended plan for up to 20,000 acre-feet of
    flood control storage is subject to a determination by the
    Chief of Engineers that the additional storage above 11,000
    acre-feet is technically feasible and environmentally
    acceptable.
        Levee/Floodwalls.--About 15.5 miles of levee/floodwalls
    will provide flood protection to the City of Centralia, the
    City of Chehalis, and I-5. The levee/floodwall feature has two
    segments--Chehalis River and Skookumchuck River. The levee
    system extends along the Chehalis River from river mile (RM) 75
    to RM 64 and along most of the lower 2 miles of Skookumchuck
    River to the confluence with Coffee Creek. The floodwall is
    approximately 13,200 feet long and the levees are approximately
    68,640 feet long. The plans include minimal interior flood
    control (IFC) features, with refinements to the IFC deferred to
    future studies. The alignments follow existing levees and
    incorporate the I-5 and rail line embankments in the line of
    protection. The recommended plan for the levees and floodwalls
    exceeds the NED plan. The difference between the NED and LPP
    levee/floodwall plans is the level of protection on the lower
    Skookumchuck River segment. For the NED Plan, one of the levee
    reaches (16 total) has a 97.7% chance of containing the 100-
    year event on the Chehalis River segment and only a 20.6%
    chance of containing the 100-year event on the Skookumchuck
    River segment. For the LPP the respective 100-year event
    numbers are 97.8% on the Chehalis and 99.8% on the
    Skookumchuck.
        Environmental Features--Unavoidable environmental impacts
    will include wetland and riparian habitat degradation and
    destruction resulting in the loss of approximately 105 habitat
    units. Mitigation for these losses will be accomplished through
    a combination of wetland creation, revegetation of riparian
    habitat, and reconnection of an isolated oxbow with the
    mainstem Chehalis River.
        Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The following
    State and Tribal agencies responded to the request for review:
    (1) Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, responded
    by letter dated 26 March 2004; (2) The Washington State
    Department of Ecology responded by letter dated 27 February
    2004 and 23 March 2004; (3) The Confederated Tribes of the
    Chehalis Reservation, responded by letter dated March 17, 2004.
    Concerns expressed by the respondents included the lack of
    project features to address ecosystem restoration, mitigation,
    floodplain management practices, and water quality concerns. In
    letters of response, the Corps provided satisfactory
    clarification to those concerns.
        Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The following
    Federal agencies responded to the request for review: (1) The
    U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of the Secretary,
    responded by letter dated 20 April 2004; (2) The U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, responded by letter 26 March
    2004. Concerns expressed by the respondents included the lack
    of project features for ecosystem restoration, mitigation,
    uncertainties about impacts on the Skookumchuck River, the need
    to prepare a supplemental EIS to address various outstanding
    issues, and water quality concerns. In letters of response, the
    Corps provided satisfactory clarification to these concerns.
        Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact
    Statement was completed in June 2003.
        Estimated Implementation Costs:

    Corps of Engineers......................................     $66,425,000
    Lewis County............................................      43,425,000
          Total.............................................     109,850,000

        The existing flood damage reduction project authorization
    for the Chehalis River, in Section 401(a) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986, was modified by Section 118
    of Public Law 106-554 to authorize the Secretary of the Army to
    provide the non-Federal interest credit toward the non-Federal
    share of the cost of that project, for the cost of planning,
    design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal
    interest before the date of execution of a cooperation
    agreement if the Secretary determines that the work is integral
    to the project. The authority to provide credit is restated in
    this section. In light of this authority, the Chief's Report
    recommends that the non-Federal interest shall receive credit
    in an amount of up to $6,500,000 towards its share of project
    costs for planning and design work carried out by the non-
    Federal interest in accordance with the Project Study Plan
    dated 28 November 1999 and credit towards its share of project
    costs for any other planning and design work carried out by the
    non-Federal interest that the Secretary determines to be
    integral to the project, including work done prior to execution
    of a project cooperation agreement for the project.
        Description of Non-Federal O&M Costs: Lewis County will be
    responsible for the operation and maintenance of the levee
    system. This will entail a minimum of one inspection annually,
    and preferably an inspection after each flood event documenting
    levee conditions and any repairs or maintenance required or
    completed. The annual operation and maintenance for the flood
    control portion of Skookumchuck Dam include the annual
    maintenance, flood control operation, and fish migration due to
    flood control operations.
        Estimated Effects: The average annual benefits are
    $9,126,000 and the average annual costs are $7,017,000 assuming
    a project life of 50 years and a discount rate of 5.625%. The
    net annual benefits are $2,109,000 and the benefit-to-cost
    ratio is 1.3 to 1.
        Direct Beneficiaries: The incidence of flood control
    benefits is widespread. The project will benefit agricultural
    landowners (2,200 acres), residential homeowners (3,926
    structures), commercial and industrial structure owners (294
    structures), and interstate commerce using I-5.
        Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final
    Chief's report was signed on 27 September 2004.

    Section 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction

        Subsection (a) 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 (which authorizes
    $50,000,000 a year for Federal participation in small flood
    damage reduction projects up to $7,000,000 per project, with a
    minimum 35% non-Federal cost-share) at the following locations:
              (1) Haleyville, Alabama.
              (2) Weiss Lake, Alabama.
              (3) Chino Valley Wash, Arizona.
              (4) Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.
              (5) Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
              (6) Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, California.
              (7) Borrego Springs, California.
              (8) Colton, California.
              (9) Dunlap Stream, San Bernardino, California.
              (10) Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, California.
              (11) Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
              (12) Utica and Vicinity, Illinois.
              (13) Des Moines and Racoon Rivers, Iowa.
              (14) Peabody, Massachusetts.
              (15) Salem, Massachusetts.
              (16) Cass River, Michigan.
              (17) Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.
              (18) Itasca County, Minnesota.
              (19) Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
              (20) Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota.
              (21) South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup,
            Minnesota.
              (22) Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.
              (23) Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.
              (24) Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.
              (25) East River, Silver Beach, New York City, New
            York.
              (26) East Valley Creek, Andover, New York.
              (27) Sunnyside Brook, Westchester County, New York.
              (28) Little Yankee Run, Ohio.
              (29) Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
              (30) Southampton Creek Watershed, Southampton,
            Pennsylvania.
              (31) Spring Creek, Lower Macungie Township,
            Pennsylvania.
              (32) Yardley Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks,
            Yardley, Pennsylvania.
              (33) Surfside Beach, South Carolina.
              (34) Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas.
              (35) Dilley, Texas.
        Subsection (b) establishes special rules for the following
    projects--
              (1) Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.--The
            Secretary may carry out the project for flood damage
            reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas under
            this section notwithstanding any policy limiting use of
            this authority in areas within the boundaries of a
            larger flood control project.
              (2) Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.--The
            Secretary is directed to review the locally preferred
            plan for the project for flood damage reduction,
            Wildwood Creek, California, and to use that plan, if it
            meets the standards of the Corps of Engineers, and to
            provide credit for work carried out by the non-Federal
            interest if integral to the project.
              (3) Borup, Minnesota.--The Secretary is authorized to
            consider ecosystem restoration benefits when
            determining the Federal interest in the project for
            flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice
            River, Borup, Minnesota, and is directed to allow the
            non-Federal interest to increase its participation in
            the project, if necessary to implement the project.
              (4) Itasca County, Minnesota.--The Secretary is
            authorized to consider ecosystem restoration benefits
            when determining the Federal interest in the project
            for flood damage reduction, Itasca County, Minnesota.
              (5) Dilley, Texas.--The Secretary is directed to
            carry out the project for flood damage reduction,
            Dilley Texas, if feasible, notwithstanding any policy
            regarding volume of flows.

    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 (which authorizes $15,000,000 a year for
    Federal participation in projects up to $1,000,000 per project,
    with a 35% non-Federal cost-share) at the following locations:
              (1) Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and
            Louisiana.
              (2) Franklin Point Park, Anne Arundel County,
            Maryland.
              (3) Mayo Beach Park, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
              (4) Piney Point Lighthouse, St. Mary's County,
            Maryland.
              (5) St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
              (6) Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.
              (7) Middle Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri.
              (8) Platte River, Platte City, Missouri.
              (9) Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri.
              (10) Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, New York.
              (11) Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New
            Windsor, New York.
              (12) Howard Road Outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee.
              (13) Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County,
            Tennessee.
              (14) Wolf River Tributaries, Shelby County,
            Tennessee.
              (15) Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
              (16) Wells River, Newbury, Vermont.

    Section 1004: Small projects for navigation

        Subsection (a) 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 (which authorizes $35,000,000
    a year for Federal participation in small navigation projects
    up to $4,000,000 per project with non-Federal cost-sharing as
    determined under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986)
    at the following locations:
              (1) Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas.
              (2) Mahukona Beach Park, Hawaii.
              (3) North Kohala Harbor, Hawaii.
              (4) Wailoa Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii.
              (5) Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
              (6) Port Tobacco River and Goose Creek, Maryland.
              (7) St. Jerome Creek, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
              (8) East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich,
            Massachusetts.
              (9) Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.
              (10) Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.
              (11) Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
              (12) Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth,
            Massachusetts.
              (13) Au Sable River, Michigan.
              (14) Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan.
        Subsection (b) establishes special rules for the following
    projects--
        (1) Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas.--Directs the
    Secretary to carry out the project for navigation, Blytheville
    County Harbor, Arkansas if the Secretary determines that the
    project is feasible, notwithstanding any policy related to fast
    lands.
        (2) Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan.--Directs
    the Secretary to use a plan developed by the local sponsor to
    carry out the project if the Secretary determines that the plan
    meets standards of the Corps of Engineers and to credit the
    local sponsor for the costs of preparing that plan and for
    other work, if the Secretary determines that work is integral
    to the project.

    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 (which
    authorizes $25,000,000 a year for Federal participation in
    projects up to $5,000,000 per project, with a 25% non-Federal
    cost-share) at the following locations:
              (1) Ballona Creek, Los Angeles County, California.
              (2) Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey,
            California.
              (3) Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
              (4) Smithville Lake, Missouri.
              (5) Delaware Bay, New Jersey and Delaware.
              (6) Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.

    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 (which
    authorizes $25,000,000 a year for Federal participation in
    small ecosystem restoration and protection projects up to
    $5,000,000 per project, with a 35% non-Federal cost-share) at
    the following locations:
              (1) Cypress Creek, Montgomery, Alabama.
              (2) Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz, California.
              (3) Dockweiler Bluffs, Los Angeles County,
            California.
              (4) Salt River, California.
              (5) Santa Rosa Creek, Santa Rosa, California.
              (6) Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and Lower San
            Joaquin River, California.
              (7) Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County,
            California.
              (8) Bayou Texar, Pensacola, Florida.
              (9) Biscayne Bay, Florida.
              (10) Clam Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island,
            Florida.
              (11) Destin Harbor, Florida.
              (12) Chattahoochee Fall Line, Georgia and Alabama.
              (13) Longwood Cove, Gainesville, Georgia.
              (14) City Park, University Lakes, Louisiana.
              (15) Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts.
              (16) Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts.
              (17) Kalamazoo River Watershed, Battle Creek,
            Michigan.
              (18) Rush Lake, Minnesota.
              (19) South Fork of the Crow River, Hutchinson,
            Minnesota.
              (20) St. Louis County, Missouri.
              (21) Truckee River, Reno, Nevada.
              (22) Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.
              (23) Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.
              (24) Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
              (25) Beaver Creek, Beaver and Salem, Pennsylvania.
              (26) Cementon Dam, Lehigh River, Pennsylvania.
              (27) Delaware River, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
            Pennsylvania.
              (28) Saucon Creek, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
              (29) Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
              (30) Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South Carolina.
              (31) White River, Bethel, Vermont.

    Section 1007: Small projects for shoreline protection

        Directs the Secretary to study and carry out projects 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 (which authorizes
    $30,000,000 a year for Federal participation in small shoreline
    protection projects, up to $3,000,000 per project, with a 35%
    non-Federal cost-share) at the following locations:
              (1) Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.
              (2) Sanibel Island, Florida.
              (3) Apra Harbor, Guam.
              (4) Piti, Cabras Island, Guam.
              (5) Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York Bay,
            Brooklyn, New York.
              (6) Delaware River, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
            Pennsylvania.
              (7) Port Aransas, Texas.

    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. 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 2002. 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 October 1, 2003.

    Section 2003. Funding to process permits

        Amends section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 2000 to extend the period of funding to process permits up
    to 2008.

    Section 2004. National Shoreline Erosion Control Development Act and
            demonstration program

        Amends section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing
    Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of
    publicly owned property'' of August 13, 1946, 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 2005. Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects

        Amends section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing
    Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of
    publicly owned property'' of August 13, 1946, to increase the
    maximum Federal participation in each project from $3,000,000
    to $5,000,000.

    Section 2006. Written agreement for water resources projects

        Amends section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, to
    rename project cooperation agreements as partnership
    agreements, require the Secretary to delegate authority to
    District Engineers to enter into certain partnership
    agreements, and include a provision for liquidated damages.
    Amends section 912(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986 to eliminate civil penalties in partnership agreements and
    allow the use of 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) is directed to develop
    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, under authority delegated by the Secretary,
    District Engineers review and execute partnership agreements.
    These changes reflect favorably on the capability of Divisions
    and 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 or particularly complicated
    issues would continue to be reviewed. Under this new structure,
    the Secretary may retain the authority to approve a partnership
    agreement upon notification to the District Engineer within 30
    days of the date of authorization of the project and must
    report to Congress annually on the number of agreements signed
    by District Engineers and by the Secretary. For agreements
    signed by the Secretary, the Secretary must provide an
    explanation of why delegation to the District Engineer was not
    appropriate. This section also requires the Chief of Engineers
    to ensure that partnership agreements are made publicly
    available on the Internet.
        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 partnership 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
    2006-2010. Under the authority provided by this section, the
    Secretary may provide assistance to the city of St. Louis,
    Missouri, to help remove abandoned buildings and prepare
    property for future use, may provide assistance to the Port of
    Bellingham, Washington, to provide assistance to the Bellingham
    ``Portsfield'' project, and may provide assistance of
    Worcester, Massachusetts, to revitalize the Blackstone Canal.

    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, 2006. 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 non-profit 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 Federal expense. Also
    allows the Secretary to use this dredged material to carry out,
    at 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 Little Rock
    Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas; Egmont Key, Florida; Calcasieu
    Ship Channel, Louisiana; Smith Point Park Pavilion TWA Flight
    800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York; Morehead City, North
    Carolina; and, Galveston Bay, Texas.

    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 partnership 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, and limits such
    credit to work carried out under the agreement 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 and to increase the baseline to
    $42,000,000.

    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 Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio;
    Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties, Washington;
    Niagara River Basin, New York; and Genesee River Basin, New
    York, 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 and to extend the program
    through 2010.

    Section 2021. 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 2022. 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 provides 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 2023. Technical assistance

        Amends section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1974, which authorizes planning assistance to States, to
    authorize the Secretary, upon request of a governmental agency
    or non-Federal interest, to provide a small amount of 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. In addition, this
    section amends section 22 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1974 to increase the amount of assistance that may be
    proved each year to a single State from $500,000 to $1,000,000,
    and requires the Secretary to provide the Committee each year
    with a report that describes the activities proposed to be
    funded in each State under this section.
        Under the authority of section 22 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1974, the Secretary may conduct a light
    detection and ranging survey to provide topographic information
    and geographical information system maps to local and regional
    planning agencies and soil conservation services in the 29th
    Congressional District of New York. Under this authority, the
    Secretary also may develop a computer model of Hilo Bay,
    Hawaii, to help the County of Hawaii identify alternatives for
    improving water quality and circulation. Under this authority,
    the Secretary also may provide assistance to the Assabet River
    Consortium, which is composed of the communities of Shrewsbury,
    Westborough, Northborough, Marlborough, Hudson, and Maynard,
    Massachusetts, to determine the feasibility of remediating
    sedimentary phosphorus in the Assabet River.

    Section 2024. 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 2025. 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 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 take varying 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 2026. 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) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey.
        (3) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey.
        (4) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey.
        (5) Lake Rogers, Creedmoor, North Carolina.
        (6) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.

    Section 2027. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses

        This section amends section 906(d) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 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 determination 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 2028. 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 2029. 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 non-monetary 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 determinations, 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
    determinations, 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 2030. 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
    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 the process of developing 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 determination 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 non-controversial.
    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 al 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 needed to 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 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
    although the Chief may choose to do so. 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.

    Section 2031. Training funds

        Authorizes the Secretary to allow persons not employed by
    the Corps of Engineers to participate in training courses
    offered by the Corps of Engineers on a cost reimbursable basis.

    Section 2032. Access to water resource data

        Directs the Secretary to provide better public access to
    water resource and water quality data and authorizes $5 million
    a year to carry out the program.

    Section 2033. Shore protection projects

        Establishes a policy to promote beach nourishment to
    prevent storm damage reduction and directs the Secretary to
    give preference for shore protection projects where there has
    already been Federal investment in storm damage reduction or a
    need for mitigation of impacts from other Federal activities.

    Section 2034. Ability to pay

        This section amends section 103(m)(2) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 to direct the Secretary to
    issue, by August 31, 2005, updated criteria for reducing the
    non-Federal share of a project cost based on the inability of
    the non-Federal interest to pay. The Committee notes that
    section 202 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
    changed the non-Federal share of the cost of flood damage
    reduction projects from 25% to 35%. But, to address adverse
    effects on disadvantaged communities, that section also
    directed the Secretary to change its criteria for reducing a
    non-Federal cost share based on an inability to pay within one
    year. The statement of managers accompanying the Conference
    Report for the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 stated,
    ``It is essential that prudent, yet meaningful ability-to-pay
    procedures be implemented. This is especially important in
    light of the increase in the non-Federal share of project costs
    for future project authorizations that is provided for in
    section 202.'' Over eight years have passed, and the Secretary
    still has not met this obligation. The Committee is now
    providing until August 31, 2005, to issue new criteria.
        This section directs the Secretary to apply updated
    ability-to-pay criteria to the following projects:
              (1) St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway,
            Missouri.
              (2) Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
              (3) West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control
            projects under section 581 of the Water Resources
            Development Act of 1996.

    Section 2035. Aquatic ecosystem restoration

        Amends section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1996 to increase the annual authorization for Federal
    participation in aquatic ecosystem restoration projects from
    $25,000,000 to $40,000,000. The Committee notes that the
    Appropriations Committee has not appropriated the full $25
    million that is currently authorized to be appropriated each
    year. In years that the Corps has spent more than $25 million,
    it has done so through the reprogramming of funds. Nonetheless,
    the Committee is aware of a large demand for small ecosystem
    restoration projects and, is providing increased authority.

    Section 2036. Small flood damage reduction projects

        Amends section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 to
    increase the annual authorization for Federal participation in
    small flood damage reduction projects from $50,000,000 to
    $60,000,000. As with section 206 projects, the Committee notes
    that the Appropriations Committee has not appropriated the full
    $50 million that is currently authorized to be appropriated
    each year. However, the Committee is aware of a large demand
    for small flood control projects and, is providing increased
    authority.
        The Committee did not increase the annual authorization of
    appropriations for other continuing authority programs. The
    annual appropriations for continuing authorities other than the
    section 206 and section 205 programs have not even come close
    to their existing authorization ceilings. In addition, the
    demand for new projects under other continuing authority
    programs is less. The Corps of Engineers does have a backlog of
    ongoing projects under section 1135 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 that it must manage, but the Committee
    has not seen a large demand for new section 1135 projects.

    Section 2037. Leasing authority

        Amends section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 to add
    Indian tribes to the list of entities afforded priority by the
    Corps of Engineers when leasing Corps property.

    Section 2038. Cost estimates

        Clarifies that estimates of Federal and non-Federal costs
    are informational only and do not affect cost sharing
    responsibilities established by law.
        The Committee is concerned that the offices of the
    Secretary and the Chief of Engineers have been misinterpreting
    the effect of legislation stating the estimated Federal and
    non-Federal costs of authorized projects. For certain projects,
    the Committee is informed that the Administration interprets
    that information as affecting the cost sharing requirements
    associated with the specific project. That interpretation is
    not correct.
        The Federal and non-Federal responsibilities for cost
    sharing for Corps of Engineers projects are as stated in
    sections 101, 102, and 103 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986, including amendments to that Act, unless expressly
    superseded by law for a specific project. In authorizing a
    Corps of Engineers project, the Congress includes a total cost
    that both serves as an authorization of appropriations and
    provides a maximum project cost to which section 902 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986 applies. The listing of
    the estimated Federal and non-Federal costs are for
    informational purposes only, have no substantive effect, and
    should never be interpreted as affecting the cost-sharing
    requirements applicable to the project based on project
    purposes.
        In the Statement of Managers accompanying the conference
    report for the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the
    managers stated that the ``cost figures have been updated to
    reflect the most current information available.'' The managers
    also acknowledged that because the stated estimate of Federal
    costs includes cost to be repaid over time, ``[i]n many cases,
    the actual Federal share of costs may be somewhat lower than
    the share reflected in the costs shown in the bill.'' The only
    cost number that has substantive effect is the total cost, and
    that number has substantive effect because of the application
    of section 902, Maximum Cost of Projects.
        Interpreting the stated estimates of the Federal and non-
    Federal share as having a substantive effect on the cost-
    sharing requirements of law would be inconsistent with the
    fixed requirements established in the 1986 Act and its
    subsequent amendments.

    Section 2039. Studies and reports for water resources projects

        Amends section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1986 to clarify the type of reports required for projects
    that must be submitted to Congress for authorization and
    projects that are not submitted to Congress for authorization,
    and the cost sharing associated with such reports.

    Section 2040. Fiscal transparency report

        Requires the Chief of Engineers to submit to the Committee
    on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
    on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
    Representatives annually a report on the expenditures for the
    preceding fiscal year and current fiscal year, and the
    expenditures necessary to maintain the same level of effort in
    the following fiscal year. This report will include information
    on all ongoing projects, not just those requested by the
    President. The Committee believes that management of the civil
    works program by both the Corps of Engineers and Congress will
    improve if ongoing financial commitments of the Corps of
    Engineers are made completely transparent.

                     TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

    Section 3001. King Cove Harbor, Alaska

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

    Section 3002. St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska

        Clarifies that all elements of the project for St. Paul
    Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska are inseparable elements of a
    single project and restates the non-Federal cost share
    established for this project, based on existing authorizations.

    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. 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 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas

        Modifies the project for navigation, Osceola Harbor,
    Arkansas, to allow non-federal participants to construct a
    mooring facility within the confines of the navigation project.
    The Secretary is to maintain the general navigation features of
    the project at a bottom width of 250 feet.

    Section 3007. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas

        Modifies the project for flood control, Lee Creek, Arkansas
    and Oklahoma, to add environmental restoration as a project
    purpose and to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal
    share of the cost over a 30-year period in accordance with
    section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

    Section 3008. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas

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

    Section 3009. American River Watershed, California

        Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, American
    River Watershed, California, to clarify that the without
    project conditions are those in place at the time the project
    was developed and recommended for authorization and to prevent
    the Corps of Engineers from changing the allocation of costs
    between dam safety and flood damage reduction.

    Section 3010. Compton Creek, California

        Modifies the project for flood control, Los Angeles
    Drainage Areas, California, to add environmental restoration
    and recreation as a project purpose.

    Section 3011. 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 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California

        Modifies the project for environmental restoration,
    Hamilton Airfield, California, to include Bel Marin Keys, Unit
    V in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
    July 19, 2004. As modified, the total cost of the project is
    now $205,226,000. Implementation of Bel Marin Keys, Unit V,
    will produce 526 average annual habitat units, bringing the
    total for both project components to 866 average annual habitat
    units. The modified project also will provide annual economic
    benefits of $568,000 for recreation use and will provide
    disposal capacity for 24.4 million cubic yards of dredged
    material. The estimated total average annual cost of the new,
    expanded, project is $15,335,000, applying a discount rate of
    5.375, over a 50-year project life.

    Section 3013. 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 3014. Kaweah River, California

        Modifies the project for flood control, Terminus Dam,
    Kaweah River, California, to direct the Secretary to provide
    credit for or reimbursement of the non-Federal share of the
    cost of the project, not to exceed $800,000, for costs of work
    performed by the non-Federal interests on or after the date of
    the project partnership agreement if the Secretary determines
    the work to be integral to the project.

    Section 3015. 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 3016. Llagas Creek, California

        Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Llagas
    Creek, California, to authorize the Secretary to carry out a
    project at a total cost of $105,000.000.

    Section 3017. Los Angeles Harbor, California

        Modifies the project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor,
    Los Angeles, California, to authorize the Secretary to carry
    out the project at a total cost of $222,000,000.

    Section 3018. Magpie Creek, California

        Modifies the project for flood control, Magpie Creek,
    California, to direct the Secretary to apply the cost-sharing
    applicable to non-structural projects, in accordance with
    section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
    to the non-structural portion of the project. This section also
    directs the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of
    the cost of the project the cost of the planning and design
    work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the project
    partnership agreement if the Secretary determines the work to
    be integral to the project.

    Section 3019. 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 3020. 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 3021. 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 3022. Sacramento and American Rivers Flood Control, California

        Directs the Secretary to determine the amount paid by the
    Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) towards the
    Federal share of the Natomas levee flood damage reduction
    project, and to credit those excess payments against the non-
    Federal share of authorized flood damage reduction projects for
    which SAFCA is the non-Federal interest.

    Section 3023. 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 date of the partnership agreement, if an integral part of
    the project.

    Section 3024. 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 3025. Santa Cruz Harbor, California

        Modifies the project for navigation, Santa Cruz Harbor,
    California, to direct the Secretary to renegotiate the
    memorandum of agreement with the non-federal interest to
    increase the annual payment to reflect the updated cost of
    operation and maintenance that is the Federal and non-Federal
    share as provided by law.

    Section 3026. Seven Oaks Dam, California

        Modifies the project for flood control, Santa Ana Mainstem
    to direct the Secretary to conduct a study for the reallocation
    of water storage at the Seven Oaks Dam, California, for water
    conservation.

    Section 3027. 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 3028. 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 3029. 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 3030. 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 3031. Yuba River Basin Project, California

        Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River
    Basin, California, to increase the authorization for
    construction to $107,700,000, and to credit towards 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, if integral to the project.

    Section 3032. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
            Delaware and Maryland

        Modifies the project for navigation, Intracoastal Waterway,
    Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, to
    direct the Secretary to add recreation as a project purpose.

    Section 3033. Brevard County, Florida

        Modifies the project for shoreline protection, Brevard
    County, Florida, to establish the reach of the project,
    correcting an error in the report of the Chief of Engineers for
    this project. This section also directs the Secretary to
    expedite a report identifying the level of damage to the
    project caused by a Federal navigation project, and to
    authorize credit for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest
    to respond to such damages.

    Section 3034. 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 3035. Canaveral Harbor, Florida

        Authorizes the Secretary to construct a sediment trap in
    carrying out a project for navigation, Canaveral Harbor,
    Florida.

    Section 3036. 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 3037. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida

        Amends the project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor,
    Florida to authorize the Secretary to expand the size of the
    project, and increase the authorization ceiling to $14,658,000
    in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
    July 22, 2003. In addition, the Secretary is directed to
    determine the non-Federal share of the cost of preparing the
    general reevaluation report for this project based on
    construction cost-sharing. As a general rule, made express in
    section 2039 of this bill, cost-sharing for all studies should
    be 50%. However, in this case, the Jacksonville District made
    erroneous commitments to the non-Federal interest that the non-
    Federal interest relied upon to its detriment, and subsections
    (b) and (c) of this section ensure that those commitments are
    met. In the future, the Committee expects the Jacksonville
    District to apply correct cost-sharing to project studies.

    Section 3038. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida

        Amends the project for shore protection, Lido Key Beach,
    Sarasota, Florida, to increase the authorization ceiling to
    $14,809,000. This section also directs the Secretary to allow
    the non-Federal interest to construct the project in accordance
    with section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1992.

    Section 3039. Miami Harbor, Florida

        Authorizes the project for navigation, Miami Harbor
    Channel, Florida and modifies section 315 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1999, to include as project
    purpose mitigation for dredging outside the authorized channel.
    The Secretary is directed to provide credit for the cost of
    work performed by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the
    project.

    Section 3040. Peanut Island, Florida

        Authorizes the Secretary to construct the project for
    improvement of the quality of environment, Peanut Island,
    Florida, at a total Federal cost of $9,750,000.

    Section 3041. 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 3042. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida

        Modifies the project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Cut B,
    Florida, to authorize the Secretary to construct passing lanes
    if such improvements are necessary for navigation safety. In
    addition, the Secretary is directed to determine the non-
    Federal share of the cost of preparing the general reevaluation
    report for this project based on construction cost-sharing. As
    a general rule, made express in section 2039 of this bill,
    cost-sharing for all studies should be 50%. However, in this
    case, the Jacksonville District made erroneous commitments to
    the non-Federal interest that the non-Federal interest relied
    upon to its detriment, and subsections (b) and (c) ensure that
    those commitments are met. In the future, the Committee expects
    the Jacksonville District to apply correct cost-sharing to
    project studies.

    Section 3043. Allatoona Lake, Georgia

        Authorizes the Secretary to participate in a land exchange
    at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, with willing sellers at fair market
    value for lands needed for wildlife management and protection
    of water quality.

    Section 3044. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia

        Authorizes the Secretary to construct the project for
    improvement of the quality of environment, Latham River, Glynn
    County, Georgia, under section 1135 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 at a total Federal cost of $6,175,000.

    Section 3045. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir Improvements, Idaho

        Authorizes the Secretary to carry out improvements for
    recreation facilities at Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, North
    Fork, Clearwater River, Idaho, to accommodate lower pool
    levels.

    Section 3046. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois

        Modifies the project for navigation, Muscooten Bay,
    Illinois River, Beardstown, Illinois, to direct the Secretary
    to enter into a partnership agreement with the City of
    Beardstown Community Park District to change the identity of
    the non-Federal sponsor and, upon execution of the new
    partnership agreement, to authorize the Secretary to dredge the
    navigation channel annually.

    Section 3047. Cache River Levee, Illinois

        Modifies the Cache River Levee portion of the project for
    flood control, Cache River, Illinois, to add environmental
    restoration as a project purpose.

    Section 3048. Chicago River, Illinois

        Modifies the width of the project for navigation, North
    Branch Canal portion of the Chicago River, Illinois, from 100
    feet downstream of Halsted Street to 100 feet upstream of
    Division Street Bridge, to be no wider than 66 feet.

    Section 3049. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois

        Directs the Secretary to upgrade and make permanent an
    existing dispersal barrier to prevent the migration of Asian
    Carp from the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to Lake Michigan,
    at Federal expense. Provides that operation and maintenance of
    both the existing dispersal barrier and the new dispersal
    barrier currently under construction be a Federal
    responsibility. Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the
    feasibility of options and technologies to prevent the spread
    of aquatic species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi
    River Basin through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and
    other pathways.

    Section 3050. Emiquon, Illinois

        Increases the authorization for Federal participation in
    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 the
    eligibility of the project for emergency repairs.

    Section 3051. LaSalle, Illinois

        Directs the Secretary to give priority to environmental
    dredging in the vicinity of LaSalle, Illinois, on the Illinois
    and Michigan Canal.

    Section 3052. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois

        Modifies the project for flood control, Spunky Bottoms,
    Illinois, to add environmental restoration as a project
    purpose; increase the authorized Federal participation in the
    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
    repairs.

    Section 3053. Fort Wayne and Vicinity, Indiana

        Modifies the project for flood control, Fort Wayne, St.
    Mary's and Maumee Rivers, Indiana, to direct the Secretary to
    provide a 100-year flood protection at the Berry-Thieme, Park-
    Thompson, Woodhurst, and Tillman sites along the St. Mary's
    River, Fort Wayne and vicinity, at a total cost of $5,300,000.
    Also allows the non-Federal interest to increase it
    participation in the project, in accordance with section 903(c)
    of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, if necessary to
    implement the project.

    Section 3054. Koontz Lake, Indiana

        Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
    Koontz Lake, Indiana, to direct the Secretary to seek to reduce
    the cost of the project by using innovative technologies and
    other cost reduction measures.

    Section 3055. 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 $198,000,000.

    Section 3056. White River, Indiana

        Modifies the project for flood control, Indianapolis on the
    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 3057. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa

        Modifies the Des Moines Recreational River and Greenbelt,
    Iowa, project to include public access and enhanced recreation,
    at a Federal cost of $3,000,000.

    Section 3058. 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 3059. 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. This section also increases the authorization
    for the project to $178,000,000, and directs the Secretary to
    provide credit for work carried out by the non-Federal
    interest, if integral to the project.

    Section 3060. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana

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

    Section 3061. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana

        Modifies the project for the quality of the environment,
    Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, 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 3062. 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 3063. 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 and to incorporate current wildlife and
    forestry management measures.

    Section 3064. 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 3065. 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 3066. 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 3067. 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 $25,000,000.

    Section 3068. Union River, Maine

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

    Section 3069. Gwynns Falls Watershed, Baltimore, Maryland

        Directs the Secretary to carry out the project for
    ecosystem restoration, Gwynns Falls Watershed, Maryland in
    accordance with the April 2004 Baltimore Metropolitan Water
    Resources Gwynns Falls Watershed Study-Draft Feasibility Report
    and Integrated Environmental Assessment prepared by the Corps
    of Engineers and the City of Baltimore, Maryland. This report
    shall be considered consistent with and in compliance with the
    consent decree entered into between the United States and the
    city of Baltimore on April 26, 2002.

    Section 3070. Boston Harbor, Massachusetts

        Prohibits the expenditure of funds for the dredging of
    Chelsea Creek until the City of Boston and the U.S. Coast Guard
    complete the replacement of the Chelsea Street Bridge.

    Section 3071. 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 a maximum Federal
    expenditure of $3,000,000.

    Section 3072. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan

        Directs the Secretary to expedite development of a dredged
    material management plan for the project for navigation, St.
    Joseph Harbor, Michigan.

    Section 3073. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan

        Directs the Secretary to construct, at Federal expense, a
    second lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, of the same
    dimensions as the existing lock, in accordance with a limited
    reevaluation report dated February 2004, at a total cost of
    $341,714,000.

    Section 3074. 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 under section 903(c) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986, if necessary to implement the project.

    Section 3075. 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. Also directs the
    Secretary to provide credit for work performed by the non-
    Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement
    for the project, if integral to the project.

    Section 3076. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota

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

    Section 3077. 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, to the extent 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 3078. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota

        Directs the Secretary to develop a final design and prepare
    a plan to correct conditions at the Knife River Harbor,
    Minnesota.

    Section 3079. Red Lake River, Minnesota

        Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Red Lake
    River, Minnesota, to increase the project authorization to
    $17,000,000.

    Section 3080. 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 3081. 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 3082. 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 3083. 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 3084. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi

        Directs the Secretary to recommend the locally preferred
    plan for a project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River
    Basin, if the locally preferred plan provides equal or greater
    flood damage reduction benefits, but to establish the Federal
    share of the project based on the Federal share of the plan
    that maximizes National economic development benefits.

    Section 3085. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri

        Amends section 102(b) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1999 to increase the authorization to $12,000,000.

    Section 3086. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri

        Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Monarch-
    Chesterfield, Missouri, 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 3087. River Des Peres, Missouri

        Modifies the project for flood control, River Des Peres,
    Missouri, 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 3088. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska

        Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Antelope
    Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska, 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. Directs the
    Secretary to accept advance funds from the non-Federal interest
    as needed to carry out the project.

    Section 3089. 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
    is integral 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 3090. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey

        Modifies the project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem
    restoration, shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage
    reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey,
    to incorporate the project for shore line erosion control, Cape
    May Point, New Jersey, if feasible.

    Section 3091. Passaic River Basin Flood Management, New Jersey

        Modifies the project for flood control, Passaic River, New
    Jersey and New York, to direct the Secretary to include the
    benefits and costs of preserving natural flood storage in any
    future economic analysis of the project.

    Section 3092. Buffalo Harbor, New York

        Modifies the project for navigation, Buffalo Harbor, New
    York to include measures to enhance public access at a Federal
    cost of $500,000.

    Section 3093. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York

        Modifies the project for shoreline protection, Orchard
    Beach, Bronx, New York, to increase the project authorization
    to $20,000,000.

    Section 3094. 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
    locations of 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 3095. 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 3096. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio

        Amends section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1999, to increase the authorization to $6,000,000.

    Section 3097. Mahoning River, Ohio

        Directs the Secretary to carry out a project for
    environmental dredging, Mahoning River, Ohio, and to provide
    credit for work performed by the non-Federal interests before
    the project cooperation agreement, if an integral part of the
    project.

    Section 3098. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma

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

    Section 3099. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma

        Prohibits unilateral changes to the June 3, 1986, agreement
    between the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District and the
    United States, regarding payments for water storage.

    Section 3100. 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 3101. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware

        Authorizes the Secretary to remove marine debris from the
    project for navigation, Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New
    Jersey, and Delaware, Philadelphia to the Sea.

    Section 3102. 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 3103. 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 3104. 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 3105. South Central Pennsylvania

        Modifies the geographic scope of section 313 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1992, and increases the
    authorization of appropriations to $200,000,000.

    Section 3106. 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 3107. Cedar Bayou, Texas

        Modifies the project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, to
    authorize credit for planning and design work carried out by
    the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project.

    Section 3108. Freeport Harbor, Texas

        Modifies the project for navigation, Freeport Harbor,
    Texas, to direct the Secretary to credit the cost of work by
    the non-Federal interest, performed before the project
    cooperation agreement, if the Secretary determines it to be an
    integral part of the project, and to remove the sunken Corps of
    Engineers vessel ``COMSTOCK'' at Federal expense.

    Section 3109. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas

        Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, Johnson
    Creek, Arlington, Texas, to direct the Secretary to construct
    the project at a total cost of $29,717,000.

    Section 3110. 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 3111. 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 3112. 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 3113. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas

        Directs the Secretary to accept payment in full of the
    monies owed for water supply storage at Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.

    Section 3114. 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 3115. 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 3116. James River, Virginia

        Modifies the project for navigation, James River, Virginia,
    to authorize a turning basin adjacent to the Richmond Deepwater
    Terminal, if necessary for navigation safety.

    Section 3117. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties,
            Virginia

        Modifies the project for flood control, Levisa and Tug
    Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, to
    direct the Secretary to determine the ability of the non-
    Federal interest to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of
    the project for certain counties in southwest Virginia.

    Section 3118. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia

        Directs the Secretary to design and construct a seawall at
    Tangier Island, Virginia, at a total cost of $3,000,000.

    Section 3119. Duwamish/Green, Washington

        Modifies the project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/
    Green, Washington, to provide credit for work carried out by
    the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project, and to
    authorize the payment of the non-Federal share through in-kind
    services and materials.

    Section 3120. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington

        Modifies the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
    Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington, 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 3121. 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 $99,000,000.

    Section 3122. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia

        Directs the Secretary to ensure the preservation and
    restoration of ``Jenkins House'' and associated structures
    located within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.

    Section 3123. Northern West Virginia

        Authorizes the Secretary to carry out the projects at
    Parkersburg, Weirton, and Erickson/Wood County, West Virginia,
    following the issuance of a report from the Chief of Engineers.

    Section 3124. 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 3125. Mississippi River Headwaters Reservoirs

        Changes the levels for the operation 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 3126. Continuation of Project Authorizations

        Continues the authorization for an additional 5 years the
    following projects: (1) the project for flood control, Agana
    River, Guam and (2) the project for navigation, Fall River
    Harbor, Massachusetts.

    Section 3127. 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 were deauthorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor
    Act of 1962.

    Section 3128. Project Deauthorizations

        Deauthorizes a portion of the following projects for
    navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut; Mystic River,
    Connecticut; Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts; Island End River,
    Massachusetts; City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington; Anchorage
    Area, New London Harbor, Connecticut; Southport Harbor,
    Fairfield, Connecticut; Mystic River, Massachusetts; and Green
    Bay Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
        Additional deauthorizations include the features of the
    following projects that have never been constructed:
              (1) Project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin,
            Clear Lake Outlet Channel, California.
              (2) Project for flood control, Atascadero Creek and
            tributaries of Goleta, California.
              (3) Project for flood control, Central and Southern
            Florida Project, Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.
              (4) Project for flood control, Middle Wabash,
            Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.
              (5) Project for flood damage reduction, Lake George,
            Hobart, Indiana.
              (6) Project for flood control, Green Bay Levee and
            Drainage District No.2, Iowa.
              (7) Project for flood control, Hazard, Kentucky.
              (8) Project for flood control, recreation portion,
            Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky.
              (9) Project for flood control, Western Kentucky
            Tributaries, Kentucky.
              (10) Project for flood damage reduction, Tensas-
            Cocodrie area, Louisiana.
              (11) Project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and
            South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana.
              (12) The bulkheads and jetties at Lake Borgne and
            Chef Menteur, feature of the project for navigation,
            Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico,
            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 hydropower, (Units 6-8), Libby Dam,
            Montana.
              (17) Project for flood damage reduction, Platte River
            Flood and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska.
              (18) Project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo,
            New York.
              (19) Project for flood damage reduction, Sugar Creek
            Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.
              (20) Project for flood control, Miami River,
            Fairfield, Ohio.
              (21) Project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay,
            Lake Erie, Ohio.
              (22) Project for flood control and water supply,
            Parker Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma.
              (23) Project for Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial,
            Hammond, Oregon.
              (24) Project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-
            Davisville, Rhode Island.
              (25) Project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork
            Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.
              (26) Project for flood control, Arroyo Colorado,
            Lower Rio Grande, Texas.
              (27) Project for flood control, Cypress Creek-
            Structural, Texas.
              (28) Project for flood protection, East Fork Channel
            Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity
            River, Texas.
              (29) Project for flood control, Falfurrias, Texas.
              (30) Project for streambank 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 3129. Land conveyances

        Conveys Federal properties at the following locations:
              (a) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
              (b) Milford, Kansas.
              (c) Pike County, Missouri.
              (d) Boardman, Oregon.
              (e) Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.
              (f) Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.

    Section 3130. Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use
            Restrictions

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

                               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 in-kind services and materials.

    Section 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study and make
    recommendations to eliminate avian botulism problems at dredged
    material disposal sites in the vicinity of Lake Erie.

    Section 4003. Southwestern United States drought study

        Directs the Secretary, in coordination with the Secretaries
    of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce and other appropriate
    agencies, to conduct a study of drought conditions in the
    southwestern United States, with particular emphasis on the
    Colorado River Basin, the Rio Grande River Basin, and the Great
    Basin.

    Section 4004. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan

        Directs the Secretary to complete the comprehensive plan to
    address water resource and related land resource problems and
    opportunities in the upper Mississippi and Illinois River
    basins, authorized by section 459 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1999, by no later than December 30, 2006.

    Section 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    impacts on navigation from the construction of a bridge across
    Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.

    Section 4006. Kuskokwim River, Alaska

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Kuskokwim
    River, Alaska, in the vicinity of the village of Crooked Creek.

    Section 4007. St. George Harbor, Alaska

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

    Section 4008. 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 4009. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona, and to use plans and
    designs developed by the non-Federal interest, if consistent
    with Federal standards.

    Section 4010. 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 for Searcy County, Arkansas.

    Section 4011. Dry Creek Valley, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project to provide recycled water
    for agricultural water supply, Dry Creek Valley, California,
    including the feasibility of expanding the Geysers recharge
    project north of Healdsburg, California.

    Section 4012. Elkhorn Slough Estuary, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the Elkhorn
    Slough Estuary to determine the feasibility of conserving,
    enhancing, and restoring estuarine habitats by addressing
    hydrological management issues.

    Section 4013. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Fresno,
    Kings, and Kern counties, California.

    Section 4014. Los Angeles River, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction and ecosystem restoration for the Los Angeles River,
    and to use the Los Angeles River revitalization plan developed
    by the non-Federal interests if such plan is consistent with
    Federal standards.

    Section 4015. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction and groundwater recharge at Lytle Creek, Rialto,
    California.

    Section 4016. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of using Mokelumne River as a source of water
    supply for San Joaquin County, California. The Committee is
    aware of concerns expressed about this study and whether it
    would negatively affect water rights, water law, and permitted
    activities and agreements governing East Bay Municipal Utility
    District and its use of this watershed. To address these
    concerns, the Committee included language stating that this
    section does not invalidate, preempt, or create any exception
    to State water law, State water rights, of Federal or State
    permitted activities or agreements.

    Section 4017. Napa River, St. Helena, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive study of
    the Napa River in the area of St. Helena, California, to
    improve flood management, restore habitat, improve fish passage
    and water quality, and restore plants native to the area.
    Directs the Secretary to use plans and designs developed by the
    non-Federal interest, if consistent with Federal standards.

    Section 4018. Orick, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction and ecosystem restoration. In conducting the study,
    the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of restoring or
    rehabilitating the Redwood Creek Levees, Humboldt County,
    California.

    Section 4019. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for
    Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.

    Section 4020. 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 4021. San Diego County, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for San
    Diego County, including a review of the feasibility of
    connecting 4 existing reservoirs to increase usable storage
    capacity.

    Section 4022. 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 4023. South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, California

        Directs the Secretary to complete the feasibility report
    for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, California, by
    December 31, 2008, using documents prepared by the non-Federal
    interest if they are consistent with Federal standards, and
    provide credit for work performed by the non-Federal interest
    towards the non-Federal share of the cost of any project
    authorized as a result of the study, if integral to the
    project.

    Section 4024. Twentynine Palms, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction at the Pinto Cove Wash, in the vicinity of Twentynine
    Palms, California.

    Section 4025. Yucca Valley, California

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, West Burnt Mountain Basin, in the vicinity of Yucca
    Valley, California.

    Section 4026. Boulder Creek, Boulder, Colorado

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction in the Boulder Creek floodplain, Colorado.

    Section 4027. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction for the Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.

    Section 4028. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek,
            Wilmington, Delaware

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction and related purposes along the Delaware and Christina
    Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware.

    Section 4029. Collier County Beaches, Florida

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm
    damage reduction and flood damage reduction in the vicinity of
    Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples beaches, Collier County,
    Florida.

    Section 4030. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
    restoration, water supply, and improvement of water quality at
    Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.

    Section 4031. Meriwether County, Georgia

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
    Meriwether County, Georgia.

    Section 4032. 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 4033. Kaukonahua-Helemano Watershed, Oahu, Hawaii

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Kaukonahua-Helemano Watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.

    Section 4034. West Maui, Maui, Hawaii

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water resources
    development, environmental restoration, and natural resources
    protection, West Maui, Maui, Hawaii.

    Section 4035. Boise River, Idaho

        Modifies the study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho,
    to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as project
    purposes to be studied and to direct the Secretary to provide
    up to $500,000 in credit for the cost of work performed by the
    non-Federal interest, if an integral part of the project.

    Section 4036. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration
    in the side channel of Ballard's Island, Illinois.

    Section 4037. Chicago, Illinois

        Amends section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 2000 to clarify that sites along Lake Michigan are
    included in the scope of the shoreline protection study,
    Chicago Illinois.

    Section 4038. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago River, 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 4039. Utica, Illinois

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction in the vicinity of Utica, Illinois.

    Section 4040. Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana

        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 along Lake Michigan, in the cities of
    Hammond, Whiting, East Chicago, Gary and Portage, Indiana. In
    conducting this study, the Secretary shall, to the maximum
    extent practicable, review a report prepared by the non-Federal
    interest and make use of that report to the extent the report
    meets the evaluation and design standards of the Secretary.

    Section 4041. Salem, Indiana

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for an additional water
    supply source for Salem, Indiana.

    Section 4042. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of modifying the project for flood damage
    reduction, Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, to add ecosystem
    restoration, recreation, and improved access as project
    purposes, including a permanent raise in winter pool elevation,
    and to allow the non-Federal interest to satisfy its share with
    in-kind contributions.

    Section 4043. Dewey Lake, Kentucky

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of modifying the project for Dewey Lake, Kentucky,
    to add water supply as a project purpose.

    Section 4044. Louisville, Kentucky

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to of the project
    for flood control, Louisville, Kentucky, to investigate
    measures to rehabilitate the project.

    Section 4045. 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 4046. Offshore Oil and Gas Fabrication Ports, Louisiana

        Directs the Secretary, when determining the feasibility of
    projects for navigation at Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene,
    Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, and Iberia Port, Louisiana, to
    consider all economic benefits associated with contracts for
    new energy exploration and energy infrastructure fabrication
    that would result from the project to be national economic
    development benefits. This section also repeals section 6009 of
    Public Law 109-13, which attempts to address this project-
    specific issue through a broad change in national policy for
    the development of navigation projects. The Committee is aware
    that the economic justification for the Port of Iberia is
    complete, applying the standard set forth in section 6009 of
    Public Law 109-13. The Committee does not intend this section
    to apply a different standard or require any new economic
    justification for the Port of Iberia. This amendment is
    intended to repeal the general change to the policy for
    calculating navigation benefits and to instead specify the test
    for economic justification for two ports. The Committee notes
    that under section 6009 of Public Law 109-13, the same energy
    contracts that the Port of Iberia expects to receive could be
    used to justify a Federal interest in competing oil and gas
    fabrication ports, because under that section, merely shifting
    economic benefits from one port to another is defined as
    national economic development benefits.

    Section 4047. Vermilion River, Louisiana

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation on the
    Vermilion River, Louisiana.

    Section 4048. 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, Louisiana.

    Section 4049. Patapsco River, Maryland

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine and
    assess the impact of debris in the Patapsco River basin,
    Maryland, on wetlands, water quality, and public health and to
    identify management measures to reduce the inflow of debris
    into the Patapsco River.

    Section 4050. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of deepening a portion of the navigation channel
    for Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, seaward
    of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and
    Somerset, Massachusetts.

    Section 4051. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction on Ore Lake and the Huron River for Hamburg and Green
    Oak townships, Michigan.

    Section 4052. St. Clair River, Michigan

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to examine the
    relationships among water levels, dredging, and erosion in the
    St. Clair River, Lake Michigan, and Lake Huron. The report on
    the results of the study may include recommendations on how to
    address the water level declines in Lake Michigan and Lake
    Huron.

    Section 4053. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study and prepare a
    report to evaluate the integrity of the bulkhead system located
    on and in the vicinity of Duluth-Superior Harbor, Duluth,
    Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin.

    Section 4054. Wild Rice River, Minnesota

        Directs the Secretary to review the project for flood
    protection, Wild Rice River, Minnesota, to develop alternatives
    for the Twin Valley Lake feature.

    Section 4055. Mississippi Coastal Area, Mississippi

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of making improvements or modifications to existing
    projects in the coastal area of Mississippi in the interest of
    hurricane and storm damage reduction, prevention of saltwater
    intrusion, preservation of fish and wildlife, prevention of
    erosion, and other related purposes.

    Section 4056. 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 4057. St. Louis, Missouri

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, St. Louis, Missouri, to restore or rehabilitate the
    existing levee system for the City of St. Louis, Missouri.

    Section 4058. Dredged Material Disposal, New Jersey

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for the construction of a
    dredged material disposal transfer facility in the vicinity of
    the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to make dredged material
    available for beneficial use.

    Section 4059. Bayonne, New Jersey

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
    restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced public
    access, and recreation, on the Kill Van Kull, Bayonne, New
    Jersey.

    Section 4060. Carteret, New Jersey

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
    restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced public
    access, and recreation, on the Raritan River, Carteret, New
    Jersey.

    Section 4061. Elizabeth River, Elizabeth, New Jersey

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements
    in the Elizabeth River watershed, Elizabeth, New Jersey.

    Section 4062. Gloucester County, New Jersey

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Gloucester, New Jersey, including the feasibility of
    restoring flood protection dikes in Gibbstown, New Jersey, and
    associated tidegates in Gloucester, New Jersey. In conducting
    the study, the Secretary shall use any relevant information
    developed by the Corps or the non-Federal interest related to
    temporary, emergency, or permanent improvements.

    Section 4063. Perth Amboy, New Jersey

        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 Arthur Kill, Perth Amboy, New
    Jersey.

    Section 4064. Wreck Pond, Monmouth County, New Jersey

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental
    restoration at Wreck Pond, New Jersey, including Black Creek
    and associated waters.

    Section 4065. Batavia, New York

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for micro-hydropower and
    related purposes in the vicinity of Batavia, New York.

    Section 4066. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York, including
    potential solutions to flooding that result from ice jams.

    Section 4067. East Chester Bay, Turtle Cove, New York

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, East
    Chester Bay, Turtle Cove, New York.

    Section 4068. Finger Lakes, New York

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem
    restoration and protection, Finger Lakes, New York, to address
    water quality and invasive species.

    Section 4069. 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 4070. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage
    reduction and shoreline protection in the vicinity of Gallagher
    Beach, Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.

    Section 4071. Newtown Creek, New York

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements
    at Newtown Creek, Brooklyn and Queens, New York.

    Section 4072. Niagara River, New York

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for a low-head
    hydroelectric generating facility in the Niagara River, New
    York.

    Section 4073. Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York

        Authorizes a non-profit organization to participate as the
    non-Federal sponsor for a study being conducted for the Upper
    Delaware River Watershed, New York.

    Section 4074. Lincoln County, North Carolina

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of existing water
    and water quality-related infrastructure in Lincoln County and
    to assist local interests in determining the most efficient and
    effective way to connect county infrastructure.

    Section 4075. Wilkes County, North Carolina

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Wilkes
    County, North Carolina.

    Section 4076. Yadkinville, North Carolina

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
    Yadkinville, North Carolina.

    Section 4077. Cincinnati, Ohio

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration
    of and recreation on the Ohio River, Cincinnati, Ohio, and
    directs the Secretary to use the Central Riverfront Park Master
    Plan, dated December 1999, if it is consistent with Federal
    standards and to provide the non-Federal sponsor with credit
    for work performed within the previous five years, if integral
    to any project authorized as a result of this study. The
    Committee is aware that the Secretary has authority to carry
    out design work for this project and expects the Secretary to
    continue to conduct that work. However, there has been no
    evaluation of the feasibility of this project and this section
    authorizes the Secretary to conduct that evaluation.

    Section 4078. Euclid, Ohio

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, ecosystem
    restoration and recreation on Lake Erie, in the vicinity of the
    Euclid Lakefront, Euclid, Ohio.

    Section 4079. Lake Erie, Ohio

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for wind power generation
    at confined disposal facilities along Lake Erie, Ohio.

    Section 4080. Ohio River, Ohio

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction on the Ohio River within the counties of Mahoning,
    Columbiana, Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, Washington,
    Athens, Meigs, Gallia, Lawrence and Scioto, Ohio.

    Section 4081. 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, and to carry out a project, if
    feasible. Authorizes up to $2,500,000 for projects under this
    section.

    Section 4082. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to investigate
    measures to address hazardous conditions at the project for
    navigation, Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.

    Section 4083. 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 4084. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem
    restoration, Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon. Authorizes
    payment of the non-Federal share in the form of in-kind
    services and materials and directs 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 4085. Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.

    Section 4086. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania

        Directs the Secretary to study the project for flood
    control, Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Warren,
    Pennsylvania, to review operations of and identify
    modifications to the project to expand recreational
    opportunities.

    Section 4087. North Central Pennsylvania

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem
    restoration and protection within the counties of Warren,
    McKean, Potter, Tioga, Lycoming, Centre, Cameron, Elk,
    Clearfield, Jefferson, Clarion, Venango, Forest, Clinton,
    Crawford, and Mifflin, Pennsylvania, relating to abandoned mine
    drainage abatement and reestablishment of stream and river
    channels.

    Section 4088. Northampton and Lehigh Counties Streams, Pennsylvania

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem
    restoration, floodplain management, flood damage reduction,
    water quality control and watershed management, for the streams
    of Northampton and Lehigh counties, Pennsylvania.

    Section 4089. Western Pennsylvania Flood Damage Reduction

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of structural and
    non-structural flood damage reduction, stream bank protection,
    storm water management, channel clearing and modification, and
    watershed coordination measures in the Mahoning River basin,
    the Allegheny River basin, and the Upper Ohio River basin in
    Pennsylvania, to provide flood protection for the communities
    in western Pennsylvania.

    Section 4090. Williamsport, Pennsylvania

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to investigate
    measures to rehabilitate the project for flood control,
    Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

    Section 4091. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction at Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania, including the
    alternative of raising River Road.

    Section 4092. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to reevaluate the
    project for flood damage reduction and water supply, Rio
    Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, to determine the feasibility
    of carrying out the project. Authorizes credit toward the non-
    Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of integral
    work carried out by the non-Federal interest, if integral to
    the project.

    Section 4093. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Crooked
    Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.

    Section 4094. Broad River, York County, South Carolina

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Broad
    River, York County, South Carolina.

    Section 4095. 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, including
    the alternative of constructing a desalination facility.

    Section 4096. Chattanooga, Tennessee

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Chattanooga Creek, Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga,
    Tennessee.

    Section 4097. Cleveland, Tennessee

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Cleveland, Tennessee.

    Section 4098. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for recreation, riverbank
    protection, and environmental protection of the Cumberland
    River and riparian habitats in the city of Nashville and
    Davidson County, Tennessee.

    Section 4099. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for
    Lewis, Lawrence and Wayne counties, Tennessee.

    Section 4100. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis, Tennessee

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction along Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, in the vicinity
    of Memphis, Tennessee, to include repair, replacement,
    rehabilitation, and restoration of the pumping stations:
    Cypress Creek, Nonconnah Creek, Ensley, Marble Bayou, and Bayou
    Gayoso.

    Section 4101. Abilene, Texas

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply,
    Abilene, Texas.

    Section 4102. Coastal Texas Ecosystem Protection and Restoration, Texas

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem
    restoration in the coastal areas of Texas.

    Section 4103. Fort Bend County, Texas

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Fort Bend County, Texas.

    Section 4104. Harris County, Texas

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Harris County, Texas.

    Section 4105. Port of Galveston, Texas

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for dredged material
    disposal for the Port of Galveston, Texas.

    Section 4106. Roma Creek, Texas

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Roma Creek, Texas.

    Section 4107. Walnut Creek, Texas

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, environmental restoration and erosion control,
    Walnut Creek, Texas.

    Section 4108. 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, including a review of
    the impact on the Spanish Valley Aquifer of current and future
    water supply demands.

    Section 4109. Southwestern Utah

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, Santa Clara River, within the counties of
    Washington, Iron, and Kane, Utah.

    Section 4110. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, environmental restoration, navigation, and erosion
    control, Chowan River basin, Virginia and North Carolina.

    Section 4111. James River, Richmond, Virginia

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage
    reduction, James River, Richmond, Virginia, in the vicinity of
    the Shockoe Bottom area.

    Section 4112. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington

        Modifies the study for the rehabilitation of the Elliott
    Bay Seawall to include a determination of the feasibility of
    reducing future damage from seismic activity. Authorizes the
    Secretary to accept excess contributions from the non-Federal
    interest to facilitate completion of the study and to authorize
    credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any project
    authorized as a result of the study an amount equal to the
    value of any such contributions.

    Section 4113. 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 Rithchie, West Virginia, particularly as
    related to abandoned mine drainage abatement.

    Section 4114. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Kenosha
    Harbor, Wisconsin, including the extension of existing piers.

    Section 4115. 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, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, and greater Milwaukee
    watersheds, Wisconsin.

                       TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    Section 5001. Maintenance of Navigation Channels

        Authorizes the Secretary to maintain the following
    navigation channels, if feasible: (1) Manatee Harbor basin,
    Florida; (2) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana;
    (3) Calcasieu River at Devil's Elbow, Louisiana; (4) Pidgeon
    Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, Memphis Harbor,
    Tennessee; (5) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County,
    Texas; and (6) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin.

    Section 5002. Watershed Management

        Authorizes $15,000,000 for 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) Cucamonga basin, Upland, California.
              (2) Charlotte Harbor watershed, Florida.
              (3) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.
              (4) Portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee,
            Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers within the
            counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta,
            DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett,
            Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia.
              (5) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
              (6) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
              (7) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish
            and Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
              (8) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
              (9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.
              (10) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
              (11) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.
              (12) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
              (13) Buffalo River watershed, New York.
              (14) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York.
              (15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County,
            New York.
              (16) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene,
            Sullivan, and Ulster counties, New York.
              (17) Genesee River watershed, New York.
              (18) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New
            Jersey.
              (19) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.
              (20) Oswego River basin, New York.
              (21) Ramapo River watershed, New York.
              (22) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York.
              (23) Tuscarawas River basin, Ohio.
              (24) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.
              (25) Portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper
            Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas,
            Lower Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning
            Rivers in Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer
            counties, Pennsylvania.
              (26) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
              (27) Unami Creek, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
              (28) Sauk River basin, Washington.
              (29) Greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin.

    Section 5003. Dam safety

        Authorizes $6,000,000 for the Secretary to provide
    assistance to enhance dam safety at the following locations:
              (1) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
              (2) Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.
              (3) Candor Dam, Candor, New York.
              (4) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
              (5) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
              (6) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township,
            Pennsylvania.
              (7) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
              (8) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
              (9) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County,
            Pennsylvania.
        The assistance for State Dam, Auburn, New York shall be for
    rehabilitation in accordance with the report on State Dam
    Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake Outlet, New York, dated March 1999,
    if feasible. This section also states the sense of Congress
    that the Secretary should immediately remedy the deterioration
    of the Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon, and amends section 504 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to clarify that there
    are multiple dams on Kehly Run, Pennsylvania.

    Section 5004. Structural Integrity Evaluations

        Authorizes the Secretary to evaluate the structural
    integrity and effectiveness of projects for flood damage
    reduction and to prevent project failure at the following
    locations: Arkansas River Levees, Arkansas, and 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: Ascension Parish, Louisiana; East
    Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; Iberville Parish, Louisiana;
    Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and Pointe Coupee 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. Authorizes
    assistance made available under the rural enterprise zone
    program of the Department of Agriculture to be used toward
    payment of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for
    East Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas, if such
    assistance is authorized to be used for such purposes. In
    carrying out the project for the Colonias along the United
    States-Mexico Border, the Secretary may provide assistance to
    projects in Hidalgo County, Texas.

    Section 5007. Expedited Completion of Reports and Construction for
            Certain Projects

        Directs the Secretary to expedite completion of reports
    and, if feasible, construction for the following projects being
    carried out under existing authorities:
              (1) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York.
              (2) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York.
              (3) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York.
              (4) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New
            York.
              (5) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point,
            New York.
              (6) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York.
              (7) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York.

    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 water supply, Little Red River,
            Arkansas.
              (2) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont
            Key, Florida.
              (3) Project for ecosystem restoration, University
            Lake, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
              (4) Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
            Montauk Point, New York.
        This section directs the Secretary to waive the non-Federal
    cost-share allocated to that portion of the project for
    shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, which protects
    federally owned property. This section also directs the
    Secretary to complete the report for the project for hurricane
    and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York.

    Section 5009. Southeastern Water Resources Assessment

        Directs the Secretary to conduct an assessment of water
    resources needs of the Southeastern United States and
    authorizes cooperative agreements with State and local
    agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional
    researchers, and other interested parties to carry out the
    assessment. The Tennessee Natural Resources Policy Center of
    the University of Tennessee has significant expertise in the
    water resources of the Southeastern United States. The
    Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with the
    University of Tennessee to carry out this section.

    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 in-kind services
    and materials, and to allow non-profit entities to serve as
    non-Federal sponsors, with the consent of the affected local
    government.

    Section 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement
            Project

        Amends the Missouri and Middle Mississippi River
    Enhancement Project to extend the authorization period through
    2015.

    Section 5012. Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration

        Amends Section 506 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 2000 to allow 100% of the non-Federal share to be provided
    in the form of in-kind contributions for the Great Lakes
    Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration program.

    Section 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment
            remediation

        Amends Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1990 to extend the authority of the Secretary to provide
    assistance for Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and sediment
    remediation projects through 2011.

    Section 5014. Great Lakes tributary model

        Amends Section 516 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1996 to extend the authorization of appropriations for the
    development of a Great Lakes tributary sediment transport model
    through 2011.

    Section 5015. 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. This section also
    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 5016. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection
            program

        Amends the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and
    Protection Program to include restoration of submerged aquatic
    vegetation and to increase the authorization to $50,000,000.

    Section 5017. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration

        Amends section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1986 to increase authorization to $30,000,000.

    Section 5018. Hypoxia assessment

        Authorizes the Secretary to participate with Federal,
    State, and local agencies Non-Federal and nonprofit entities,
    regional researchers, and other interested parties to assess
    hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. The Committee is aware of the
    consortium between Ohio State University and Louisiana State
    University to address these issues, and of the expertise of the
    Olentangy River Wetland Research Park located on the Ohio State
    University campus in Columbus, Ohio. The assistance provided
    under this section may be used to collaborate with researchers
    at the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, including
    participation in a river monitoring network, and the
    development of wetland and river research tools.

    Section 5019. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy
            evaluation and monitoring program

        Authorizes the Secretary to participate in the Potomac
    River Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy Evaluation
    and Monitoring Program to identify a series of resource
    management indicators to monitor the effectiveness of
    strategies and public policies that pertain to natural resource
    protection of the Potomac River watershed.

    Section 5020. lock and dam security

        Directs the Secretary to develop standards for the security
    of locks and dams, provide technical assistance on a
    reimbursable basis, and enter into cooperative agreements to
    carry out testing and certification activities. The Committee
    is aware that the National Safe Waterways and Seaports Alliance
    has the capability to conduct comprehensive operational
    testing, vulnerability and risk assessments, security planning
    exercises, computer simulation modeling, and training. The
    Alliance also has expertise regarding barriers to prevent
    vessels from approaching too near a dam or other critical
    waterway infrastructure. The Secretary may enter into a
    cooperative agreement with the Alliance to carry out this
    section.

    Section 5021. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama

        Directs the Secretary to design and construct the locally
    preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook Creek,
    Huntsville, Alabama, and to allow the non-Federal interest to
    increase its participation in the project to the extent
    necessary to implement the project.

    Section 5022. Tallapoosa, Alabama

        Authorizes $5,000,000 for the Secretary to provide
    technical assistance relating to water supply for the Middle
    Tallapoosa Water Supply District, Alabama.

    Section 5023. Alaska

        Amends section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1999 to add environmental restoration as an authorized
    purpose, 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. This authority may be used to provide
    assistance for any publicly owned project, as well as any
    project owned by a Native Corporation. In addition, this
    authority may be used to address environmental restoration,
    including abatement of abandoned mines.

    Section 5024. Barrow, Alaska

        Directs the Secretary to carry out a nonstructural project
    for coastal erosion and storm damage prevention and reduction
    at Barrow, Alaska, including the relocation of a stretch of
    road that is eroding away.

    Section 5025. Coffman Cove, Alaska

        Authorizes the Secretary to carry out the project for
    navigation, Coffman Cove, Alaska, at a total cost of
    $3,000,000.

    Section 5026. Fort Yukon, Alaska

        Authorizes the Secretary to make repairs to the dike at
    Fort Yukon, Alaska, in accordance with the Corps of Engineers
    standards.

    Section 5027. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska

        Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a project for
    navigation, Kotzebue Harbor, Kotzebue, Alaska, at a total cost
    of $2,200,000.

    Section 5028. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska

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

    Section 5029. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska

        Authorizes $2,000,000 to fund the removal of rubble,
    sediment, and debris from harbors at Kodiak, Alaska.

    Section 5030. Tanana River, Alaska

        Directs the Secretary to carry out, on an emergency basis,
    the removal of the hazard to navigation on the Tanana River,
    Alaska, near the confluence of the Tanana and Chena rivers, as
    described in the January 3, 2005, Memorandum from the
    Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, to the Army Corps
    of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. The Committee
    believes that the Secretary has the authority to remove this
    hazard to navigation under the authority of section 20 of the
    Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and its implementing
    regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 245, which define an obstruction
    to navigation as anything that restricts, endangers, or
    interferes with navigation. However, to remove any doubt of the
    Secretary's authority and the Committee's intent that this
    hazard to navigation be removed, the Committee has included
    this section in the bill.

    Section 5031. Valdez, Alaska

        Authorizes the Secretary to construct a small boat harbor
    in Valdez, Alaska at a total cost of $20,000,000.

    Section 5032. Whittier, Alaska

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of two navigation projects at Whittier, Alaska, a
    new boat harbor at the head of Whittier Bay, and expansion of
    the existing harbor at Whittier. If the Secretary determines a
    project is feasible, the Secretary is authorized to carry out
    the feasible project or projects, as the case may be. This
    section also directs the Secretary to allow the non-Federal
    interest to use funds provided under any other Federal program
    to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of a project, if the
    funds are authorized for such purposes.

    Section 5033. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska

        Defines the general navigation features of the project for
    navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.

    Section 5034. 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 5035. Des Arc Levee Protection, Arkansas

        Directs the Secretary to review the project for flood
    control, Des Arc, Arkansas, to determine whether bank and
    channel scour along the White River threatens the existing
    project and whether the scour is a result of design deficiency.
    Authorizes the Secretary to carry out measures to eliminate the
    deficiency.

    Section 5036. Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas

        Directs the Secretary to accept non-Federal contributions
    of cash, easements, lands, rights-of-way, relocations, and
    dredged material disposal areas as of September 2003 as
    fulfillment of cost sharing responsibilities for the flood
    control project at Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas.

    Section 5037. 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
    damage that has occurred as a result of the Federal navigation
    project.

    Section 5038. 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, Arkansas and
    Missouri.

    Section 5039. White River Basin, Arkansas

        Directs the Secretary to implement certain authorized
    alternatives identified in the White River Minimum Flows
    Reallocation Study, Arkansas and Missouri, July 2004, and to
    cost-share such alternatives as fish and wildlife enhancement
    under section 906(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
    1986. This section also requires losses to hydropower as a
    result of the reallocation of water for minimum flows and as a
    result of the operation of an authorized fish hatchery to be
    offset by a reduction in costs allocated to hydropower. The
    total amount of the offset may not exceed $17,000,000 for
    losses resulting from the reallocation for minimum flows and
    $2,200,000 for operation of the fish hatchery. The duplicative
    authorization in section 374 of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1999 is repealed.
        In section 304 of the Water Resources Development Act of
    2000, the Secretary of the Army was authorized to carry out
    minimum flow projects to sustain tail water trout fisheries by
    reallocating recommended amounts of project storage at five
    White River basin reservoirs in Arkansas and Missouri. That
    authorization provided that no funds could be obligated to
    carry out such work until the Chief of Engineers, through a
    final report, determined that the work is technically sound,
    environmentally acceptable, and economically justified. The
    Chief of Engineers made this finding in the White River Minimum
    Flows Reallocation Study, Arkansas and Missouri, dated July 30,
    2004. In this bill, the Committee is directing the Secretary to
    implement alternatives BS-3 and NF-7, reallocating water at
    only two of the five White River reservoirs, Bull Shoals and
    Norfolk, for the purpose of enhancing the tail water trout
    fishery below these dams. Section 906(e)(1) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 provides that projects that
    enhance fish and wildlife resources with national benefits
    shall be carried out at Federal expense. The Committee finds
    that the benefits of these projects are national. The non-
    Federal interest shall be responsible for all lands, easements,
    rights-of-way and relocations.
        The Committee acknowledges the efforts of Mr. Forrest L.
    Wood in bringing all interested parties together to reach
    consensus on the White River Minimum Flows Reallocation Study
    and this legislative provision, as well as Mr. Wood's
    contribution as the chairman of the Arkansas State Game & Fish
    Commission and as a nationally renowned bass fisherman.

    Section 5040. 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 5041. 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 5042. Dana Point Harbor, California

        Directs the Secretary to determine the causes of water
    quality degradation within Dana Point Harbor, California, and
    if the Secretary determines the degradation to be a result of a
    Federal navigation project, to mitigate the degradation at
    Federal expense.

    Section 5043. 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 5044. Eastern Santa Clara Basin, California

        Amends section 111 of Division B Public Law 106-554 to
    increase the authorization for the Secretary to participate in
    investigations relating to sites that are sources of
    perchlorate in groundwater in Santa Clarita, California, from
    $7,000,000 to $10,000,000.

    Section 5045. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California

        Directs the Secretary to review the Kings River Fisheries
    Management Program Framework Agreement and authorizes
    $20,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in the management
    program, if feasible, using data and environmental
    documentation from the Report of the Chief of Engineers, Pine
    Flat Dam and Reservoir, Fresno County, California, dated July
    19, 2002. Authorizes credit towards the non-Federal share of
    the cost of the project for work carried out by the non-Federal
    interest, if integral to the project.

    Section 5046. 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 the Secretary to participate in
    the construction of a replacement bridge.

    Section 5047. San Francisco, California

        Authorizes $20,000,000 for the Secretary to participate in
    efforts related to navigation- related facilities.

    Section 5048. San Francisco, California, waterfront area

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

    Section 5049. Santa Venetia, California

        Directs the Secretary to carry out a small flood damage
    reduction project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
    1958, if feasible, notwithstanding any policy relating to the
    volume of water flows. This section also authorizes the non-
    Federal interest to increase its participation in the project,
    to the extent necessary to implement the project.

    Section 5050. Stockton, California

        Directs the Secretary to 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, to determine the
    eligibility of such elements for reimbursement under section
    211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. Directs the
    Secretary to provide reimbursement if such elements of the
    project are feasible, notwithstanding any policies concerning
    frequency of flooding, size of the drainage area, or the amount
    of runoff.

    Section 5051. Victor V. Veysey Dam, California

        Redesignates the Prado Dam as the ``Victor V. Veysey Dam''.

    Section 5052. Whittier, California

        Directs the Secretary to carry out a project for flood
    damage reduction in the vicinity of Whittier, California, under
    section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, notwithstanding
    any policy relating to the size of flows to be addressed by the
    project.

    Section 5053. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,
            Connecticut

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

    Section 5054. Christina River shipwreck, Delaware

        Authorizes the Secretary to remove debris associated with
    the steamship ``State of Pennsylvania'' and other derelict
    vessels from the Christina River, Delaware.

    Section 5055. Anacostia River, District of Columbia, Maryland, and
            Virginia

        Directs the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan for
    the restoration of the Anacostia River and its tributaries.

    Section 5056. 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 if the Secretary
    determines that the work is integral to the project.

    Section 5057. Lake Worth, Florida

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

    Section 5058. 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 5059. 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 5060. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects

        Authorizes $30,000,000 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 5061. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration

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

    Section 5062. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago,
            Illinois

        Directs the Secretary to provide assistance for a project
    to develop maps identifying flood inundation areas along the
    Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.

    Section 5063. 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 policy relating to
    minimum water flows.

    Section 5064. Illinois River Basin Restoration

        Extends the authorization for restoration of the Illinois
    River Basin until 2010. This section 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. This section also authorizes non-profit entities
    to serve as non-Federal interests, with the consent of the
    affected local government, and directs the Secretary to develop
    an Illinois River basin monitoring program. In developing and
    implementing the computerized inventory and analysis system for
    the project, the Secretary is directed to incorporate data
    provided by the State of Illinois from the Illinois River
    Decision Support System.

    Section 5065. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois

        Directs the Secretary to reevaluate the feasibility of
    constructing the Promontory Point section of the project
    authorized by Section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1996, matching the original limestone step
    design.

    Section 5066. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of shoaling in the
    vicinity of Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, and if the shoaling
    is a result of the Federal navigation project, directs the
    Secretary to carry out a project to mitigate the shoaling.

    Section 5067. Calumet Region, Indiana

        Amends section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 to authorize credit for work carried
    out by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project.

    Section 5068. Floodplain Mapping, Missouri River, Iowa

        Directs the Secretary to provide assistance to develop maps
    identifying flood inundation areas in the State of Iowa along
    the Missouri River.

    Section 5069. Rathbun Lake, Iowa

        Directs the Secretary to provide water supply to the
    Rathbun Regional Water Association with costs allocated
    pursuant to existing law, and to provide credit towards these
    costs for certain in-kind contributions.

    Section 5070. 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 5071. Louisville, Kentucky

        Amends Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1999 to include Louisville, Kentucky.

    Section 5072. 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 damage
    resulting from the navigation project.

    Section 5073. 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 5074. Paducah, Kentucky

        Directs the Secretary to complete the feasibility report
    for the rehabilitation of the project for flood damage
    reduction, Paducah, Kentucky, and if feasible, to carry out the
    project at a total cost of $3,000,000.

    Section 5075. Southern and Eastern Kentucky

        Authorizes the Secretary to use 10% of appropriated amounts
    for administrative expenses.

    Section 5076. Winchester, Kentucky

        Authorizes technical, planning, and design assistance for a
    wastewater infrastructure project, Winchester, Kentucky.

    Section 5077. Baton Rouge, Louisiana

        Amends section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources and
    Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization level to
    $35,000,000.

    Section 5078. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana

        Directs the Secretary to expedite completion of the dredged
    material management plan for the Calcasieu Ship Channel,
    Louisiana.

    Section 5079. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana

        Authorizes the Secretary to accept funds from the
    Department of the Air Force, to construct a water intake
    facility in Shreveport, Louisiana, to benefit the community and
    the Air Force Base.

    Section 5080. 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 5081. Charlestown, Maryland

        Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a project for non-
    structural flood control, Charlestown, Maryland, to include
    land acquisition from willing sellers, and authorizes
    $2,000,000 to carry out this section.

    Section 5082. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Maryland and Delaware

        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 5083. Massachusetts Dredged Material Disposal Sites

        Authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with Massachusetts in
    management and long-term monitoring of aquatic dredged material
    disposal sites within the Commonwealth and to accept funds from
    the Commonwealth to carry out such activities.

    Section 5084. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of shore damage in
    the vicinity of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor,
    Michigan, and if the Secretary determines the damage is the
    result of the navigation project, directs the Secretary to
    carry out a project to mitigate the damage.

    Section 5085. 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 5086. Crookston, Minnesota

        Directs the Secretary to carry out an emergency streambank
    protection project in the vicinity of Highway 2, Crookston,
    Minnesota, at a total cost of $6,500,000, if feasible.

    Section 5087. 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, to increase the authorization of appropriations,
    and to authorize the Secretary to use the contracting
    procedures developed under section 569 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1999 in carrying out this authority.

    Section 5088. Minneapolis, Minnesota

        Directs the Secretary to convey by quitclaim deed on behalf
    of the United States to the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, the
    War Department (Fort Snelling Interceptor) Tunnel.

    Section 5089. 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. This section also directs the
    Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal interest for the project
    in Biwabik, Minnesota, that portion of the project costs that
    exceed the non-Federal share of project costs.

    Section 5090. 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 5091. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois

        Authorizes the Secretary to carry out environmental
    restoration activities at the project for the Mississippi River
    (Regulating Works), between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers,
    Missouri and Illinois, as part of operation and maintenance of
    the project.

    Section 5092. St. Louis, Missouri

        Amends section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization of
    appropriations to $35,000,000.

    Section 5093. Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey

        Directs the Secretary to carry out a project for flood
    damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
    1948 for Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, if the Secretary determines
    that the project is feasible, notwithstanding any policy
    regarding minimum water flows.

    Section 5094. 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 interest, expand the scope of
    the authorization, allow credit for in-kind services, and
    increase the authorization of appropriations.

    Section 5095. Central New Mexico, New Mexico

        Amends Section 593 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 1999 to increase the authorization of appropriations to
    $40,000,000, and to allow 10% of amounts appropriated to be
    used for administrative expenses.

    Section 5096. 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, extend the
    authorization, and authorize a tsunami warning system

    Section 5097. College Point, New York City, New York

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

    Section 5098. 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 5099. Hudson River, New York

        Authorizes $5,000,000 for the Secretary to participate with
    the State of New York, New York City, and the Hudson River Park
    Trust, in carrying out activities to restore critical marine
    habitat, improve safety, and protect and rehabilitate critical
    infrastructure.

    Section 5100. Mount Morris Dam, New York

        Authorizes the Secretary to make improvements to the access
    road for Mount Morris Dam, New York, to provide safe access to
    the Federal visitor's center.

    Section 5101. Onondaga Lake, New York

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

    Section 5102. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina

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

    Section 5103. 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 5104. W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina

        Authorizes the Secretary to remove debris from the joint
    intake at the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.

    Section 5105. Ohio

        Amends section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act
    to increase the authorization of appropriations to
    $100,000,000.

    Section 5106. Toussaint River, Ohio

        Authorizes the Secretary to transfer a dredge to the non-
    Federal interest at the project for navigation, Toussaint
    River, Ohio, and, upon transfer of the dredge and payment of
    the net present value of future dredging costs, releases the
    Secretary from responsibility for dredging such river.

    Section 5107. 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. Directs the Secretary to include
    non-economic benefits when determining feasibility.

    Section 5108. 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 5109. Lowell, Oregon

        Authorizes the Secretary to convey land in Lowell, Oregon.

    Section 5110. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

        Amends Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 by directing the Secretary 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 5111. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania

        Authorizes $500,000 for the Secretary to use existing water
    quality data to model the effects of the Francis E. Walter Dam,
    to determine is impact on water and related resources in and
    along the Lehigh River in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.

    Section 5112. Northeast Pennsylvania

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

    Section 5113. 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 1996 to clarify the Secretary's
    authority to implement the program, to increase the
    authorization of appropriations, 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 can 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 non-profit
    organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited, and local soil and
    water conservation districts. In implementing the strategy,
    priority is given to a project for ecosystem restoration,
    Cooperstown, New York, described in the Upper Susquehanna River
    Basin--Cooperstown Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility
    Study, dated December 2004. 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 5114. 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. Because the non-Federal report was
    in fact prepared by the Corps of Engineers under its authority
    to perform work for others, the Committee expects the review to
    be prompt and less expensive than a review of a study proposed
    by an outside entity.

    Section 5115. 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 5116. 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 5117. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee

        Directs the Secretary to construct a trail system at the J.
    Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Ohio River Basin, Tennessee.

    Section 5118. 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 County, Tennessee, in accordance with the
    feasibility report of the Nashville district engineer dated
    November 2000.

    Section 5119. Tennessee River partnership

        Authorizes the Secretary to enter into a partnership with a
    non-profit entity to remove debris from the Tennessee River in
    the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by providing the non-
    profit entity with a vessel for debris removal, at Federal
    expense, not to exceed $500,000.

    Section 5120. Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and
            Mississippi

        Authorizes $5,000,000 for the Secretary to participate with
    non-Federal, non-profit entities to address issues related to
    groundwater as a sustainable resource through the Upper
    Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi.
    The University of Memphis Groundwater Institute, has
    significant expertise in the Upper Mississippi River Embayment.
    Under this section, the Secretary may work with the University
    of Memphis to conduct a study of the feasibility of managing
    ground water as a sustainable resource throughout the
    Mississippi Embayment and to coordinate ground water and
    surface water protection programs.

    Section 5121. Bosque River Watershed, Texas

        Directs the Secretary to develop a comprehensive plan for
    restoring, preserving, and protecting the Bosque River
    Watershed, Texas, and authorizes $5,000,000 to develop the plan
    and implement projects to demonstrate practicable alternatives.
    Authorizes the Secretary to work with public, non-profit
    entities in carrying out this section. The Committee is aware
    that Texas A&M University possesses the capability to assist
    the Secretary under this authority.

    Section 5122. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas

        Directs the Secretary to carry out the local plan for the
    project for flood damage reduction, Dallas Floodway, Dallas,
    Texas, if technically sound and environmentally acceptable, at
    a total cost of $194,000,000. Authorizes credit for work
    performed by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the
    project authorized by this section.

    Section 5123. Harris County, Texas

        Amends 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. This section also adds the project for flood
    control, Upper White Oak Bayou, Texas, to the list of projects
    covered by this section.

    Section 5124. 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 5125. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia

        Authorizes the Secretary to accept funds from the National
    Park Service to restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.

    Section 5126. Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia

        Amends Section 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1992 to include environmental restoration as
    a project purpose and to direct the Secretary to provide credit
    toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for
    work that is integral to the project.

    Section 5127. James River, Virginia

        Authorizes the Secretary to accept funds from the National
    Park Service to provide technical and project management
    assistance for the James River, Virginia, with emphasis on
    locations along the shoreline impacted by Hurricane Isabel.

    Section 5128. 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 5129. 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 5130. Puget Island, Washington

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

    Section 5131. Willapa Bay, Washington

        Amends Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act
    of 2000 to direct the Secretary to construct the project for
    coastal erosion protection, Willapa Bay, Washington, and to
    expand the authority to include ecosystem restoration.

    Section 5132. 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 5133. 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 to $90,000,000.

    Section 5134. 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 5135. Central West Virginia

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

    Section 5136. Southern West Virginia

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

    Section 5137. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin

        Directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the
    Johnsonville Dam, to determine if the structure prevents ice
    jams on the Sheboygan River.

    Section 5138. 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; (2) Halls Bayou, Texas; (3) St. Paul
    Downtown Airport (Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota; (4)
    Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois; (5) Larose to Golden
    Meadow, Louisiana; and, (6) Perris, California.

    Section 5139. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet

        Directs 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.

                          TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

    Section 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida

        Subsection (a) amends section 101(a)(16) of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1999 to increase the authorization
    for the Hillsboro and Okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery
    project.
        Subsection (b) amends section 601 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000 to direct that the Hillsboro and
    Okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery project be treated as
    part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, except
    that operation and maintenance shall remain a non-Federal
    responsibility.

    Section 6002. Pilot Projects

        Increases the authorization for the Everglades pilot
    projects authorized under section 601(b) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000.

    Section 6003. Maximum Cost of Projects

        Amends section 601(b) to ensure that section 902 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986 applies to new
    Everglades projects authorized under section 601(d) of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

    Section 6004. Project authorization

        Amends section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 2000 to authorize the project for ecosystem restoration,
    Indian River Lagoon South, Florida, substantially in accordance
    with the Indian River Lagoon South, Florida report of the Chief
    of Engineers, dated August 6, 2004. The Committee is aware that
    components of the Indian River Lagoon South, Florida, project
    for ecosystem restoration depend on the completion of other
    components of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
    For example, dredging for muck removal should not take place
    until the quantity and quality of flows into the Lagoon from
    Lake Okeechobee are resolved. The Committee expects the
    Secretary to sequence the construction of this project in a
    cost-effective manner that avoids duplication of effort.

    Section 6005. Credit

        Amends section 601(e) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 2000 to authorize credit for work on Everglades
    restoration projects carried out before the date of a
    partnership agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal
    sponsor, and to authorize to Secretary to enter into an
    agreement with the non-Federal sponsor to specify conditions
    relating to design and construction of such work. The Committee
    is concerned about the practice of the non-Federal sponsor
    performing work on the project without a written agreement with
    the Corps, and then relying upon legislation to receive credit
    against the non-Federal share. Consistent with section 2016 of
    this bill, for future work to be considered eligible for
    credit, it must be performed under a written agreement with the
    Secretary.

    Section 6006. Outreach and assistance

        Specifies that up to $3,000,000 a year may be expended on
    outreach and assistance authorized under section 601(k) of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

    Section 6007. Critical restoration projects

        Increases the authorization for critical Everglades
    restoration projects authorized under section 528 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1996.

    Section 6008. Deauthorizations

        Deauthorizes the uncompleted portions of projects that have
    been superseded by the Indian River Lagoon South, project for
    ecosystem restoration.

    Section 6009. Modified water delivery

        Prohibits the Secretary from carrying out a project to
    raise Tamiami Trail, unless the project is specifically
    authorized by law. Directs the Secretary to submit to Congress
    recommendations for (1) any necessary changes to the project
    for modifying water deliveries to Everglades National Park, (2)
    a project, if necessary, to raise Tamiami Trail, and (3) a
    combined structural and an operational plan for the C-111
    project and the project to modify water deliveries to
    Everglades National Park.
        The Committee is aware of suggestions that it may be cost-
    effective to carry out a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
    Plan (CERP) project for raising Tamiami Trail concurrently with
    the project for modifying water deliveries to Everglades
    National Park. CERP projects have specific project development
    and cost-sharing requirements set forth in section 601 of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Moreover, a project to
    raise Tamiami Trail is not currently authorized. If the
    Secretary wishes to carry out a project to raise Tamiami Trail,
    the Secretary must first submit to Congress a report
    recommending such a project, with the participation of a non-
    Federal interest willing to undertake the cost-sharing
    responsibilities required by section 601 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2000. If the Secretary wishes to carry out a
    project to raise Tamiami Trail concurrently with the modified
    water delivery project, the Secretary also must submit a report
    to Congress recommending changes to the modified water delivery
    project that explain how that project would be combined with a
    CERP project. This report must explain what project elements
    are authorized under section 104 of the Everglades National
    Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, to be fully funded
    by the Department of the Interior, and what project elements
    are part of CERP, to be cost-shared on a 50-50 basis between
    the State of Florida and the Corps of Engineers. Finally,
    because the operation of the modified water delivery project
    and the C-111 project are integrally related to one another and
    to a determination of whether or not Tamiami Trail needs to be
    raised, the Secretary must submit to Congress a report
    explaining how these projects will operate. Many of these
    issues have been discussed for years, but little progress has
    been made towards resolution. The Committee is willing to work
    with all interested parties to seek resolution of these issues
    as it moves forward with this Water Resources Development Act.
    Before this bill becomes law, it is the Committee's goal to
    replace the language of this section with language that would
    establish a new authorization and a clear way forward that will
    address the issues, once and for all, related to increasing
    flows to the Everglades across the Tamiami Trail. The August
    31, 2005, deadline for the submission of reports to Congress in
    the introduced bill was intended to facilitate achievement of
    that goal. Although the deadline has been removed from the bill
    as reported by the Committee, no one should interpret that to
    mean that years more debate on these matters is acceptable.
    This section does not presume any specific outcome, but the
    Committee wants to achieve a final resolution of these matters
    with appropriate cost-sharing, so that the project to improve
    water deliveries the Everglades National Park may finally
    proceed. Pending completion of these projects, the Committee
    directs the Secretary to make every effort to increase water
    flows to the Everglades National Park by clearing existing
    culverts and taking other measures to improve the efficiency of
    existing structures. A continued lack of action following the
    original modified water delivery project authorization of 1989
    is unacceptable. Substantial portions of CERP depend upon an
    operating modified water deliver project to be effective.

                       TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

    Section 7001. Definitions

        Provides definitions for ``Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem,''
    ``Governor,'' ``Plan,'' and ``Task Force.''

    Section 7002. Additional reports

        Directs the Secretary to submit to Congress reports
    recommending modifications to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
    and the Chenier Plain. Also directs the Secretary to develop,
    within one year, a framework for the development of a long-
    term, comprehensive restoration plan for the Louisiana Coastal
    Area, and to submit to Congress, within five years, a report
    recommending such a plan.

    Section 7003. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration
            Task Force

        Establishes an interagency task force to make
    recommendations to the Secretary regarding protection,
    conservation, and restoration of the coastal Louisiana
    ecosystem, as well as recommendations regarding how each agency
    can contribute to the restoration efforts under the agency's
    own authorities.

    Section 7004. Investigations

        Authorizes the Secretary to conduct feasibility studies for
    additional projects for the protection, conservation, and
    restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem. Directs the
    Secretary to review existing water resources projects for
    consistency with restoration efforts.

    Section 7005. Construction

        Authorizes a program for reducing uncertainties regarding
    restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including
    demonstration projects, and projects for the beneficial reuse
    of dredged material. The Committee believes that the
    demonstration projects may be developed and carried out to test
    the technologies, models, and methods that are identified in
    the ecosystem program to reduce uncertainties in the scientific
    and cultural baseline conditions. Also authorizes the following
    initial projects:
              (1) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Environmental
            Restoration.
              (2) Small Diversion at Hope Canal.
              (3) Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration.
              (4) Small Bayou Lafourche Reintroduction.
              (5) Medium Diversion at Myrtle Grove.

    Section 7006. Non-federal cost share

        Authorizes credit toward the non-Federal cost share for
    work carried out by the non-Federal sponsor, if integral to the
    project. Authorizes monitoring of cost-sharing contributions.

    Section 7007. Project justification

        Authorizes the Secretary to determine that projects to
    protect, conserve, and restore the coastal Louisiana Ecosystem
    are justified based on environmental benefits, unless the
    project is primarily intended to produce economic benefits.

    Section 7008. Statutory construction

        Clarifies that nothing in this title affects the
    authorities of other agencies or creates any new regulatory
    authorities.

        TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM

    Section 8001. Definitions

        Establishes definitions for the term ``Plan'' and ``Upper
    Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System.''

    Section 8002. Navigation Improvements and Restoration

        Authorizes the Secretary to undertake navigation
    improvements and ecosystem restoration substantially in
    accordance with the Plan.

    Section 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements

        Authorizes navigation improvements consisting of small
    scale and nonstructural measures and seven new 1,200 foot
    locks. This subsection also specifies that mitigation for these
    projects shall be concurrent with construction.

    Section 8004. Ecosystem Restoration Authorization

        Authorizes environmental improvements including
    modifications to the operation of the Upper Mississippi River
    and Illinois Waterway System to improve the ecological
    integrity of the rivers, and ecosystem restoration projects in
    accordance with the Plan, establishes cost-sharing rules, and
    requires restoration goals, performance measures, measurable
    outcomes, and monitoring. Also requires reports to Congress
    regarding implementation of ecosystem restoration projects and
    the development of a ranking system for ecosystem restoration
    projects.

    Section 8005. Comparable progress

        Requires a determination of whether projects are being
    carried out at a comparable rate and, if not, adjustment of
    annual funding requests.

                               Additional Matters

        In this legislation, the Committee authorizes or extends
    the authorization of various activities for the Corps of
    Engineers to participate in the management of water resources
    in the Great Lakes. In addition to these specific authorities,
    the Corps of Engineers is authorized to provide assistance to
    other Federal agencies on a reimbursable basis. In carrying out
    all of these authorities, the Committee expects the Corps of
    Engineers to be a full participant in the Great Lakes Task
    Force, created by Executive Order No. 13340 in May 2004.
        The Committee is aware of the plan, in accordance with
    Public Law 99-662, to acquire 1750 acres of bottomland
    hardwoods in Little Rock, Arkansas, as part of the Fourche
    Bayou project. The Committee views this as an inseparable part
    of the overall project.
        The Committee is concerned about the failure, in recent
    years, to adequately maintain many shallow draft ports and
    inlets and certain inland waterways. The Nation's navigation
    system is an integrated transportation system. While individual
    components may receive different levels of use, much of the
    cargo that ends up at high use ports and waterways first passes
    through low use ports and waterways. The use of an individual
    port or waterway cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be
    viewed as part of the overall system. Moreover, uncertain
    funding makes reduction in the use of a port or a waterway
    become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is directly contrary to
    the policy objective, articulated by this Committee and by the
    Secretary of Transportation in testimony before this Committee,
    of increasing the use of waterways as an alternative to reduce
    congestion in other transportation modes. The Committee agrees
    with the assessment of the Senate Committee on Appropriations,
    expressed in Senate Report 109-84, that the de facto
    deauthorization of ports and waterways through lack of
    maintenance demonstrates a profound lack of respect for
    Congressional authorizing and oversight Committees.
        The Committee also is concerned about the repeated delay in
    maintenance dredging of the Snake River, a major transportation
    route in the Pacific Northwest. The Snake River is an
    authorized Federal navigation channel. The Committee urges the
    Corps of Engineers to expedite completion of the Environmental
    Impact Statement for this work, sign a Record of Decision, and
    proceed with the maintenance work recommended in the Record of
    Decision.
        The Committee requests the Department of the Army to
    consider longer tours of duty for District Commanders in Corps
    of Engineers district offices. Frequent turnover of the
    commanding officer leads to a lack of continuity. Frequently,
    just as a District Commander learns the complex water resources
    issues and challenges of his or her district, the District
    Commander is assigned to another post. Frequent turnover also
    results in a lack of accountability for decisions.
        The Committee has increasingly heard concerns from members
    of Congress regarding the backlog in the processing of permits
    under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In particular, the
    Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers processes \1/8\
    of all the permits wide. The Committee directs the Chief of
    Engineers to examine permitting workload and consider changing
    the boundaries for permitting responsibilities to better
    distribute that workload. Also, the Committee directs the Chief
    of Engineers to work with States to find additional ways within
    current authority to expedite permit processing. The Chief of
    Engineers shall make each State aware of the authority in the
    Clean Water Act to authorize States to implement a wetlands
    permitting program in lieu of the Federal program.
        This year, several members have brought to the attention of
    the Committee concerns regarding the Corps' assertion of
    jurisdiction under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
    1899 over activities in Louisiana and Washington State that may
    be exempt from regulation under section 404(f) of the Clean
    Water Act. The Committee understands that, prior to the
    development of flood control projects, floodplains extending
    over many thousands of acres were periodically inundated.
    However, through the construction of levees and dikes, much
    land has been cut off from the flood plain and has been
    developed or cultivated. The Committee requests two opinions
    from the Chief Counsel of the Corps of Engineers. The first
    opinion should determine whether activities that are exempt
    from permits under section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act and
    take place on land that is not navigable in fact, can, as a
    matter of law, be subject to section 10 jurisdiction. The
    second opinion should determine whether land that is not
    navigable in fact, and is completely cut off from a navigation
    channel by a man-made structure such as a levee or dike can, as
    a matter of law, be subject to section 10 jurisdiction.
        The Committee has received several proposals to provide
    authorizations to address impacts to endangered species. The
    Committee believes that the Corps of Engineers does not need
    specific authorization to comply with the Endangered Species
    Act. In addition, mitigation of damages to fish and wildlife
    resulting from any water resources project is authorized under
    section 906(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

                Legislative History and Committee Consideration

        The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held
    two days of hearings on projects, programs and policies during
    the development of the Water Resources Development Act of 2005
    on March 10, 2005 and March 16, 2005. On March 10, 2005 the
    Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on
    FY 2006 Budget and Priorities of the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers. Testimony was received from John Paul Woodley, Jr.,
    the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
    Works and, LTG Carl A. Strock, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers. On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on
    Water Resources and Environment met to receive testimony from
    Members of Congress regarding their requests for water
    resources projects in the Water Resources Development Act of
    2005.
        H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, was
    introduced on June 13, 2005, by Chairman Young, Ranking Member
    Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, and Subcommittee
    Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson.
        On June 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
    Environment marked up H.R. 2864, 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 June 22, 2005 and adopted by voice vote a
    manager's amendment, offered by Mr. Duncan. The Committee
    ordered the bill H.R. 2864, as amended, favorably reported to
    the House by voice vote.

                                Roll Call 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.
    No roll call votes were taken during consideration of H.R. 2864
    by the Committee.

                          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

        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.
        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.
        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. 2864 from the
    Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

                                         U.S. Congress,
                                   Congressional Budget Office,
                                         Washington, DC, June 24, 2005.
    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. 2864, the Water
    Resources Development Act of 2005.
        If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
    pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Julie
    Middleton.
                Sincerely,
                                           Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                              Director.
        Enclosure.

    H.R. 2864--Water Resources Development Act of 2005

        Summary: H.R. 2864 would authorize the Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) to conduct water resource studies and
    undertake special projects and programs for flood control,
    inland navigation, shoreline protection, and environmental
    restoration. The bill would authorize the agency to conduct
    studies on water resource needs, to complete 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. 2864 would cost about $4.1
    billion over the 2006-2010 period and an additional $5.9
    billion over the 10 years after 2010. (Some construction costs
    and operations and maintenance would continue or occur after
    this period.)
        H.R. 2864 would allow the Corps to spend any proceeds that
    it collects from recreational fees in excess of $42 million a
    year. H.R. 2864 also would convey parcels of land to various
    nonfederal entities and would forgive the obligation of some
    local government agencies to pay certain project costs.
    Finally, the bill would allow the Corps to collect and spend
    fees collected for training courses and permit processing. CBO
    estimates that enacting those provisions would increase direct
    spending by $13 million in 2006, $22 million over the 2006-2010
    period, and $37 million over the 2006-2015 period. Enacting the
    bill would not affect revenues.
        H.R. 2864 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
    incurred voluntarily.
        Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
    budgetary impact of H.R. 2864 is shown in the following table.
    The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
    (natural resources and the environment).

                       TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 2864 OVER THE 2006-2010 PERIOD
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                        --------------------------------------------
                                                                           2006     2007     2008     2009     2010
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

    Estimated authorization level......................................      946      901      871      851      800
    Estimated outlays..................................................      662      905      871      849      807

                                               CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

    Estimated budget authority.........................................       13        3        3        *        3
    Estimated outlays..................................................       13        3        3        *        3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.-- *= less than $500,000.

        Basis of Estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
    2864 will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2006 and
    that the necessary amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal
    year.

    Spending subject to appropriation

        H.R. 2864 would authorize new projects related to
    environmental restoration, shoreline protection, and
    navigation. This bill also 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. Assuming appropriation of
    the necessary funds, CBO estimates that implementing this bill
    would cost $4.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period and an
    additional $5.9 billion over the 10 years after 2010. For
    ongoing construction costs of previously authorized projects,
    the Corps received a 2005 appropriation of about $1.8 billion,
    including funds from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
        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.
        Significant New Authorizations. H.R. 2864 would authorize
    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. For example, the bill includes
    authorizations for enhanced navigation improvements on the
    Upper Mississippi River at an estimated federal cost of $1.8
    billion and an ecosystem restoration project, also on the Upper
    Mississippi River, at an estimated federal cost of $1.6
    billion. Another large project authorized by this bill is the
    Indian River Lagoon project in the Florida Everglades at an
    estimated federal cost of $605 million. Construction of those
    projects would likely take more than 15 years.
        Section 2002 would authorize an increase in the federal
    share of the construction, operations, and maintenance of some
    deepwater navigation projects. Based on information from the
    Corps, CBO estimates that this provision would increase federal
    costs by about $275 million over the 2006-2010 period. In the
    10-year period after 2010, this provision would increase the
    cost of authorized deepwater navigation projects by about $500
    million. This provision would add significant federal costs to
    deepwater navigation projects authorized in future years. The
    extent of those costs would be attributed to future
    authorization bills.
        Deauthorizations. H.R. 2864 would withdraw the authority
    for the Corps to build about 40 projects authorized in previous
    legislation. Based on information from the Corps, however, CBO
    does not expect that the agency would begin any work (under
    current law) for most of those projects over the next five
    years or even much later. Some of those projects 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 cancelling the authority to build those
    projects would provide no significant savings over the next
    several years.

    Direct spending

        CBO estimates that enacting this bill would increase direct
    spending by $13 million in 2006, $22 million over the 2006-2010
    period, and $37 million over the 2006-2015 period. Components
    of this cost estimate are described below and summarized in
    table 2.

                                         TABLE 2.--CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING UNDER H.R. 2864 OVER THE 2006-2015 PERIOD
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Outlays in millions of dollars, by fiscal year--
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      2006     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             CHANGES IN OUTLAYS FROM DIRECT SPENDING

    Recreation User Fees..........................................        2        2        2        2        2        2        2        2        2        2
    Land Conveyances..............................................        0        0        0        3        0        0        0        0        0        0
    Arcadia Lake, OK..............................................        8        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0
    Rathbun Lake, LA..............................................        2        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0        0
    White River Basin, AK.........................................        1        1        1        1        1        1        1        1        1        1
    Other Direct Spending.........................................        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *
                                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Changes.............................................       13        3        3        *        3        3        3        3        3        3
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *= Less than $500,000.
    Notes.--Changes in budget authority would equal the estimated changes in outlays.

        Recreation User Fees. Section 2017 would allow the Corps to
    spend without further appropriation any recreation fees that it
    earns in excess of $42 million a year. Under existing law, all
    receipts collected by the Corps from such fees are deposited
    into a special fund from which they must be appropriated in
    order to be spent. The CBO baseline projection of such receipts
    is $42 million a year over the next 10 years. Allowing for the
    possibility that these receipts could be either more or less
    than the projected level, we estimate that the expected value
    of additional direct spending under H.R. 2864 is $2 million a
    year. This amount would be used for repair, maintenance, and
    interpretation of Corps recreation sites.
        Various Land Conveyances. H.R. 2864 would authorize the
    conveyance at fair market value 650 acres of federal land at
    the Richard B. Russell Lake in South Carolina to the state.
    Based on information from the Corps, CBO estimates that the
    federal government would receive about $3 million in 2009 from
    this sale.
        The bill also would convey certain federal land in Alabama,
    Pennsylvania, Georgia, Oregon, Kansas, Minnesota and Missouri.
    CBO estimates that those conveyances would have no significant
    impact on the federal budget.
        Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma. Section 3098 would eliminate the
    obligation of the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to pay outstanding
    interest due on its water storage contract with the Corps. CBO
    estimates that this provision would result in a loss of
    receipts of about $8 million in 2006. The city has no further
    obligations to pay under this storage contract.
        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 2006
    because the Corps would forgo receipts that the Rathbun
    Regional Water Association would otherwise have to pay for the
    unallocated water supply storage.
        White River Basin, Arkansas. Section 5033 would require
    that the Corps of Engineers permanently change its water flow
    plans for the White River in Arkansas. Such a change would
    diminish the amount of electricity that could be generated by
    the federal hydroelectric project on the river, and sold by the
    Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), a federal power
    marketing administration. Based on information from SEPA, we
    expect that this would reduce offsetting receipts from the sale
    of hydropower by about $1 million per year, or $10 million over
    the 2006-2015 period. We would expect that the losses would
    continue through the life of the hydroelectric project, or at
    least 50 years.
        Waurika Lake Project. Section 3099 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. Because of an
    accounting error, the Corps inadvertently undercharged the
    district for costs associated with a land purchase related to
    the water project in the early 1980s. Under 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. The section would eliminate the
    need for the district to pay the difference between the full
    cost and the initial undercharged amounts. CBO estimates that
    enacting this section would cost less than $200,000 a year over
    the 2006-2015 period.
        Funding to Process Permits. Section 2003 would make
    permanent the Corps' current authority 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.
        Training Funds. Section 2031 would allow the Corps to
    collect and spend fees collected from the private sector for
    training courses. CBO estimates that the Corps would accept and
    spend less than $500,000 annually and that the net budgetary
    impact would be negligible.
        Cumberland River Basin Reservoirs. Section 5061 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.
        Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact: H.R. 2864
    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 incurred
    voluntarily. 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 towards the
    nonfederal share.
        Previous CBO Estimate: on May 17, 2005, CBO transmitted a
    cost estimate for S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act
    of 2005, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
    Environment and Public Works on April 26, 2005. CBO estimated
    that enacting S. 728 would increase direct spending by $212
    million in 2006, $1.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period, and
    $2.3 billion over the 2006-2015 period. In addition, assuming
    appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimated that
    implementing S. 728 would cost about $4.1 billion over the
    2006-2010 period and an additional $7.6 billion over the 10
    years after 2010. The differences in the cost estimates stem
    from different levels of authorized funding.
        Estimate Prepared By: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton and
    Deborah Reis; Impact on State, local, and Tribal Governments:
    Marjorie Milrer and Ian Rudge; Impact on the Private Sector:
    Selena Calder.
        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. 2864 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 italics, existing law in which no change
    is proposed is shown in roman):

    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
                    feet] 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 feet] 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 feet] 53 feet.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 103. FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES.

        (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (m) Ability To Pay.--
              (1) * * *
              (2) Criteria and procedures.--The ability of a non-
            Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the
            Secretary in accordance with criteria and procedures in
            effect under paragraph (3) on the day before the date
            of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of
            2000; except that such criteria and procedures shall be
            revised, and new criteria and procedures shall be
            developed, not later than [180 days after such date of
            enactment] August 31, 2005 to reflect the requirements
            of such paragraph (3).

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (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. 105. FEASIBILITY STUDIES; PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND DESIGN.

        (a) Feasibility Studies.--
              (1) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (3) Detailed project reports.--The requirements of
            this subsection that apply to a feasibility study also
            shall apply to a study that results in a detailed
            project report, except that--
                      (A) the first $100,000 of the costs of a
                    study that results in a detailed project report
                    shall be a Federal expense; and
                      (B) paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply to
                    such a study.
        (b) Planning and Engineering.--The Secretary shall not
    initiate any planning or engineering [authorized by this Act]
    for a water resources project until appropriate non-Federal
    interests agree, by contract, to contribute 50 percent of the
    cost of the planning and engineering during the period of the
    planning and engineering. Costs of planning and engineering of
    projects for which non-Federal interests contributed 50 percent
    of the cost of the feasibility study shall be treated as costs
    of construction.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions
    apply:
              (1) Detailed project report.--The term ``detailed
            project report'' means a report for a project not
            specifically authorized by Congress in law or otherwise
            that determines the feasibility of the project with a
            level of detail appropriate to the scope and complexity
            of the recommended solution and sufficient to proceed
            directly to the preparation of contract plans and
            specifications. The term includes any associated
            environmental impact statement and mitigation plan. For
            a project for which the Federal cost does not exceed
            $1,000,000, the term includes a planning and design
            analysis document.
              (2) Feasibility study.--The term ``feasibility
            study'' means a study that results in a feasibility
            report under section 905, and any associated
            environmental impact statement and mitigation plan,
            prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water
            resources project. The term includes a study that
            results in a project implementation report prepared
            under title VI of the Water Resources Development Act
            of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general reevaluation
            report, and a limited reevaluation report.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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 feet] 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 feet] 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) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey,
            removal of silt and measures to address water quality;
              (22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey,
            removal of silt and restoration of structural
            integrity;
              (23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal
            of silt and aquatic growth;
              (24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal
            of silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of
            structural integrity; and
              (25) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 704. STUDY OF CORPS CAPABILITY TO CONSERVE FISH AND WILDLIFE.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Projects.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary is further authorized
            to conduct projects of alternative or beneficially
            modified habitats for fish and wildlife, including but
            not limited to man-made reefs for fish. There is
            authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
            [$20,000,000] $30,000,000 to carry out such projects.
            Such projects shall be developed, and their
            effectiveness evaluated, in consultation with the
            Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
            Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National
            Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such projects
            shall include--
              (A) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.
              (7) Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties,
            Washington.
              (8) Niagara River Basin, New York.
              (9) Genesee River Basin, New York.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (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. 905. FEASIBILITY REPORTS.

        [(a) In the case of any]
      (a) Preparation of Reports.--
              (1) In general.--In the case of any water resources
            project-related study authorized to be undertaken by
            [the Secretary, the Secretary shall] the Secretary that
            results in recommendations concerning a project or the
            operation of a project and that requires specific
            authorization by Congress in law or otherwise, the
            Secretary shall perform a reconnaissance study and
            prepare a feasibility report, subject to section 105 of
            this Act. [Such feasibility report]
              (2) Contents of feasibility reports.--A feasibility
            report shall describe, with reasonable certainty, the
            economic, environmental, and social benefits and
            detriments of the recommended plan and alternative
            plans considered by the Secretary and the engineering
            features (including hydrologic and geologic
            information), the public acceptability, and the
            purposes, scope, and scale of the recommended plan.
            [The feasibility report] A feasibility report shall
            also include the views of other Federal agencies and
            non-Federal agencies with regard to the recommended
            plan, a description of a nonstructural alternative to
            the recommended plan when such plan does not have
            significant nonstructural features, and a description
            of the Federal and non-Federal participation in such
            plan, and shall demonstrate that States, other non-
            Federal interests, and Federal agencies have been
            consulted in the development of the recommended plan.
            [This subsection shall not apply to (1) any study with
            respect to which a report has been submitted to
            Congress before the date of enactment of this Act, (2)
            any study for a project, which project is authorized
            for construction by this Act and is not subject to
            section 903(b), (3) any study for a project which is
            authorized under any of the following sections: section
            205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s),
            section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1946
            (33 U.S.C. 701r), section 107 of the River and Harbor
            Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), 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),
            and section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33
            U.S.C. 426i), and (4) general studies not intended to
            lead to recommendation of a specific water resources
            project.]
              (3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply
            to--
                      (A) any study with respect to which a report
                    has been submitted to Congress before the date
                    of enactment of this Act;
                      (B) any study for a project, which project is
                    authorized for construction by this Act and is
                    not subject to section 903(b);
                      (C) any study for a project which does not
                    require specific authorization by Congress in
                    law or otherwise; and
                      (D) general studies not intended to lead to
                    recommendation of a specific water resources
                    project.
              (4) Feasibility report defined.--In this subsection,
            the term ``feasibility report'' means each feasibility
            report, and any associated environmental impact
            statement and mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of
            Engineers for a water resources project. The term
            includes a project implementation report prepared under
            title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
            (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general reevaluation report,
            and a limited reevaluation report.
        (b) Reconnaissance Studies.--Before initiating any
    feasibility study under subsection (a) of this section after
    the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall first
    perform, at Federal expense, a reconnaissance study of the
    water resources problem in order to identify potential
    solutions to such problem in sufficient detail to enable the
    Secretary to determine whether or not planning to develop a
    project should proceed to the preparation of a feasibility
    report. Such reconnaissance study shall include a preliminary
    analysis of the Federal interest, costs, benefits, and
    environmental impacts of such project, and an estimate of the
    costs of preparing the feasibility report. The duration of a
    reconnaissance study shall normally be no more than twelve
    months, but in all cases is to be limited to eighteen months.
      (c) Projects not Specifically Authorized by Congress.--In the
    case of any water resources project-related study authorized to
    be undertaken by the Secretary without specific authorization
    by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall prepare a
    detailed project report.
        [(c)] (d) Indian Tribes.--For purposes of studies
    undertaken pursuant to this section, the Secretary is
    authorized to consider benefits which may accrue to Indian
    tribes as a result of a project resulting from such a study.
        [(d)] (e) Standard and Uniform Procedures and Practices.--
    The Secretary shall undertake such measures as are necessary to
    ensure that standard and uniform procedures and practices are
    followed by each district office (and each division office for
    any area in which there is no district office) of the United
    States Army Corps of Engineers in the preparation of
    feasibility reports on water resources projects.
      [(e)] (f) Enhanced Public Participation.--
              (1) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

        (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (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 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 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 in-kind services and
            materials.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (C) Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act
    of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(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. 1149. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN.

      [Subject to section 903(b) of this Act, the Secretary is
    authorized and directed to construct a second lock 1,294 feet
    in length, 115 feet in width, and 32 feet in depth, adjacent to
    the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, in
    accordance with the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers
    and Harbors, dated May 19, 1986, at a total cost of
    $227,428,000. The Federal and non-Federal shares of such
    project shall be determined in accordance with section 101,
    with the method of payment to be determined in accordance with
    the report of the Chief of Engineers.]
      The Secretary shall construct at Federal expense a second
    lock, of the same dimensions as the existing Poe Lock, adjacent
    to the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, generally
    in accordance with the report of the Board of Engineers for
    Rivers and Harbors, dated May 19, 1986, and the limited
    reevaluation report dated February 2004 at a total cost of
    $341,714,000.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [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.

      (a) In General.--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 owned by an
    Alaska Native Regional Corporation or an Alaska Native Village
    Corporation (as those terms are defined in the Alaska Native
    Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)) or the
    Metlakatla Indian community.
      (b) Use of Funds.--The non-Federal interest for a study or
    project for an area described in subsection (a) may use, and
    the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any other
    Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-
    Federal share of such study or project if such funds are
    authorized to be used to carry out such study or project.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  ----------

    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.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
    be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for each
    of fiscal years 2002 through [2006] 2010, of which not more
    than $1,000,000 may be used with respect to any 1 Indian tribe.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

      (a) In General.--[In fiscal years 2001 through 2005, the] 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.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided under this
    section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000, through
    December 31, 2007.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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. 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 percent] 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.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
    the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a non-
    Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the
    consent of the affected local government.
      (i) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall develop an Illinois
    river basin monitoring program to support the plan referred to
    in subsection (b). Data collected under the monitoring program
    shall incorporate data provided by the State of Illinois and
    shall be publicly accessible through electronic means.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 545. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.

      (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine
    the feasibility of providing coastal erosion protection and
    ecosystem restoration for the tribal reservation of the
    Shoalwater Bay Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington.
      (b) Project.--
              (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision
            of law (including any requirement for economic
            justification), the Secretary [may construct] shall
            construct and maintain a project to provide coastal
            erosion protection and ecosystem restoration for the
            tribal reservation of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe on
            Willapa Bay, Washington, at Federal expense, if the
            Secretary determines that the project--
                      (A) is a cost-effective means of providing
                    erosion protection and ecosystem restoration;

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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 years] 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, except that operation and
                            maintenance costs of the project shall
                            remain a non-Federal responsibility.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              (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.
                      (B) Pilot projects.--The following pilot
                    projects are authorized for implementation,
                    after review and approval by the Secretary, at
                    a total cost of [$69,000,000] $71,200,000, with
                    an estimated Federal cost of [$34,500,000]
                    $35,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
                    of [$34,500,000] $35,600,000:
                              (i) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin
                            ASR, at a total cost of [$6,000,000]
                            $8,200,000, with an estimated Federal
                            cost of [$3,000,000] $4,100,000 and an
                            estimated non-Federal cost of
                            [$3,000,000] $4,100,000.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      (E) Maximum cost of projects.--Section 902 of
                    the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
                    U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to each project
                    feature authorized under this subsection and
                    section (d).

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (d) Authorization of Future Projects.--
              (1) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (3) Project authorization.--The following project for
            water resources development and conservation and other
            purposes is authorized to be carried out by the
            Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans,
            and subject to the conditions, described in the report
            designated in this paragraph:
                      (A) Indian river lagoon south, florida.--The
                    project for ecosystem restoration, water
                    supply, flood damage reduction, and protection
                    of water quality, Indian River Lagoon South,
                    Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
                    August 6, 2004, at a total cost of
                    $1,210,608,000, with an estimated Federal cost
                    of $605,304,000 and an estimated non-Federal
                    cost of $605,304,000.
      (e) Cost Sharing.--
              (1) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (5) Credit.--
                      (A) * * *
                      (B) Work.--The Secretary may provide credit,
                    including in-kind credit, toward the non-
                    Federal share for the reasonable cost of any
                    work performed in connection with a study,
                    preconstruction engineering and design, or
                    construction that is necessary for the
                    implementation of the Plan if--
                              (i)(I) the credit is provided for
                            work completed during the period of
                            design, as defined in a design
                            agreement between the Secretary and the
                            non-Federal sponsor; [or]
                              (II) the credit is provided for work
                            completed during the period of
                            construction, as defined in a project
                            cooperation agreement for an authorized
                            project between the Secretary and the
                            non-Federal sponsor; or
                              (III) the credit is provided for work
                            carried out before the date of the
                            partnership agreement between the
                            Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor,
                            as defined in an agreement between the
                            Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
                            providing for such credit;
                              (ii) the [design agreement or the
                            project cooperation] agreement
                            prescribes the terms and conditions of
                            the credit, including in the case of
                            credit provided under clause (i)(III)
                            conditions relating to design and
                            construction; and

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (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, 2004, to carry out this
            subsection.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  ----------

                             ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1946

    AN ACT Authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the
    shores of publicly owned property.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      Sec. 3. The Secretary is hereby authorized to undertake
    construction of small shore and beach restoration and
    protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress,
    which otherwise comply with section 1 of this Act, when he
    finds that such work is advisable, and he is further authorized
    to allot from any appropriations hereafter made for civil
    works, not to exceed $30,000,000 for any one fiscal year for
    the Federal share of the costs of construction of such
    projects: Provided, That not more than [$3,000,000] $5,000,000
    shall be allotted for this purpose for any single project and
    the total amount allotted shall be sufficient to complete the
    Federal participation in the project under this section
    including periodic nourishment as provided for under section
    1(c) of this Act: Provided further, That the provisions of
    local cooperation specified in section 1 of this Act shall
    apply: And provided further, That the work shall be complete in
    itself and shall not commit the United States to any additional
    improvement to insure its successful operation, except for
    participation in periodic beach nourishment in accordance with
    section 1(c) of this Act, and as may result from the normal
    procedure applying to projects authorized after submission of
    survey reports.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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 years] 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
                    years] 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) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              [(4)] (6) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (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 agreement with the Secretary of the Army [to
    furnish its required cooperation for] under which each party
    agrees to carry out its responsibilities and requirements for
    implementation or construction of the project or the
    appropriate element of the project, as the case may be; 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 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 appropriations for
    such performance and payment when obligating future
    appropriations would be inconsistent with constitutional or
    statutory limitations of the State or a political subdivision
    of the State.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (e) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed
    as limiting the authority of the Secretary to ensure that an
    agreement under this section meets all requirements of law and
    policies of the Secretary in effect on the date of entry into
    the agreement.
      [(e)] (f) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  ----------

    WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

      (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry
    out this section [$25,000,000] $40,000,000 for each fiscal
    year.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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.
              (12) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--The
            project for flood control, Chicago Underflow Plan,
            Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois.
              (13) Larose to golden meadow, louisiana.--The project
            for flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
              (14) Perris, california.--The project for flood
            control, Perris, California.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 217. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PARTNERSHIPS.

      (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) Governmental Partnerships.--
              (1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost
            sharing agreements with one 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 III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [SEC. 330. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN.

      [(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Sault Sainte
    Marie, Chippewa County, Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of
    the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254-
    4255), is modified as follows:
              [(1) Payment of non-federal share.--The non-Federal
            share of the cost of the project shall be paid as
            follows:
                      [(A) That portion of the non-Federal share
                    that the Secretary determines is attributable
                    to use of the lock by vessels calling at
                    Canadian ports shall be paid by the United
                    States.
                      [(B) The remaining portion of the non-Federal
                    share shall be paid by the Great Lakes States
                    pursuant to an agreement entered into by such
                    States.
              [(2) Payment term of additional percentage.--The
            amount to be paid by non-Federal interests pursuant to
            section 101(a) of the Water Resources Development Act
            of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)) and this subsection with
            respect to the project may be paid over a period of 50
            years or the expected life of the project, whichever is
            shorter.
      [(b) Great Lakes States Defined.--In this section, the term
    ``Great Lakes States'' means the States of Illinois, Indiana,
    Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
    Wisconsin.]

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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. 507. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE.

      The Secretary shall provide design and construction
    assistance to non-Federal interests for each of the following
    projects if the Secretary determines that the project is
    feasible:
              (1) Repair and rehabilitation of the Lower Girard
            Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio, at an estimated total cost of
            [$2,500,000] $6,000,000.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 510. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
                        PROGRAM.

      (a) Establishment.--
              (1) * * *
              (2) Form.--The assistance shall be in the form of
            design and construction assistance for water-related
            environmental infrastructure and resource protection
            and development projects affecting the Chesapeake Bay
            estuary, including projects for sediment and erosion
            control, protection of eroding shorelines, protection
            of essential public works, wastewater treatment and
            related facilities, water supply and related
            facilities[, and beneficial uses of dredged material],
            beneficial uses of dredged material, and restoration of
            submerged aquatic vegetation, and other related
            projects that may enhance the living resources of the
            estuary.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
    be appropriated to carry out this section [$10,000,000]
    $50,000,000.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 516. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

      (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
              (1) * * *
              (2) Great lakes tributary model.--In addition to
            amounts made available under paragraph (1), there is
            authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection
            (e) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through
            [2006] 2011.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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 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 and carry out 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 and carrying out the strategy under this
    section, the Secretary shall enter into [cooperation] cost-
    sharing and 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.
      (d) Implementation of Strategy.--[The Secretary]
              (1) In general.--The Secretary shall undertake
            development and implementation of the strategy under
            this section in cooperation with local landowners and
            local government officials. Projects to [implement]
            carry out the strategy shall be designed to take
            advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other
            agencies, local municipalities, or nonprofit,
            nongovernmental organizations with expertise in
            wetlands restoration that would increase the
            effectiveness or decrease the overall cost of
            [implementing] carrying out recommended projects and
            may include the acquisition of wetlands, from willing
            sellers, that contribute to the Upper Susquehanna River
            basin ecosystem.
              (2) Priority project.--In carrying out projects to
            implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give
            priority to the project for ecosystem restoration,
            Cooperstown, New York, described in the Upper
            Susquehanna River Basin--Cooperstown Area Ecosystem
            Restoration Feasibility Study, dated December 2004,
            prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the New York
            State Department of Environmental Conservation.
      (e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
    Federal share of the cost of a project under this section--
              (1) 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
              (2) 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.
      (b) Specific Projects.--The projects to which subsection (a)
    apply are--
              (1) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (3) the project for flood control, Cypress Creek,
            Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014);
            [and]
              (4) the project for flood control, Clear Creek,
            Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control
            Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742)[.]; and
              (5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak
            Bayou, Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
            Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 577. TANGIER ISLAND, VIRGINIA.

      (a) In General.--The Secretary shall design and construct a
    breakwater at the North Channel on Tangier Island, Virginia,
    [at a total cost of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost
    of $900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.] at
    a total cost of $3,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
    $2,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $750,000.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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]
    $99,000,000.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (b) Priority Communities.--In carrying out this section, the
    Secretary shall give priority to the communities of--
              (1) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (5) Patton, Barnesboro, Coalport, and Spangler,
            Pennsylvania, in the West Branch Susquehanna River
            Basin; [and]
              (6) Bedford, Linds Crossings, and Logan Township in
            the Juniata River Basin[.];
              (7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed;
            and
              (8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty's Run River
            basin.
      (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 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 sediment obtained in connection with the
    construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized water
    resources 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 one or more of the purposes of protection, restoration,
    or creation 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 water
    resources project in the most cost-effective way, consistent
    with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
      (g) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method.--In developing and
    carrying out a water resources project involving the disposal
    of sediment, 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
    subsections (d) and (f).
      (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
    sediment obtained in conjunction with the construction,
    operation, or maintenance of water resources projects,
    including potential beneficial uses of sediment 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.
      (k) Use of Funds.--
              (1) Non-federal interest.--The non-Federal interest
            for a project described in this section may use, and
            the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any
            other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part,
            the non-Federal share of the cost of such project if
            such funds are authorized to be used to carry out such
            project.
              (2) Other federal agencies.--The non-Federal share of
            the cost of construction of a project under this
            section may be met through contributions from a Federal
            agency made directly to the Secretary, with the consent
            of the affected local government, if such funds are
            authorized to be used to carry out such project. Before
            initiating a project to which this paragraph applies,
            the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with a non-
            Federal interest in which the non-Federal interest
            agrees to pay 100 percent of the cost of operation,
            maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the
            project.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 219. ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

      (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) Project Descriptions.--The projects for which the
    Secretary is authorized to provide assistance under subsection
    (a) are as follows:
              (1) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (41) Winchester, kentucky.--Wastewater
            infrastructure, Winchester, Kentucky.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (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) $35,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(18);
              (10) $20,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(20);
              (11) $35,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(23);
              (12) $20,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(25);
              (13) $20,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(26);
              (14) $35,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(27);
              (15) $20,000,000 for the project described in
            subsection (c)(28); and
              (16) $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) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (10) Eastern shore and southwest virginia.--
            [$20,000,000 for water supply and wastewater
            infrastructure]
                      (A) In general.--$20,000,000 for water
                    supply, wastewater infrastructure, and
                    environmental restoration projects in the
                    counties of Accomac, Northampton, Lee, Norton,
                    Wise, Scott, Russell, Dickenson, Buchanan, and
                    Tazewell, Virginia.
                      (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.
              (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.--[$30,000,000]
                      (A) In general.--$30,000,000 for water
                    related infrastructure projects in the counties
                    of Benton, Jasper, Lake, Newton, and Porter,
                    Indiana.
                      (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall 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,
                    on, or after the date of the partnership
                    agreement for the project if the Secretary
                    determines that the work is integral to the
                    project.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (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, on, or after 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 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 in-kind services and materials.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (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] township and crow
            wing and mille lacs counties, minnesota.--[$11,000,000]
            $17,000,000 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.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (66) Allegheny county, pennsylvania.--[$20,000,000]
                      (A) In general.--$20,000,000 for water-
                    related environmental infrastructure, Allegheny
                    County, Pennsylvania.
                      (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.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 313. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
                        INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT
                        PILOT PROGRAM.

      (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (g) Authorization and Allocation of Appropriations.--
              (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
            authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
            [$180,000,000] $200,000,000 for fiscal years beginning
            after September 30, 1992. Such sums shall remain
            available until expended.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (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 the non-Federal share 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 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 2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years beginning after
    September 30, 2004, to carry out this section. Such sums shall
    remain available until expended.
      (d) Tsunami Warning System.--There is authorized to be
    appropriated $800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a project
    for a tsunami warning system, Atlantic Coast of New York.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  ----------

           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 construction 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

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is
    as follows:

    Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

         * * * * * * *

                        TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

         * * * * * * *
    [Sec. 557. Northern West Virginia.]
    Sec. 557. Kentucky and Northern West Virginia.
         * * * * * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 102. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.--
              (1) Maximum federal expenditure.--The maximum amount
            of Federal funds that may be expended for the project
            for flood control, Festus and Crystal City, Missouri,
            is [$10,000,000] $12,000,000.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (23) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin; [and]

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (27) Susquehanna River watershed, Bradford County,
            Pennsylvania; [and]
              (28) Clear Creek, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria
            Counties, Texas[.];
              (29) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
              (30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
              (31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana;
              (32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and
              (33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--
              (1) In general.--There are authorized to be
            appropriated to carry out this [section--
                      [(A) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
                      [(B) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
                      [(C) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years
                    2003 through 2005] section $20,000,000.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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] $42,000,000 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. 330. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, CHIPPEWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN.

      [The project for navigation Sault Sainte Marie, Chippewa
    County, Michigan, authorized by section 1149 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) and modified
    by section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
    (110 Stat. 3717), is further modified to provide that the
    amount to be paid by non-Federal interests under section 101(a)
    of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
    2211(a)) and section 330(a) of the Water Resources Development
    Act of 1996 shall not include any interest payments.]

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [SEC. 374. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

      [(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the project for
    flood control, power generation, and other purposes at the
    White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section
    4 of the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1218, chapter 795), and
    modified by House Document 917, 76th Congress, 3d Session, and
    House Document 290, 77th Congress, 1st Session, approved August
    18, 1941, and House Document 499, 83d Congress, 2d Session,
    approved September 3, 1954, and by section 304 of the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) is further
    modified to authorize the Secretary to provide minimum flows
    necessary to sustain tail water trout fisheries by reallocating
    the following amounts of project storage: Beaver Lake, 1.5
    feet; Table Rock, 2 feet; Bull Shoals Lake, 5 feet; Norfork
    Lake, 3.5 feet; and Greers Ferry Lake, 3 feet.
      [(b) Report.--
              [(1) In general.--No funds may be obligated to carry
            out work on the modification under subsection (a) until
            completion of a final report by the Chief of Engineers
            finding that the work is technically sound,
            environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
              [(2) Timing.--The Secretary shall submit the report
            to Congress not later than July 30, 2000.
              [(3) Contents.--The report shall include
            determinations concerning whether--
                      [(A) the modification under subsection (a)
                    adversely affects other authorized project
                    purposes; and
                      [(B) Federal costs will be incurred in
                    connection with the modification.]

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    TITLE IV--STUDIES

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

      (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
    be appropriated to carry out this section [$400,000] $475,000.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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 in-kind services
    and materials.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 459. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

      (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (e) Report.--Not later than [3 years after the first date on
    which funds are appropriated to carry out this section]
    December 30, 2006, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
    on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
    Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
    Works of the Senate a report that includes the plan under
    subsection (a).

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 504. DAM SAFETY.

      (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide assistance to
    enhance dam safety at the following locations:
              (1) * * *
              (2) Kehly Run [Dams] Dams No. 1-5, Pennsylvania.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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. 557. KENTUCKY AND NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

      The projects described in the following reports are
    authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in
    accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions,
    recommended in the reports, and subject to a [favorable] report
    of the Chief of Engineers:
              (1) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (4) Louisville, kentucky.--Report of the Corps of
            Engineers entitled ``Louisville Waterfront Park, Phase
            II, Kentucky, Master Plan'', dated July 22, 2002, at a
            total cost of $32,000,000, with an estimated Federal
            cost of $16,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
            of $16,000,000.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may be
    in the form of design and construction assistance for water-
    related environmental infrastructure and resource protection
    and development projects in Alaska, including projects for
    wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and
    related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface
    water resource protection and development.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (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]
    $45,000,000 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 interest
    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. 593. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO.

      (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (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) 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. 594. OHIO.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may be
    in the form of [design and construction] planning, design, and
    construction assistance for water-related environmental
    infrastructure and resource protection and development projects
    in Ohio, including projects for--
              (1) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
    be appropriated to carry out this section [$60,000,000]
    $100,000,000.
      (h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
    the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(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.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  ----------

      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).
        (2) In-kind services. [Up to \1/2\ of the] The non-Federal
    contribution for preparation of a plan subject to the cost
    sharing program under this subsection may be made by the
    provision of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind
    services necessary to prepare the plan.
        (3) Deposit and use.--Fees collected under this subsection
    shall be deposited into the account in the Treasury of the
    United States entitled ``Contributions and Advances, Rivers and
    Harbors, Corps of Engineers (8862)'' and shall be available
    until expended to carry out this section.
        (c) [There is]  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]
            $1,000,000 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.
        (d) Annual Submission of Proposed Activities.--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 Environment and Public
    Works of the Senate a report describing the individual
    activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for
    that fiscal year.
        [(d)] (e) For the purposes of this section the term
    ``State'' means the several States of the United States, Indian
    tribes, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa,
    the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas,
    and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

                  SECTION 205 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1948

      Sec. 205. That the Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized
    to allot from any appropriations heretofore or hereafter made
    for flood control, not to exceed [$50,000,000] $60,000,000 for
    any one fiscal year, for the implementation of small structural
    and nonstructural projects for flood control and related
    purposes not specifically authorized by Congress, which come
    within the provisions of section 1 of the Flood Control Act of
    June 22, 1936, when in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers
    such work is advisable. The amount allotted for a project shall
    be sufficient to complete Federal participation in the project.
    Not more than $7,000,000 shall be allotted under this section
    for a project at any single locality. The Provisions of local
    cooperation specified in section 3 of the Flood Control Act of
    June 22, 1936, as amended, shall apply. The work shall be
    complete in itself and not commit the United States to any
    additional improvement to insure its successful operation,
    except as may result from the normal procedure applying to
    projects authorized after submission of preliminary examination
    and survey reports.
                                  ----------

                   SECTION 4 OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1944

       AN ACT Authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of
       certain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, flood
                        control, and for other purposes.

      Sec. 4. The Chief of Engineers, under the supervision of the
    Secretary of the Army, is authorized to construct, maintain,
    and operate public park and recreational facilities at water
    resource development projects under the control of the
    Department of the Army, to permit the construction of such
    facilities by local interests (particularly those to be
    operated and maintained by such interests), and to permit the
    maintenance and operation of such facilities by local
    interests. The Secretary of the Army is also authorized to
    grant leases of lands, including structures or facilities
    thereon, at water resource development projects for such
    periods, and upon such terms and for such purposes as he may
    deem reasonable in the public interest: Provided, That leases
    to nonprofit organizations for park or recreational purposes
    may be granted at reduced or nominal considerations in
    recognition of the public service to be rendered in utilizing
    the leased premises: Provided further, That preference shall be
    given to federally-recognized Indian tribes and Federal, State,
    or local governmental agencies, and licenses or leases where
    appropriate, may be granted without monetary considerations, to
    such Indian tribes or agencies for the use of all or any
    portion of a project area for any public purpose, when the
    Secretary of the Army determines such action to be in the
    public interest, and for such periods of time and upon such
    conditions as he may find advisable: And provided further, That
    in any such lease or license to a federally-recognized Indian
    ttribe Federal, State, or local governmental agency which
    involves lands to be utilized for the development and
    conservation of fish and wildlife, forests, and other natural
    resources, the licensee or lessee may be authorized to cut
    timber and harvest crops as may be necessary to further such
    beneficial uses and to collect and utilize the proceeds of any
    sales of timber and crops in the development, conservation,
    maintenance, and utilization of such lands. Any balance of
    proceeds not so utilized shall be paid to the United States at
    such time or times as the Secretary of the Army may determine
    appropriate. The water areas of all such projects shall be open
    to public use generally for boating, swimming, bathing,
    fishing, and other recreational purposes, and ready access to
    and exit from such areas along the shores of such projects
    shall be maintained for general public use, when such is
    determined by the Secretary of the Army not to be contrary to
    the public interest, all under such rules and regulations as
    the Secretary of the Army may deem necessary, including but not
    limited to prohibitions of dumping and unauthorized disposal in
    any manner of refuse, garbage, rubbish, trash, debris, or
    litter of any kind at such water resource development projects,
    either into the waters of such projects or onto any land
    federally owned and administered by the Chief of Engineers. Any
    violation of such rules and regulations shall be punished by a
    fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than
    six months, or both. Any persons charged with the violation of
    such rules and regulations may be tried and sentenced in
    accordance with the provisions of section 3401 of title 18 of
    the United States Code. All persons designated by the Chief of
    Engineers for that purpose shall have the authority to issue a
    citation for violation of the regulations adopted by the
    Secretary of the Army, requiring the appearance of any person
    charged with violation to appear before the United States
    magistrate, within whose jurisdiction the water resource
    development project is located, for trial; and upon sworn
    information of any competent person any United States
    magistrate in the proper jurisdiction shall issue process for
    the arrest of any person charged with the violation of said
    regulations; but nothing herein contained shall be construed as
    preventing the arrest by any officer of the United States,
    without process, of any person taken in the act of violating
    said regulations. No use of any area to which this section
    applies shall be permitted which is inconsistent with the laws
    for the protection of fish and game of the State in which such
    area is situated. All moneys received by the United States for
    leases or privileges shall be deposited in the Treasury of the
    United Sates as miscellaneous receipts.
                                  ----------

             ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

     An Act Making appropriations for energy and water development for the
         fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes

                              (Public Law 108-137)

                                    TITLE I

                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    GENERAL PROVISIONS

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      [Sec. 123. Gwynns Falls Watershed, Baltimore, Maryland. The
    Secretary of the Army shall implement the project for ecosystem
    restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, in accordance with the
    Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources-Gwynns Falls Watershed
    Feasibility Report prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the
    City of Baltimore, Maryland.]

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      Sec. 128. American River Watershed, California. (a) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) Dam Safety Modifications at L.L. Anderson Dam.--In
    determining improvements for dam safety that are necessary at
    the L.L. Anderson Dam, the Secretary shall consider the
    without-project condition to be the dam as it existed on
    December 1, 2003.
      (d) Cost Allocation.--In allocating costs for the project
    authorized in subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the
    project cost allocations for flood damage reduction and dam
    safety that are contained in the American River Watershed,
    California, long-term study final supplemental plan formulation
    report dated February 2002.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  ----------

    WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 107. CONTINUATION OF AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.

      (a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(1) of the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the following projects
    shall remain authorized to be carried out by the Secretary:
              (1)  * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              [(8) Sault sainte marie, michigan.--The second lock
            for Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, authorized by section
            1149 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
            (100 Stat. 4254-55); except that the Secretary shall
            conduct, not later than 180 days after the date of the
            enactment of this Act and after providing an
            opportunity for notice and comment, an analysis of the
            projected total tonnage of commercial cargo which will
            be delivered by vessels using such lock to or from
            ports in Canada and the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
            Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
            New York. Such analysis shall be based on the
            Secretary's estimate, using current traffic
            statistics.]

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                       TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

    SEC. 401. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.

      (a)  * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
    be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
    $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through [2006] 2011.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  ----------

    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.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 30. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA.

      (a)  * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      [(d) Historic Structure.--The Secretary shall ensure the
    preservation and restoration of the structure known as the
    `Jenkins House' located within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp in
    accordance with standards for sites listed on the National
    Register of Historic Places.]
      (d) Historic Structure.--The Secretary shall ensure the
    preservation and restoration of the structure known as the
    ``Jenkins House'', and the reconstruction of associated
    buildings and landscape features of such structure located
    within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp in accordance with the
    Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of
    historic properties. Amounts made available for expenditure for
    the project authorized by section 301(a) of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110) shall be available for
    the purposes of this subsection.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  ----------

       SECTION 6009 OF THE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR
          DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF, 2005

                    [OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FABRICATION PORTS

      [Sec. 6009. In determining the economic justification for
    navigation projects involving offshore oil and gas fabrication
    ports, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
    Engineers, is directed to measure and include in the National
    Economic Development calculation the value of future energy
    exploration and production fabrication contracts and
    transportation cost savings that would result from larger
    navigation channels.]
                                  ----------

                     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.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      Sec. 111. Perchlorate. (a)  * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purposes of
    carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
    appropriated to the Secretary [$25,000,000] $28,000,000, of
    which not to exceed $8,000,000 shall be available to carry out
    subsection (b)(1), not to exceed $3,000,000 shall be available
    to carry out subsection (b)(2), and not to exceed [$7,000,000]
    $10,000,000 shall be available to carry out subsection (b)(3).

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              House of Representatives,
                                        Committee on Resources,
                                         Washington, DC, June 22, 2005.
    Hon. Don Young,
    Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
    Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed the text of H.R. 2864,
    the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, as ordered
    reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
    and believe that the Committee on Resources has a substantial
    jurisdictional interest in several provisions of this bill.
        Recognizing the importance of this major piece of
    legislation and the hard work you and your staff have put into
    it, I will forego seeking a sequential referral of H.R. 2864.
    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. 2864 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 and your response in the report on H.R.
    2864 when it is filed.
        I appreciate your leadership on this bill and I look
    forward to working with you on H.R. 2864.
                Sincerely,
                                              Richard W. Pombo,
                                                              Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                         Washington, DC, June 23, 2005.
    Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
    Chairman, Committee on Resources,
    Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of June 22,
    2005, regarding H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act
    of 2005, 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 waiving consideration of these provisions 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. 2864 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.