[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.

                                  
