House Report 110-80 - WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

[House Report 110-80]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress 1st
Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
110-80
_______________________________________________________________________

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

----------

R E P O R T

of the

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

[to accompany h.r. 1495]

March 29, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007
110th Congress
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
110-80
_______________________________________________________________________

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

__________

R E P O R T

of the

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

[to accompany h.r. 1495]

March 29, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
110th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 110-80

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

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

March 29, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 1495]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 1495) 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 2007''.
(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. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 2007. Small flood damage reduction projects.
Sec. 2008. Modification of projects for improvement of the quality of
the environment.
Sec. 2009. Written agreement for water resources projects.
Sec. 2010. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.
Sec. 2011. Compilation of laws.
Sec. 2012. Dredged material disposal.
Sec. 2013. Wetlands mitigation.
Sec. 2014. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2015. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 2016. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 2017. Cost-sharing provisions for certain areas.
Sec. 2018. Use of other Federal funds.
Sec. 2019. Revision of project partnership agreement.
Sec. 2020. Cost sharing.
Sec. 2021. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction.
Sec. 2022. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 2023. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 2024. Wildfire firefighting.
Sec. 2025. Technical assistance.
Sec. 2026. Lakes program.
Sec. 2027. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local
actions.
Sec. 2028. Project streamlining.
Sec. 2029. Cooperative agreements.
Sec. 2030. Training funds.
Sec. 2031. Access to water resource data.
Sec. 2032. Shore protection projects.
Sec. 2033. Ability to pay.
Sec. 2034. Leasing authority.
Sec. 2035. Cost estimates.
Sec. 2036. Project planning.
Sec. 2037. Independent peer review.
Sec. 2038. Studies and reports for water resources projects.
Sec. 2039. Offshore oil and gas fabrication port.
Sec. 2040. Use of firms employing local residents.

TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3004. Tatitlek, Alaska.
Sec. 3005. Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Sec. 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.
Sec. 3007. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.
Sec. 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.
Sec. 3009. Compton Creek, California.
Sec. 3010. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.
Sec. 3011. Hamilton Airfield, California.
Sec. 3012. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel,
California.
Sec. 3013. Kaweah River, California.
Sec. 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.
Sec. 3015. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. 3016. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.
Sec. 3018. Pinole Creek, California.
Sec. 3019. Prado Dam, California.
Sec. 3020. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.
Sec. 3021. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 3022. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
Sec. 3023. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
Sec. 3024. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3025. Walnut Creek Channel, California.
Sec. 3026. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.
Sec. 3027. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.
Sec. 3028. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. 3029. South Platte River Basin, Colorado.
Sec. 3030. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 3031. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3032. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 3033. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3034. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 3035. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3036. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.
Sec. 3037. Miami Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3038. Peanut Island, Florida.
Sec. 3039. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.
Sec. 3040. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida.
Sec. 3041. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. 3042. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.
Sec. 3043. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. 3044. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.
Sec. 3045. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3046. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3047. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project,
Illinois.
Sec. 3048. Emiquon, Illinois.
Sec. 3049. Lasalle, Illinois.
Sec. 3050. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
Sec. 3051. Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana.
Sec. 3052. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 3053. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 3054. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.
Sec. 3055. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 3056. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge
Parish Watershed.
Sec. 3057. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 3058. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3059. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.
Sec. 3060. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to
Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 3061. Melville, Louisiana.
Sec. 3062. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 3063. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 3064. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal),
Louisiana.
Sec. 3065. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3066. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.
Sec. 3067. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 3068. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 3069. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 3070. Ada, Minnesota.
Sec. 3071. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.
Sec. 3072. Grand Marais, Minnesota.
Sec. 3073. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3074. Granite Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 3075. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3076. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3077. Silver Bay, Minnesota.
Sec. 3078. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3079. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Sec. 3080. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.
Sec. 3081. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.
Sec. 3082. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.
Sec. 3083. L-15 levee, Missouri.
Sec. 3084. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.
Sec. 3085. River Des Peres, Missouri.
Sec. 3086. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Sec. 3087. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.
Sec. 3088. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.
Sec. 3089. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 3090. Buffalo Harbor, New York.
Sec. 3091. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3092. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 3093. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 3094. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.
Sec. 3095. Mahoning River, Ohio.
Sec. 3096. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
Sec. 3097. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3098. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3099. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3100. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3101. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3102. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3103. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. 3104. Lake Kemp, Texas.
Sec. 3105. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
Sec. 3106. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
Sec. 3107. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3108. Proctor Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3109. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 3110. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties,
Virginia.
Sec. 3111. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. 3112. Duwamish/Green, Washington.
Sec. 3113. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.
Sec. 3114. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 3115. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 3116. Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 3117. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3118. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. 3119. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 3120. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 3121. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 3122. Land conveyances.
Sec. 3123. 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. Delaware River.
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. Elkhorn Slough Estuary, California.
Sec. 4012. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.
Sec. 4013. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California.
Sec. 4014. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.
Sec. 4015. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 4016. Napa River, St. Helena, California.
Sec. 4017. Orick, California.
Sec. 4018. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.
Sec. 4019. Sacramento River, California.
Sec. 4020. San Diego County, California.
Sec. 4021. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 4022. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
Sec. 4023. Twentynine Palms, California.
Sec. 4024. Yucca Valley, California.
Sec. 4025. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.
Sec. 4026. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek,
Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. 4027. Collier County Beaches, Florida.
Sec. 4028. Lower St. Johns River, Florida.
Sec. 4029. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.
Sec. 4030. Meriwether County, Georgia.
Sec. 4031. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 4032. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 4033. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois.
Sec. 4034. Salem, Indiana.
Sec. 4035. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4036. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4037. Louisville, Kentucky.
Sec. 4038. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. 4039. Clinton River, Michigan.
Sec. 4040. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.
Sec. 4041. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Sec. 4042. Northeast Mississippi.
Sec. 4043. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 4044. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.
Sec. 4045. Bayonne, New Jersey.
Sec. 4046. Carteret, New Jersey.
Sec. 4047. Gloucester County, New Jersey.
Sec. 4048. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
Sec. 4049. Batavia, New York.
Sec. 4050. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
Sec. 4051. Finger Lakes, New York.
Sec. 4052. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 4053. Newtown Creek, New York.
Sec. 4054. Niagara River, New York.
Sec. 4055. Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.
Sec. 4056. Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York.
Sec. 4057. Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4058. Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4059. Yadkinville, North Carolina.
Sec. 4060. Lake Erie, Ohio.
Sec. 4061. Ohio River, Ohio.
Sec. 4062. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.
Sec. 4063. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon.
Sec. 4064. Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4065. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4066. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4067. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4068. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4069. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4070. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.
Sec. 4071. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.
Sec. 4072. Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Sec. 4073. Cleveland, Tennessee.
Sec. 4074. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
Sec. 4075. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.
Sec. 4076. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee.
Sec. 4077. Abilene, Texas.
Sec. 4078. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.
Sec. 4079. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
Sec. 4080. Port of Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 4081. Grand County and Moab, Utah.
Sec. 4082. Southwestern Utah.
Sec. 4083. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina.
Sec. 4084. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.
Sec. 4085. Monongahela River Basin, northern West Virginia.
Sec. 4086. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 4087. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.
Sec. 4088. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

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 River 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 models.
Sec. 5015. Great Lakes navigation.
Sec. 5016. Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project.
Sec. 5017. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. 5018. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection
program.
Sec. 5019. Hypoxia assessment.
Sec. 5020. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy
evaluation and monitoring program.
Sec. 5021. Lock and dam security.
Sec. 5022. Rehabilitation.
Sec. 5023. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake
River salmon survival.
Sec. 5024. Auburn, Alabama.
Sec. 5025. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.
Sec. 5026. Alaska.
Sec. 5027. Barrow, Alaska.
Sec. 5028. Coffman Cove, Alaska.
Sec. 5029. Fire Island, Alaska.
Sec. 5030. Fort Yukon, Alaska.
Sec. 5031. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5032. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 5033. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 5034. Tanana River, Alaska.
Sec. 5035. Valdez, Alaska.
Sec. 5036. Whittier, Alaska.
Sec. 5037. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5038. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 5039. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.
Sec. 5040. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.
Sec. 5041. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 5042. Cambria, California.
Sec. 5043. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California;
Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 5044. Dana Point Harbor, California.
Sec. 5045. East San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 5046. Eastern Santa Clara basin, California.
Sec. 5047. Los Osos, California.
Sec. 5048. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.
Sec. 5049. Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel
Basin, California.
Sec. 5050. San Francisco, California.
Sec. 5051. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.
Sec. 5052. San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and Suisun Marsh
ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5053. Stockton, California.
Sec. 5054. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,
Connecticut.
Sec. 5055. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
Sec. 5056. Lake Worth, Florida.
Sec. 5057. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho.
Sec. 5058. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.
Sec. 5059. Illinois River Basin restoration.
Sec. 5060. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration.
Sec. 5061. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 5062. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 5063. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.
Sec. 5064. Calumet region, Indiana.
Sec. 5065. Paducah, Kentucky.
Sec. 5066. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 5067. Winchester, Kentucky.
Sec. 5068. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Sec. 5069. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.
Sec. 5070. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 5071. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 5072. Charlestown, Maryland.
Sec. 5073. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.
Sec. 5074. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 5075. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 5076. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 5077. Crookston, Minnesota.
Sec. 5078. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.
Sec. 5079. Itasca County, Minnesota.
Sec. 5080. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 5081. Northeastern Minnesota.
Sec. 5082. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 5083. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.
Sec. 5084. Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois.
Sec. 5085. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 5086. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 5087. Atlantic Coast of New York.
Sec. 5088. College Point, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5089. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5090. Hudson River, New York.
Sec. 5091. Mount Morris Dam, New York.
Sec. 5092. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5093. Stanly County, North Carolina.
Sec. 5094. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sec. 5095. Toussaint River, Ohio.
Sec. 5096. Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 5097. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.
Sec. 5098. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5099. Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5100. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5101. Northeast Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5102. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 5103. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 5104. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. 5105. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
Sec. 5106. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.
Sec. 5107. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.
Sec. 5108. Tennessee River partnership.
Sec. 5109. Upper Mississippi embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and
Mississippi.
Sec. 5110. Bosque River Watershed, Texas.
Sec. 5111. Dallas Floodway, Dallas Texas.
Sec. 5112. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 5113. Onion Creek, Texas.
Sec. 5114. Eastern Shore and southwest Virginia.
Sec. 5115. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.
Sec. 5116. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.
Sec. 5117. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.
Sec. 5118. Puget Island, Washington.
Sec. 5119. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 5120. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 5121. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 5122. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 5123. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests.

TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida.
Sec. 6002. Pilot projects.
Sec. 6003. Maximum costs.
Sec. 6004. Project authorization.
Sec. 6005. Credit.
Sec. 6006. Outreach and assistance.
Sec. 6007. Critical restoration projects.
Sec. 6008. Modified water deliveries.
Sec. 6009. Deauthorizations.
Sec. 6010. Regional engineering model for environmental restoration.

TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

Sec. 7001. Definitions.
Sec. 7002. Comprehensive plan.
Sec. 7003. Louisiana coastal area.
Sec. 7004. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task
Force.
Sec. 7005. Project modifications.
Sec. 7006. Construction.
Sec. 7007. Non-Federal cost share.
Sec. 7008. Project justification.
Sec. 7009. Independent review.
Sec. 7010. Expedited reports.
Sec. 7011. Reporting.
Sec. 7012. New Orleans and vicinity.
Sec. 7013. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.

TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY 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) Haines, alaska.--The project for navigation, Haines,
Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20,
2004, at a total cost of $14,040,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $11,232,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,808,000.
(2) Port lions, alaska.--The project for navigation, Port
Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 14,
2006, at a total cost of $9,530,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $7,624,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$1,906,000.
(3) Rio salado oeste, arizona.--The project for environmental
restoration, Rio Salado Oeste, Arizona: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of
$166,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000.
(4) Santa cruz river, paseo de las iglesias, arizona.--The
project for environmental restoration, Santa Cruz River, Pima
County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March
28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $34,400,000.
(5) Tanque verde creek, pima county, arizona.--The project
for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Pima County,
Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003,
at a total cost of $5,906,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,070,000.
(6) Salt river (va shlyay' akimel), maricopa county,
arizona.--The project for environmental restoration, Salt River
(Va Shlyay' Akimel), Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $162,100,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $105,200,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $56,900,000.
(7) May branch, fort smith, arkansas.--The project for flood
damage reduction, May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas, Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost
of $30,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,010,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,840,000.
(8) Hamilton city, california.--The project for flood damage
reduction and environmental restoration, Hamilton City,
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22,
2004, at a total cost of $52,400,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $34,100,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of
$18,300,000.
(9) 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
$13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at an
estimated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated Federal cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $21,250,000.
(10) Matilija dam, ventura county, california.--The project
for environmental restoration, Matilija Dam, Ventura County,
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20,
2004, at a total cost of $144,500,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $89,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $54,800,000.
(11) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The project for
flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Middle
Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of
$45,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,500,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,700,000.
(12) Napa river salt marsh restoration, california.--
(A) In general.--The project for environmental
restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa,
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $134,500,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $87,500,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $47,000,000.
(B) Administration.--In carrying out the project
authorized by this paragraph, the Secretary shall--
(i) construct 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 to the project; and
(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2,
and 3.
(13) Denver county reach, 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
$21,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,680,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,370,000.
(14) 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
$125,270,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$75,140,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$50,130,000.
(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).
(15) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The project for
environmental restoration and recreation, East St. Louis and
Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $208,260,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $134,910,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $73,350,000.
(16) Peoria riverfront development, illinois.--The project
for environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront Development,
Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 28, 2003,
at a total cost of $18,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $11,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,380,000.
(17) Wood river levee system reconstruction, madison county,
illinois.--The project for flood damage reduction, Wood River
Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated July 18, 2006, at a total cost
of $17,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,193,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,027,000.
(18) Des moines and raccoon rivers, des moines, iowa.--The
project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon
Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $10,780,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $6,967,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $3,813,000.
(19) Licking river basin, cynthiana, kentucky.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Licking River Basin, Cynthiana,
Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24,
2006, at a total cost of $18,200,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $11,830,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,370,000.
(20) 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
$9,680,000. 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.
(21) 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
$886,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$576,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$310,345,000.
(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.
(22) Port of iberia, louisiana.--The project for navigation,
Port of Iberia, Louisiana, Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $131,250,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $105,315,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $25,935,000.
(23) Smith island, somerset county, maryland.--The project
for environmental restoration, Smith Island, Somerset County,
Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 29,
2001, at a total cost of $15,580,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $10,127,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,453,000.
(24) Roseau river, roseau, minnesota.--The project for flood
damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota, Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost
of $25,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,820,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,280,000.
(25) Mississippi coastal, mississippi.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental
restoration, Mississippi Coastal, Mississippi, Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of
$107,690,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $70,000,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,690,000.
(26) Kansas citys levees, missouri and kansas.--The project
for flood damage reduction, Kansas Citys levees, Missouri and
Kansas, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19,
2006, at a total cost of $65,430,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $42,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$22,900,000.
(27) Swope park industrial area, blue river, kansas city,
missouri.--The project for flood damage reduction, Swope Park
Industrial Area, Blue River, Kansas City, Missouri: Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost
of $16,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,037,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,943,000.
(28) Great egg harbor inlet to townsends inlet, new jersey.--
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Great Egg
Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of
$54,360,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $35,069,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $19,291,000, and at an
estimated total cost of $202,500,000 for periodic nourishment
over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal
cost of $101,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$101,250,000.
(29) Hudson raritan estuary, liberty state park, new
jersey.--
(A) In general.--The project for environmental
restoration, Hudson Raritan Estuary, Liberty State
Park, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated August 25, 2006, at a total cost of $34,100,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $22,200,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $11,900,000.
(B) Restoration teams.--In carrying out the project,
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.
(30) Manasquan inlet to barnegat inlet, new jersey.--The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan
Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of
$71,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $46,735,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,165,000, and at an
estimated total cost of $119,680,000 for periodic beach
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated Federal cost of $59,840,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $59,840,000.
(31) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, union beach, new
jersey.--The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New Jersey: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated January 4, 2006, at a total
cost of $115,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$74,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,200,000,
and at an estimated total cost of $6,500,000 for periodic
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an
estimated Federal cost of $3,250,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $3,250,000.
(32) South river, raritan river basin, new jersey.--The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and
environmental restoration, South River, Raritan River Basin,
New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22,
2003, at a total cost of $122,300,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $79,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $42,800,000.
(33) Southwest valley, bernalillo county, new mexico.--The
project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley,
Bernalillo County, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $24,840,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $16,150,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $8,690,000.
(34) Montauk point, new york.--The project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a total cost of
$14,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,300,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,300,000.
(35) Hocking river, monday creek sub-basin, ohio.--The
project for environmental restoration, Hocking River, Monday
Creek Sub-basin, Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
August 24, 2006, at a total cost of $20,980,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $13,440,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $7,540,000.
(36) Town of bloomsburg, columbia county, pennsylvania.--The
project for flood damage reduction, town of Bloomsburg,
Columbia County, Pennsylvania: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of $44,500,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $28,925,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $15,575,000.
(37) Pawley's island, south carolina.--The project for
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawley's Island, South
Carolina, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19,
2006, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $5,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$3,140,000, and at an estimated total cost of $21,200,000 for
periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with
an estimated Federal cost of $10,600,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $10,600,000.
(38) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas.--The
project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus
Christi Ship Channel, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $100,300,000.
(39) Gulf intracoastal waterway, matagorda bay re-route,
texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of $17,280,000. 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.
(40) Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos river,
texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,
High Island to Brazos River, Texas: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of $14,450,000.
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.
(41) Lower colorado river basin phase i, texas.--The project
for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Lower
Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas, Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of
$110,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $69,640,000 and
an estimated non-Federal cost of $41,090,000.
(42) Atlantic intracoastal waterway bridge replacement, deep
creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The project for Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek,
Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000.
(43) Craney island eastward expansion, norfolk harbor and
channels, virginia.--The project for navigation, Craney Island
Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia:
Report of Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total
cost of $712,103,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$31,229,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $680,874,000.

SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is
feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
(1) Haleyville, alabama.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Haleyville, Alabama.
(2) Weiss lake, alabama.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Weiss Lake, Alabama.
(3) Little colorado river levee, arizona.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.
(4) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
(5) Barrel springs wash, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale,
California.
(6) Borrego springs, california.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Borrego Springs, California.
(7) Colton, california.--Project for flood damage reduction,
Colton, California.
(8) Dunlap stream, yucaipa, california.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, Yucaipa, California.
(9) Hunts canyon wash, palmdale, california.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale,
California.
(10) Ontario and chino, california.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Ontario and Chino, California.
(11) Santa venetia, california.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Santa Venetia, California.
(12) Whittier, california.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Whittier, California.
(13) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
(14) St. francisville, lousiana.--Project for flood damage
reduction, St. Francisville, Louisiana.
(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) Marsh creek, minnesota.--Project for flood damage
reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
(19) South branch of the wild rice river, borup, minnesota.--
Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild
Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
(20) Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.
(21) Acid brook, pompton lakes, new jersey.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.
(22) Cannisteo river, addison, new york.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.
(23) Cohocton river, campbell, new york.--Project for flood
damage reduction, Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.
(24) Dry and otter creeks, cortland, new york.--Project for
flood damage reduction, Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland, 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), 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) Ontario and chino, california.--The Secretary shall carry
out the project for flood damage reduction, Ontario and Chino,
California, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary
determines that the project is feasible.
(3) Santa venetia, california.--The Secretary shall carry out
the project for flood damage reduction, Santa Venetia,
California, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary
determines that the project is feasible 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) Whittier, california.--The Secretary shall carry out the
project for flood damage reduction, Whittier, California,
referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that
the project is feasible.
(5) South branch of the wild rice river, 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) 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.
(6) Acid brook, pompton lakes, new jersey.--The Secretary
shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Acid
Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, referred to in subsection (a)
if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
(7) Dilley, texas.--The Secretary shall carry out the project
for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred to in
subsection (a) 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) St. johns bluff training wall, duval county, florida.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, St. Johns Bluff
Training Wall, Duval County, Florida.
(2) Gulf intracoastal waterway, iberville parish,
louisiana.--Projects for emergency streambank restoration, Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
(3) Ouachita and black rivers, arkansas and louisiana.--
Projects for emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and
Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.
(4) Piney point lighthouse, st. mary's county, maryland.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney Point
Lighthouse, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
(5) Pug hole lake, minnesota.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.
(6) Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork Grand
River, Gentry County, Missouri.
(7) Platte river, platte city, missouri.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City,
Missouri.
(8) Rush creek, parkville, missouri.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri,
including measures to address degradation of the creek bed.
(9) Dry and otter creeks, cortland county, new york.--Project
for emergency streambank protection, Dry and Otter Creeks,
Cortland County, New York.
(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) Owego creek, tioga county, new york.--Project for
emergency streambank protection, Owego Creek, Tioga County, New
York.
(13) Howard road outfall, shelby county, tennessee.--Project
for emergency streambank protection, Howard Road outfall,
Shelby County, Tennessee.
(14) Mitch farm ditch and lateral d, shelby county,
tennessee.--Project for emergency streambank protection, Mitch
Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee.
(15) Wolf river tributaries, shelby county, tennessee.--
Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf River
tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee.
(16) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--Project for emergency
streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
(17) 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) Mississippi river ship channel, louisiana.--Project for
navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
(2) East basin, cape cod canal, sandwich, massachusetts.--
Project for navigation, East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich,
Massachusetts.
(3) Lynn harbor, lynn, massachusetts.--Project for
navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.
(4) Merrimack river, haverhill, massachusetts.--Project for
navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.
(5) Oak bluffs harbor, oak bluffs, massachusetts.--Project
for navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
(6) Woods hole great harbor, falmouth, massachusetts.--
Project for navigation, Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth,
Massachusetts.
(7) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au
Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
(8) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--Project
for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan.
(9) Tower harbor, tower, minnesota.--Project for navigation,
Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota.
(10) Olcott harbor, olcott, new york.--Project for
navigation, Olcott Harbor, Olcott, New York.
(b) Special Rules.--
(1) 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), 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.
(2) Tower harbor, tower minnesota.--The Secretary shall carry
out the project for navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota,
referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that
the project is feasible.

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) Ft. george inlet, duval county, florida.--Project for
improvement of the quality of the environment, Ft. George
Inlet, Duval County, Florida.
(4) Rathbun lake, iowa.--Project for improvement of the
quality of the environment, Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
(5) Smithville lake, missouri.--Project for improvement of
the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.

(a) In General.--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) Black lake, alaska.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Black Lake, Alaska, at the head of the Chignik
watershed.
(3) Ben lomond dam, santa cruz, california.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz,
California.
(4) Dockweiler bluffs, los angeles county, california.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dockweiler Bluffs,
Los Angeles County, California.
(5) Salt river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Salt River, California.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, california.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater
Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to
address aquatic nuisance species.
(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) Chattahoochee fall line, georgia and alabama.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall Line,
Georgia and Alabama.
(12) Longwood cove, gainesville, georgia.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville,
Georgia.
(13) City park, university lakes, louisiana.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes,
Louisiana.
(14) Mill pond, littleton, massachusetts.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton,
Massachusetts.
(15) Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton,
Massachusetts.
(16) Rush lake, minnesota.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota.
(17) South fork of the crow river, hutchinson, minnesota.--
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the
Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota.
(18) St. louis, missouri.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, St. Louis, Missouri.
(19) Truckee river, reno, nevada.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including
features for fish passage for Washoe County.
(20) Grover's mill pond, new jersey.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.
(21) Dugway creek, bratenahl, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.
(22) Johnson creek, gresham, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
(23) Beaver creek, beaver and salem, pennsylvania.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver and
Salem, Pennsylvania.
(24) Cementon dam, lehigh river, pennsylvania.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, Lehigh River,
Pennsylvania.
(25) Saucon creek, northampton county, pennsylvania.--Project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon Creek, Northampton
County, Pennsylvania.
(26) Blackstone river, rhode island.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
(27) Wilson branch, cheraw, south carolina.--Project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South
Carolina.
(28) White river, bethel, vermont.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont.
(b) Special Rule.--The Secretary shall carry out the project for
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Black Lake, Alaska referred to in
subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is
feasible.

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, Shore Parkway Greenway, 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--
``(A) solicit contributions from non-Federal
interests for costs of constructing authorized water
resources projects or measures in excess of the non-
Federal share assigned to the appropriate project
purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), and (c); or
``(B) 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).''.

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(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33
U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 117 Stat. 1836; 119 Stat. 2169; 120
Stat. 318; 120 Stat. 3197) is amended by striking ``2008'' and
inserting ``2010''.

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 ``7 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 ``$25,000,000'' 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. 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. 2007. 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. 2008. MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT.

Section 1135(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2309a(h)) is amended by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting
``$30,000,000''.

SEC. 2009. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 1962d-5b) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Sec. 221'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS.'';

(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
``(1) In general.--After December 31, 1970, 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 any
provision of law, shall not be commenced until each non-Federal
interest has entered into a written partnership agreement with
the Secretary (or, where appropriate, the district engineer for
the district in which the project will be carried out) under
which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and
requirements for implementation or construction of the project
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.
``(2) Liquidated damages.--A partnership agreement described
in paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages
in the event of a failure of one or more parties to perform.
``(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any
partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) and 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.
``(4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
``(A) In general.--A partnership agreement described
in paragraph (1) may provide with respect to a project
that the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project, including a project
implemented without specific authorization in law, the
value of in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal
interest, including--
``(i) the costs of planning (including data
collection), design, management, mitigation,
construction, and construction services that
are provided by the non-Federal interest for
implementation of the project;
``(ii) the value of materials or services
provided before execution of the partnership
agreement, including efforts on constructed
elements incorporated into the project; and
``(iii) the value of materials and services
provided after execution of the partnership
agreement.
``(B) Condition.--The Secretary shall credit an in-
kind contribution under subparagraph (A) if the
Secretary determines that the material or service
provided as an in-kind contribution is integral to the
project.
``(C) Work performed before partnership agreement.--
In any case in which the non-Federal interest is to
receive credit under subparagraph (A)(ii) for the cost
of work carried out by the non-Federal interest and
such work has not been carried out as of the date of
enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary and the
non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement
under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out
such work, and only work carried out following the
execution of the agreement shall be eligible for
credit.
``(D) Limitations.--Credit authorized under this
paragraph for a project--
``(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project;
``(ii) shall not alter any other requirement
that a non-Federal interest provide lands,
easements or rights-of-way, or areas for
disposal of dredged material for the project;
``(iii) shall not alter any requirement that
a non-Federal interest pay a portion of the
costs of construction of the project under
sections 101 and 103 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211; 33
U.S.C. 2213); and
``(iv) shall not exceed the actual and
reasonable costs of the materials, services, or
other things provided by the non-Federal
interest, as determined by the Secretary.
``(E) Applicability.--
``(i) In general.--This paragraph shall apply
to water resources projects authorized after
November 16, 1986, including projects initiated
after November 16, 1986, without specific
authorization in law.
``(ii) Limitation.--In any case in which a
specific provision of law provides for a non-
Federal interest to receive credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of a study for,
or construction or operation and maintenance
of, a water resources project, the specific
provision of law shall apply instead of this
paragraph.''.
(b) Non-Federal Interest.--Section 221(b) of such Act is amended to
read as follows:
``(b) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--The term `non-Federal
interest' means a legally constituted public body (including a
federally recognized Indian tribe), and a nonprofit entity with the
consent of the affected local government, that has full authority and
capability to perform the terms of its agreement and to pay damages, if
necessary, in the event of failure to perform.''.
(c) Program Administration.--Section 221 of such Act is further
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Delegation of Authority.--Not later than September 30, 2008,
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 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 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 subsection, 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.
``(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 120 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Chief of Engineers shall--
``(1) ensure that each district engineer has made available
to the public, including on the Internet, all partnership
agreements entered into under this section within the preceding
10 years and all partnership agreements for water resources
projects currently being carried out in that district; and
``(2) make each partnership agreement entered into after such
date of enactment available to the public, including on the
Internet, not later than 7 days after the date on which such
agreement is entered into.''.
(d) 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,''.
(e) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and
(d) 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.
(f) Partnership and Cooperative Arrangements; References.--
(1) In general.--A goal of agreements entered into under
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
5b) 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 deemed 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 deemed to be a
reference to a ``cooperation agreement'' or a ``project
cooperation agreement'', respectively.

SEC. 2010. 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 2008 through 2012.

SEC. 2011. COMPILATION OF LAWS.

(a) Compilation of Laws Enacted After November 8, 1966.--Not later
than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
and the Chief of Engineers shall prepare a compilation of the laws of
the United States relating to the improvement of rivers and harbors,
flood damage reduction, beach and shoreline erosion, hurricane and
storm damage reduction, ecosystem and environmental restoration, and
other water resources development enacted after November 8, 1966, and
before January 1, 2008, and have such compilation printed for the use
of the Department of the Army, Congress, and the general public.
(b) Reprint of Laws Enacted Before November 8, 1966.--The Secretary
shall have the volumes containing the laws referred to in subsection
(a) enacted before November 8, 1966, reprinted.
(c) Index.--The Secretary shall include an index in each volume
compiled, and each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section.
(d) Congressional Copies.--Not later than December 1, 2008, the
Secretary shall transmit at least 25 copies of each volume compiled,
and of each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section to each of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate.
(e) Availability.--The Secretary shall ensure that each volume
compiled, and each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section are
available through electronic means, including the Internet.

SEC. 2012. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL.

Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.
2326a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Dredged Material Facility.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a partnership
agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) with one or more non-Federal interests
with respect to a water resources project, or group of water
resources 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.
``(2) Performance.--One or more of the parties to a
partnership agreement under this subsection may perform the
acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of
a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant
reduction, or disposal facility.
``(3) Multiple projects.--If a facility to which this
subsection applies serves to manage dredged material from
multiple water resources projects located in the geographic
region of the facility, the Secretary may combine portions of
such projects with appropriate combined costsharing between the
various projects in a partnership agreement for the facility
under this subsection.
``(4) Specified federal funding sources and cost sharing.--
``(A) Specified federal funding.--A partnership
agreement with respect to a facility under this
subsection shall specify--
``(i) the Federal funding sources and
combined cost-sharing when applicable to
multiple water resources projects; and
``(ii) the responsibilities and risks of each
of the parties relating to present and future
dredged material managed by the facility.
``(B) Management of sediments.--
``(i) In general.--A partnership agreement
under this subsection may include the
management of sediments from the maintenance
dredging of Federal water resources projects
that do not have partnership agreements.
``(ii) Payments.--A partnership agreement
under this subsection may allow the non-Federal
interest to receive reimbursable payments from
the Federal Government for commitments made by
the non-Federal interest for disposal or
placement capacity at dredged material
processing, treatment, contaminant reduction,
or disposal facilities.
``(C) Credit.--A partnership agreement under this
subsection may allow costs incurred by the non-Federal
interest before execution of the partnership agreement
to be credited in accordance with section 221(a)(4) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
5b(a)(4)).
``(5) Credit.--
``(A) Effect on existing agreements.--Nothing in this
subsection supersedes or modifies an agreement in
effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph
between the Federal Government and any non-Federal
interest for the cost-sharing, construction, and
operation and maintenance of a water resources project.
``(B) Credit for funds.--Subject to the approval of
the Secretary and in accordance with law (including
regulations and policies) in effect on the date of
enactment of this paragraph, a non-Federal interest for
a water resources project may receive credit for funds
provided for the acquisition, design, construction,
management, or operation of a dredged material
processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or
disposal facility to the extent the facility is used to
manage dredged material from the project.
``(C) Non-federal interest responsibilities.--A non-
Federal interest entering into a partnership agreement
under this subsection for a facility shall--
``(i) be responsible for providing all
necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations associated with the facility; and
``(ii) receive credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project with respect
to which the agreement is being entered into
for those items.''; and
(3) in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (d) (as
redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by inserting ``and maintenance'' after
``operation'' each place it appears; and
(B) by inserting ``processing, treatment, contaminant
reduction, or'' after ``dredged material'' the first
place it appears in each of those paragraphs.

SEC. 2013. WETLANDS MITIGATION.

In carrying out a water resources project that involves wetlands
mitigation and that has impacts that occur within the same watershed of
a mitigation bank, the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable and
where appropriate, shall first consider 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. 2014. 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. 2015. 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, the United States Virgin 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. 2016. 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.
(7) A project at Benson Beach, Washington.

SEC. 2017. COST-SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

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

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

``The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up to
$500,000 for all studies and projects--
``(1) in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa,
Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
United States Virgin Islands;
``(2) 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
``(3) 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.''.

SEC. 2018. USE OF OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS.

The non-Federal interest for a water resources study or project may
use, and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided by a Federal agency
under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the
non-Federal share of the cost of the study or project if such funds are
authorized to be used to carry out the study or project.

SEC. 2019. 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 water resources project or an
increase in the total cost of a water resources project authorized to
be carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall revise the
partnership agreement for the project to take into account the change
in Federal participation in the project.

SEC. 2020. COST SHARING.

An increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be
allocated for a water resources project, or an increase in the total
cost of a water resources project, authorized to be carried out by the
Secretary shall not affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to
the project.

SEC. 2021. 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 Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

SEC. 2022. 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
(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;
``(9) Genesee River Basin, New York; and
``(10) White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.'';
(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. 2023. 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 ``2012''.

SEC. 2024. 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. 2025. 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 ``(a) 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)(3) 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. 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. 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) 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.
(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. 2028. PROJECT STREAMLINING.

(a) Policy.--The benefits of water resources projects are important
to the Nation's economy and environment, and recommendations to
Congress regarding such projects should not be delayed due to
uncoordinated or inefficient 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 the development
of water resources projects.
(d) Coordinated Reviews.--
(1) In general.--The coordinated review process under this
section shall provide that all 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 the development of a water resources project described in
subsection (b) will be conducted, to the maximum extent
practicable, concurrently 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) with respect to the development of a water
resources project shall formulate and implement administrative
policy and procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure
completion of reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses,
and approvals described in paragraph (1) for the project in a
timely and environmentally responsible manner.
(e) Identification of Jurisdictional Agencies.--With respect to the
development of each water resources project, the Secretary shall
identify, as soon as practicable all Federal, State, and local
government agencies and Indian tribes that may--
(1) have jurisdiction over the project;
(2) be required by law to conduct or issue a review,
analysis, or opinion for the project; or
(3) be required to make a determination on issuing a permit,
license, or approval for the project.
(f) State Authority.--If the coordinated review process is being
implemented under this section by the Secretary with respect to the
development of a water resources project described in subsection (b)
within the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent with State law,
may choose to participate in the process and to make subject to the
process all State agencies that--
(1) have jurisdiction over the project;
(2) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or
opinion for the project; or
(3) are required to make a determination on issuing a permit,
license, or approval for the project.
(g) Memorandum of Understanding.--The coordinated review process
developed under this section may be incorporated into a memorandum of
understanding for a water resources project between the Secretary, the
heads of Federal, State, and local government agencies, Indian tribes
identified under subsection (e), 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
the coordinated review process under this section with respect
to the development of a water resources 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 may 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, or
opinion or determination on issuing a permit, license, or
approval.
(i) Purpose and Need and Determination of Reasonable Alternatives.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, as the Federal lead agency
responsible for carrying out a study for a water resources
project and the associated process for meeting the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, shall--
(A) define the project's purpose and need for
purposes of any document which the Secretary is
responsible for preparing for the project and shall
determine the range of alternatives for consideration
in any document which the Secretary is responsible for
preparing for the project; and
(B) determine, in collaboration with participating
agencies at appropriate times during the study process,
the methodologies to be used and the level of detail
required in the analysis of each alternative for the
project.
(2) Preferred alternative.--At the discretion of the
Secretary, the preferred alternative for a project, after being
identified, may be developed to a higher level of detail than
other alternatives.
(j) Limitations.--Nothing in this section shall preempt or interfere
with--
(1) any statutory requirement for 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 and the regulations
issued by the Council on Environmental Quality to carry out
such Act.

SEC. 2029. 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. 2030. 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 appropriations 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. 2031. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to provide
public access to water resources 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. 2032. 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 under subsection (a),
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 under
subsection (a) 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. 2033. 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
``September 30, 2007''.
(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. 2034. 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. 2035. 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. 2036. PROJECT PLANNING.

(a) Determination of Certain National Benefits.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that,
consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and
Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation
Studies (1983), the Secretary may select a water resources
project alternative that does not maximize net national
economic development benefits or net national ecosystem
restoration benefits if there is an overriding reason based on
other Federal, State, local, or international concerns.
(2) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane storm
damage reduction projects.--With respect to a water resources
project the primary purpose of which is flood damage reduction,
navigation, or hurricane and storm damage reduction, an
overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the plan that
maximizes net 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.
(3) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to a water
resources project the primary purpose of which is ecosystem
restoration, an overriding reason for selecting a plan other
than the plan that maximizes net 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. 2037. 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)--
(i) 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); or
(ii) the Governor of an affected State
requests a peer review by an independent panel
of experts.
(B) Discretionary.--A project study may be subject to
peer review if--
(i) 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
(ii) 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. 2038. 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)) 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 specifically 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. 2039. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FABRICATION PORT.

(a) In General.--In conducting a feasibility study for the project
for navigation, Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black,
Louisiana, being conducted under section 430 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2639), 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.
(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. 2040. USE OF FIRMS EMPLOYING LOCAL RESIDENTS.

(a) Contracts or Agreements With Private Entities.--In carrying out
construction of a water resources project, the Secretary may enter into
a contract or agreement with a private entity only if the private
entity provides assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that, to the
maximum extent practicable--
(1) local residents in the area of the project will comprise
not less than 50 percent of the workforce employed by the
entity to perform the contract or agreement; and
(2) local residents in the area of the project will comprise
not less than 50 percent of the workforce employed by each
subcontractor at each tier in connection with the contract or
agreement.
(b) Exemptions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may waive the application of
subsection (a) with respect to a contract or agreement if the
Secretary determines that compliance with subsection (a) is not
feasible due to--
(A) a lack of qualified local residents to permit
satisfaction of the requirements of subsection (a);
(B) a lack of sufficient numbers of specialized
workers necessary to carry out the project; or
(C) the need to comply with small business or
minority contracting requirements under Federal law.
(2) Documentation.--Any determination by the Secretary under
paragraph (1) to waive the application of subsection (a) with
respect to a contract or agreement shall be justified in
writing.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations establishing
local residency and other requirements to facilitate compliance with
this section.
(d) Prior Contracts.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
affect any contract or agreement entered into before the effective date
of this section.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall become effective 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.

TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

SEC. 3001. COOK INLET, ALASKA.

Section 118(a)(3) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2005 (title I of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2005; 118 Stat. 2945) is amended by inserting ``as part of the
operation and maintenance of such project modification'' after ``by the
Secretary''.

SEC. 3002. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 3003. SITKA, ALASKA.

The Sitka, Alaska, element of the project for navigation, Southeast
Alaska Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, authorized by section 101(1) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4801), is modified
to direct the Secretary to take such action as is necessary to correct
design deficiencies in the Sitka Harbor Breakwater, at full Federal
expense. The estimated cost is $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. RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.

The project for flood damage reduction, Rio De Flag, Flagstaff,
Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is modified to authorize the
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $54,100,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $35,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of
$19,100,000.

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. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALIFORNIA. .

(a) In General.--The project for flood control, American and
Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(6)(A) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 274), as
modified by section 128 of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), is further modified to
authorize the Secretary to construct the auxiliary spillway generally
in accordance with the Post Authorization Change Report, American River
Watershed Project (Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise
Projects), dated December 2006, at a total cost of $683,000,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $444,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $239,000,000.
(b) Dam Safety Activities.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to
carry out dam safety activities in connection with the auxiliary
spillway in accordance with the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams
Program.
(c) Transfer of Funds.--The Secretary and the Secretary of the
Interior are authorized to transfer between their respective agencies
appropriated amounts and other available funds (including funds
contributed by non-Federal interests) for the purpose of planning,
design, and construction of the auxiliary spillway. Any transfer made
pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to such terms and
conditions as agreed upon by the Secretary and the Secretary of the
Interior.

SEC. 3009. 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. 3010. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER'S CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson Creek/
Murderer's Creek, California, being carried out under section 206 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is
modified--
(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 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 Secretary to consider national ecosystem
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the
project.

SEC. 3011. 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 $228,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $171,100,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $57,000,000.

SEC. 3012. 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. 3013. 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. 3014. 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. 3015. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--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,
with an estimated Federal cost of $65,000,000, and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $40,000,000.
(b) 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. 3016. 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. 3017. 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. 3018. 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. 3019. 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. 3020. 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. 3021. 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. 3022. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

The project for 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. 3023. 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. 3024. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper
Guadalupe River, California, 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 generally in
accordance with the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Damage Reduction, San
Jose, California, Limited Reevaluation Report, dated March, 2004, at a
total cost of $244,500,000.

SEC. 3025. 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--
(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 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 Secretary to consider national ecosystem
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the
project.

SEC. 3026. 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. 3027. 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. 3028. 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. 3029. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLORADO.

Section 808 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4168) is amended by striking ``agriculture,'' and inserting
``agriculture, environmental restoration,''.

SEC. 3030. 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. 3031. 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 for
shore protection the cost of nourishment and renourishment associated
with the project for shore protection 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. 3032. 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. 3033. 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. 3034. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.

The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero Island
segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized by 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. 3035. 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. 3036. 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
$15,190,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,320,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $5,870,000, and at an estimated total
cost of $65,000,000 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 interest in accordance with section 206 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i-1) for the modified
project.

SEC. 3037. 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 the Federal share of the costs the non-Federal
interest has incurred in construction of the project (including
environmental mitigation costs and costs incurred for
incomplete usable increments of the project) in accordance with
section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2232).

SEC. 3038. 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. 3039. 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. 3040. 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. 3041. 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 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. 3042. 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. 3043. 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. 3044. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN, ILLINOIS.

(a) In General.--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--
(1) to include the channel between the harbor and the
Illinois River; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to enter into a partnership
agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the local
cooperation agreement dated August 18, 1983, with the
Beardstown Community Park District.
(b) Terms of Partnership Agreement.--The partnership agreement
referred to in subsection (a) shall include the same rights and
responsibilities as the local cooperation agreement dated August 18,
1983, changing only the identity of the non-Federal sponsor.
(c) 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. 3045. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.

The Cache River Levee constructed for flood control at the Cache
River, Illinois, and authorized by the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat.
1217), is modified to add environmental restoration as a project
purpose.

SEC. 3046. 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. 3047. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS PROJECT,
ILLINOIS.

(a) Treatment as Single Project.--The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
Dispersal Barrier Project (in this section referred to as ``Barrier
I'') (as in existence on the date of enactment of this Act),
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)), and the project relating to the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, authorized by section 345 of the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-335; 118
Stat. 1352) (in this section referred to as ``Barrier II''), shall be
considered to constitute a single project.
(b) Authorization.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall--
(A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I;
(B) construct Barrier II, notwithstanding the project
cooperation agreement with the State of Illinois dated
June 14, 2005;
(C) operate and maintain Barrier I and Barrier II as
a system to optimize effectiveness;
(D) conduct, in consultation with appropriate
Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental entities, a
study of a range of options and technologies for
reducing impacts of hazards that may reduce the
efficacy of the Barriers; and
(E) provide to each State a credit in an amount equal
to the amount of funds contributed by the State toward
Barrier II.
(2) Use of credit.--A State may apply a credit provided to
the State under paragraph (1)(E) to any cost sharing
responsibility for an existing or future Federal project
carried out by the Secretary in the State.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 345 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-335; 118 Stat. 1352), is
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 345. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER,
ILLINOIS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the Barrier II project of the project for the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, initiated
pursuant to section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2294 note; 100 Stat. 4251).''.
(d) Feasibility Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental entities, shall
conduct, at Federal expense, a feasibility study of the range of
options and technologies available to prevent the spread of aquatic
nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins
through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other pathways.

SEC. 3048. 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. 3049. 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. 3050. 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 22,
1936 (49 Stat. 1583), is modified to add environmental restoration as a
project purpose.
(b) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be
expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the
environment, 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. 3051. 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. 3052. 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. 3053. 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. 3054. 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. 3055. 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. 3056. 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 $187,000,000; 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. 3057. 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. 3058. 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. 3059. 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. 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. 3060. 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 of 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. 3061. MELVILLE, LOUISIANA.

Section 315(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114
Stat. 2603) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and may include the town of Melville, Louisiana, as one of
the alternative sites''.

SEC. 3062. 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. 3063. 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. 3064. 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. 3065. 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 $26,900,000.

SEC. 3066. 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. 3067. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

Section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
326) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
``(1) Management plan.--The term `management plan' means the
management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair,
Michigan, that is in effect as of the date of enactment of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2006.
``(2) Partnership.--The term `partnership' means the
partnership established by the Secretary under subsection
(b)(1).
``(b) Partnership.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and lead a
partnership of appropriate Federal agencies (including the
Environmental Protection Agency) and the State of Michigan
(including political subdivisions of the State)--
``(A) to promote cooperation among the Federal,
State, and local governments and other involved parties
in the management of the St. Clair River and Lake St.
Clair watersheds; and
``(B) develop and implement projects consistent with
the management plan.
``(2) Coordination with actions under other law.--
``(A) In general.--Actions taken under this section
by the partnership shall be coordinated with actions to
restore and conserve the St. Clair River and Lake St.
Clair and watersheds taken under other provisions of
Federal and State law.
``(B) No effect on other law.--Nothing in this
section alters, modifies, or affects any other
provision of Federal or State law.
``(c) Implementation of St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair Management
Plan.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair
strategic implementation plan in accordance with the
management plan;
``(B) provide technical, planning, and engineering
assistance to non-Federal interests for developing and
implementing activities consistent with the management
plan;
``(C) plan, design, and implement projects consistent
with the management plan; and
``(D) provide, in coordination with the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, financial and
technical assistance, including grants, to the State of
Michigan (including political subdivisions of the
State) and interested nonprofit entities for the
planning, design, and implementation of projects to
restore, conserve, manage, and sustain the St. Clair
River, Lake St. Clair, and associated watersheds.
``(2) Specific measures.--Financial and technical assistance
provided under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1) may
be used in support of non-Federal activities consistent with
the management plan.
``(d) Supplements to Management Plan and Strategic Implementation
Plan.--In consultation with the partnership and after providing an
opportunity for public review and comment, the Secretary shall develop
information to supplement--
``(1) the management plan; and
``(2) the strategic implementation plan developed under
subsection (c)(1)(A).
``(e) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) In-kind services.--The non-Federal share of the cost of
technical assistance under subsection (c), the cost of
planning, design, and construction of a project under
subsection (c), and the cost of development of supplementary
information under subsection (d) may be provided through the
provision of in-kind services.
``(2) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The
Secretary shall credit the non-Federal sponsor for the value of
any land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal
areas, or relocations required in carrying out a project under
subsection (c).
``(3) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-Federal
interest for any project carried out under this section may
include a nonprofit entity.
``(4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance,
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried out
under this section shall be non-Federal responsibilities.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each fiscal
year.''.

SEC. 3068. 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. 3069. 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
a width not less than 110 feet and a length not less than 1,200 feet,
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 provisions 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. 3070. 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. 3071. 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 $9,000,000.

SEC. 3072. GRAND MARAIS, MINNESOTA.

The project for navigation, Grand Marais, Minnesota, carried out
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577)
is modified to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 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. 3073. 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), 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. 3074. 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 the 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. 3075. 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. 3076. 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 for local flood protection, Crookston, Minnesota, at
a total cost of $25,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$16,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,750,000.

SEC. 3077. 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. 3078. 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. 3079. 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. 3080. 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. 3081. 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. 3082. 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. 3083. L-15 LEVEE, MISSOURI.

The portion of the L-15 levee system that is under the jurisdiction
of the Consolidated North County Levee District and situated along the
right descending bank of the Mississippi River from the confluence of
that river with the Missouri River and running upstream approximately
14 miles shall be considered to be a Federal levee for purposes of cost
sharing under section 5 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

SEC. 3084. 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. 3085. 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. 3086. 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 interest 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. 3087. 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. 3088. 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. 3089. 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. 3090. 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. 3091. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3781) is amended by striking ``maximum Federal cost of $5,200,000'' and
inserting ``total cost of $20,000,000''.

SEC. 3092. 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. 3093. 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, Rochester, and
Buffalo.''.

SEC. 3094. 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. 3095. 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. 3096. 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. 3097. 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. 3098. 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. 3099. 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. 3100. 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. 3101. 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. 3102. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

(a) Credit for Planning and Design.--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. 3103. 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. 3104. 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. 3105. 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. 3106. 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. 3107. 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. 3108. 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. 3109. 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. 3110. 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. 3111. 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 $2,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $750,000.''.

SEC. 3112. 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. 3113. 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. 3114. 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. 3115. 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. 3116. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
353) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence by striking ``favorable'';
(2) by striking ``$8,400,000'' and inserting ``$12,000,000'';
and
(3) by striking ``$4,200,000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``$6,000,000''.

SEC. 3117. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized
by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852 (10 Stat. 58), 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
$405,000.

SEC. 3118. 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 if the drawdown of lake levels is in anticipation
of flood control operations.''.

SEC. 3119. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), the following
projects shall remain authorized to be carried out by the Secretary:
(1) The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship
Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092).
(2) The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam,
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127).
(3) 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. 3120. 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, authorized by the
first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852
(10 Stat. 58), 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).
(3) Hearding island inlet, duluth harbor, minnesota.--The
project for dredging, Hearding Island Inlet, Duluth Harbor,
Minnesota, authorized by section 22 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4027).

SEC. 3121. 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 Appropriations 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) 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.
(4) Falmouth harbor, massachusetts.--The portion of the
project for navigation, th 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) Aunt lydia's cove, massachusetts.--
(A) In general.--The portion of the project for
navigation, Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts,
constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), consisting of the 8-foot
deep anchorage in the cove described in subparagraph
(B).
(B) Description of portion.--The portion of the
project described in subparagraph (A) is more
particularly described as the portion beginning at a
point along the southern limit of the existing project,
N254,332.00, E1,023,103.96, thence running
northwesterly about 761.60 feet to a point along the
western limit of the existing project N255,076.84,
E1,022,945.07, thence running southwesterly about 38.11
feet to a point N255,038.99, E1,022,940.60, thence
running southeasterly about 267.07 feet to a point
N254,772.00, E1,022,947.00, thence running
southeasterly about 462.41 feet to a point N254,320.06,
E1,023,044.84, thence running northeasterly about 60.31
feet to the point of origin.
(b) 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 as 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
N107,938.74, E452,265.74.
(c) Saco River, Maine.--The portion of the project for navigation,
Saco River, Maine, authorized under section 107 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and described as a 6-foot deep, 10-acre
turning basin located at the head of navigation, is redesignated as an
anchorage area.
(d) Union River, Maine.--The project for navigation, Union River,
Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of 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.
(e) 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 a 100-foot wide channel
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.
(f) Conditions.--The first sentence of section 1001(b)(2) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``two years'' and inserting ``year''; and
(2) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``5''.

SEC. 3122. 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 in and 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 ceases to be operated and maintained as 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) Lowell, Oregon.--
(1) 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 paragraph (2).
(2) Description of property.--The parcel of land authorized
to be conveyed under paragraph (1) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the property
conveyed under paragraph (1) 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.
(f) Lowell, Oregon.--
(1) Release and extinguishment of deed reservations.--
(A) Release and extinguishment of deed
reservations.--The Secretary may release and extinguish
the deed reservations for access and communication
cables contained in the quitclaim deed, dated January
26, 1965, and recorded February 15, 1965, in the
records of Lane County, Oregon; except that such
reservations may only be released and extinguished for
the lands owned by the city of Lowell as described in
the quitclaim deed, dated April 11, 1991, in such
records.
(B) Additional release and extinguishment of deed
reservations.--The Secretary may also release and
extinguish the same deed reservations referred to in
subparagraph (A) over land owned by Lane County,
Oregon, within the city limits of Lowell, Oregon, to
accommodate the development proposals of the city of
Lowell/St. Vincent de Paul, Lane County, affordable
housing project; except that the Secretary may require,
at no cost to the United States--
(i) the alteration or relocation of any
existing facilities, utilities, roads, or
similar improvements on such lands; and
(ii) the right-of-way for such facilities,
utilities, or improvements, as a pre-condition
of any release or extinguishment of the deed
reservations.
(2) Conveyance.--The Secretary may convey to the city of
Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value the parcel of land
situated in the city of Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value
consisting of the strip of federally-owned lands located
northeast of West Boundary Road between Hyland Lane and the
city of Lowell's eastward city limits.
(3) Administrative cost.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and
(2), the city of Lowell, Oregon, shall pay the administrative
costs incurred by the United States to execute the release and
extinguishment of the deed reservations under paragraph (1) and
the conveyance under paragraph (2).
(g) 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 Engineers
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.
(h) Denison, Texas.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall offer to convey at fair
market value to the city of Denison, Texas, all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to the approximately
900 acres of land located in Grayson County, Texas, which is
currently subject to an application for lease for public park
and recreational purposes made by the city of Denison, dated
August 17, 2005.
(2) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage
and description of the real property referred to in paragraph
(1) shall be determined by a survey paid for by the city of
Denison, Texas, that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
(3) Conveyance.--On acceptance by the city of Denison, Texas,
of an offer under paragraph (1), the Secretary may immediately
convey the land surveyed under paragraph (2) by quitclaim deed
to the city of Denison, Texas.
(i) 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. 3123. 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;
and
(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.
(2) Affected deeds.--The deeds with the following county
auditor's file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1):
(A) Auditor's Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce
County, Idaho--2.07 acres.
(B) Auditor's Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce
County, Idaho--7.32 acres.
(b) Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.--
(1) Release of retained rights, interests, reservations.--
With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the Tennessee
Society of Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (commonly
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 practicable 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 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. DELAWARE RIVER.

The Secretary shall review, in consultation with the Delaware River
Basin Commission and the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
and New York, the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Delaware
River, published as House Document Numbered 522, 87th Congress, Second
Session, as it relates to the Mid-Delaware River Basin from Wilmington
to Port Jervis, and any other pertinent reports (including the strategy
for resolution of interstate flow management issues in the Delaware
River Basin dated August 2004 and the National Park Service Lower
Delaware River Management Plan (1997-1999)), with a view to determining
whether any modifications of recommendations contained in the first
report referred to are advisable at the present time, in the interest
of flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and other related
problems.

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.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gila
Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.
(b) Review of Plans.--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. 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. 4012. 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. 4013. LOS ANGELES RIVER REVITALIZATION STUDY, CALIFORNIA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the city of Los
Angeles, shall--
(1) prepare a feasibility study for environmental
restoration, flood control, recreation, and other aspects of
Los Angeles River revitalization that is consistent with the
goals of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan
published by the city of Los Angeles; and
(2) consider any locally-preferred project alternatives
developed through a full and open evaluation process for
inclusion in the study.
(b) Use of Existing Information and Measures.--In preparing the study
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent
practicable--
(1) information obtained from the Los Angeles River
Revitalization Master Plan; and
(2) the development process of that plan.
(c) Demonstration Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to construct
demonstration projects in order to provide information to
develop the study under subsection (a)(1).
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
project under this subsection shall be not more than 65
percent.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this subsection $20,000,000.

SEC. 4014. 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. 4015. 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. 4016. 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. 4017. ORICK, 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, Orick, California.
(b) Feasibility of Restoring or Rehabilitating Redwook Creek
Levees.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall determine the
feasibility of restoring or rehabilitating the Redwood Creek Levees,
Humboldt County, California.

SEC. 4018. 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. 4019. 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. 4020. 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. 4021. 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. 4022. 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. 4023. 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. 4024. 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. 4025. 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. 4026. 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. 4027. 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. 4028. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER, FLORIDA.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental protection and restoration,
including improved water quality, and related purposes, Lower St. Johns
River, Florida.

SEC. 4029. 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. 4030. 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. 4031. 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. 4032. 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. 4033. 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. 4034. SALEM, INDIANA.

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

SEC. 4035. 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 in-kind
services and materials.

SEC. 4036. 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. 4037. 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. 4038. 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. 4039. CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN.

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
carrying out a project for environmental restoration, Clinton River,
Michigan.

SEC. 4040. 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. 4041. 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. 4042. 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. 4043. 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. 4044. 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. 4045. 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. 4046. CARTERET, NEW JERSEY.

SEC. 4047. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.

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

SEC. 4048. 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. 4049. 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. 4050. 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. 4051. 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
aquatic nuisance species.

SEC. 4052. 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. 4053. 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. 4054. 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. 4055. SHORE PARKWAY GREENWAY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying
out a project for shoreline protection in the vicinity of the
confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York Bay, Shore
Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.

SEC. 4056. UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NEW YORK.

Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 1962d-5b) 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. 4057. 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. 4058. 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. 4059. 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. 4060. 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. 4061. 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. 4062. 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. 4063. 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. 4064. 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. 4065. 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. 4066. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, PENNSYLVANIA.

(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. 4067. 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. 4068. 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. 4069. 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. 4070. 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. 4071. 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. 4072. 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. 4073. CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE.

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

SEC. 4074. 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. 4075. 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. 4076. 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. 4077. ABILENE, TEXAS.

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

SEC. 4078. 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, marshes, coastal
wetlands, rivers and streams, and adjacent areas.

SEC. 4079. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

(a) Reevaluation of Environmental Restoration Features.--The
Secretary shall reevaluate 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), to develop alternatives to the separable environmental
restoration element of the project.
(b) Study of Additional Flood Damage Reduction Measures.--The
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
additional flood damage reduction measures and erosion control measures
within the boundaries of the project referred to in subsection (a).
(c) Plans and Designs.--In conducting the studies referred to in
subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall review plans and designs
developed by non-Federal interests and shall use such plans and designs
to the extent that the Secretary determines that such plans and designs
are consistent with Federal standards.
(d) Credit Toward Federal Share.--If an alternative environmental
restoration element is authorized by law, the Secretary shall credit
toward the Federal share of the cost of that project the costs incurred
by the Secretary to carry out the separable environmental restoration
element of the project referred to in subsection (a). The non-Federal
interest shall not be responsible for reimbursing the Secretary for any
amount credited under this subsection.
(e) Credit Toward the Non-Federal Share.--The Secretary shall credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the studies under
subsections (a) and (b), and the cost of any project carried out as a
result of such studies the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal
interest.

SEC. 4080. 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. 4081. 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. 4082. 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. 4083. 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. 4084. 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. 4085. 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. 4086. 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. 4087. 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.

SEC. 4088. 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.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

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) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.
(2) 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.
(3) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
(4) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
(5) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and Pointe
Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
(6) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
(7) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
(8) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.
(9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.
(10) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
(11) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene,
Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York.
(12) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey.
(13) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.
(14) Ramapo River watershed, New York.
(15) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.
(16) 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.
(17) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
(18) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
(19) Sauk River basin, Washington.
(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.
(2) Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.
(3) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
(4) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
(5) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.
(6) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
(7) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
(8) 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) 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, 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) $27,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(19);
``(11) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(20);
``(12) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(23);
``(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(25);
``(14) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(26);
``(15) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(27);
``(16) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection
(c)(28); and
``(17) $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 that the project is feasible, shall expedite
completion of construction for the following projects:
(1) False River, Louisiana, being carried out under section
206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C.
2330).
(2) 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).
(3) 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).
(4) 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).
(5) 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).
(6) 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).
(7) North River, Peabody, Massachusetts, being carried out
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C.
701s).
(8) 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 navigation, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas and
Louisiana.
(b) Special Rule for Egmont Key, Florida.--In carrying out the
project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, referred to
in subsection (a)(3), 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.

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 of the Flood Control Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-Federal interest may include for any
project undertaken under this section, a nonprofit entity with the
consent of the affected local government.''.

SEC. 5011. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER 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 (104
Stat. 4644; 33 U.S.C. 1268 note) is amended by striking ``through
2006'' and inserting ``through 2012''.

SEC. 5014. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS.

Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``through 2006'' and
inserting ``through 2012''.

SEC. 5015. GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION.

(a) In General.--Using available funds, the Secretary shall expedite
the operation and maintenance, including dredging, of the navigation
features of the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels for the purpose of
supporting commercial navigation to authorized project depths.
(b) Great Lakes and Connecting Channels Defined.--In this section,
the term ``Great Lakes and Connecting Channels'' includes Lakes
Superior, Huron, Michigan, Erie, and Ontario, all connecting waters
between and among such lakes used for commercial navigation, any
navigation features in such lakes or waters that are a Federal
operation or maintenance responsibility, and areas of the Saint
Lawrence River that are operated or maintained by the Federal
government for commercial navigation.

SEC. 5016. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER DISPERSAL BARRIER PROJECT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate
Federal and State agencies, shall study, design, and carry out a
project for preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance
species through the Upper Mississippi River system. The Secretary shall
complete the study, design, and construction of the project not later
than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Dispersal Barrier.--The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall--
(1) investigate and identify environmentally sound methods
for preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance
species;
(2) study, design, and carry out a project for a dispersal
barrier, using available technologies and measures, to be
located in the lock portion of Lock and Dam 11 in the Upper
Mississippi River basin;
(3) monitor and evaluate, in cooperation with the Director of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the effectiveness
of the project in preventing and reducing the dispersal of
aquatic nuisance species through the Upper Mississippi River
system, and report to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on the
results of the evaluation; and
(4) operate and maintain the project.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $4,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 5017. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS, DELAWARE,
MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA.

(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 (Public Law 105-18; 111 Stat. 176), section 2.2 of the
Susquehanna River Basin Compact (Public Law 91-575), and section 2.2 of
the Delaware River Basin Compact (Public Law 87-328), beginning in
fiscal year 2002, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Division
Engineer, North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers--
(1) shall be the ex officio United States member under the
Susquehanna River Basin Compact, the Delaware River Basin
Compact, and the Potomac River Basin Compact;
(2) shall serve without additional compensation; and
(3) may designate an alternate member in accordance with the
terms of those compacts.
(b) Authorization To Allocate.--The Secretary shall 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 the respective interstate compacts.
(c) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Delaware River Basin.--
(1) In general.--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, for any period during which the Commission
has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency
exists.
(2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost
for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1)
shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated
with providing the storage.
(d) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Susquehanna River Basin.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement
with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to provide
temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal
facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the
Susquehanna River Basin for any period for which the Commission
has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency
exists.
(2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost
for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1)
shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated
with providing the storage.
(e) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Potomac River Basin.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement
with the Potomac River Basin Commission to provide temporary
water supply and conservation storage at Federal facilities
operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Potomac River Basin
for any period for which the Commission has determined that a
drought warning or drought emergency exists.
(2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost
for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1)
shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated
with providing the storage.

SEC. 5018. 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. 5019. 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. 5020. 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. 5021. 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 reimbursable 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. 5022. REHABILITATION.

The Secretary, at Federal expense and not to exceed $1,000,000, shall
rehabilitate and improve the water-related infrastructure and the
transportation infrastructure for the historic property in the
Anacostia River Watershed located in the District of Columbia,
including measures to address wet weather conditions. To carry out this
section, the Secretary shall accept funds provided for such project
under any other Federal program.

SEC. 5023. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND SNAKE
RIVER SALMON SURVIVAL.

Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C.
3301 note; 110 Stat. 3761; 113 Stat. 375) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(6) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and
inserting ``$25,000,000''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and
inserting ``$10,000,000''.

SEC. 5024. AUBURN, ALABAMA.

The Secretary may provide technical assistance relating to water
supply to the city of Auburn, Alabama. There is authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 5025. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA.

(a) Project Authorization.--The Secretary shall design and construct
the locally preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook Creek,
Huntsville, Alabama. In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall
utilize, to the extent practicable, the existing detailed project
report for the project prepared under the authority of section 205 of
the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
(b) Participation by Non-Federal Interest.--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.
(c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.

SEC. 5026. 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)), a non-Federal
interest may include for any project undertaken under this section 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
Federal expense.''.

SEC. 5027. 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. 5028. 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. 5029. FIRE ISLAND, ALASKA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide planning,
design, and construction assistance to the non-Federal interest for the
construction of a causeway between Point Campbell and Fire Island,
Alaska, including the beneficial use of dredged material in the
construction of the causeway.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 5030. 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. 5031. KOTZEBUE HARBOR, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5032. 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. 5033. 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. 5034. 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. 5035. 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. 5036. 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 for the project
may use, and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided by a Federal
agency under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in
part, the non-Federal share of the cost of the project if such funds
are authorized to be used to carry out the project.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $35,200,000.

SEC. 5037. 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. 5038. 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. 5039. 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. 5040. 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. 5041. 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. 5042. 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. 5043. 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. 5044. 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. 5045. 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. 5046. 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. 5047. LOS OSOS, CALIFORNIA.

Section 219(c)(27) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A-219) is amended to read as follows:
``(27) Los osos, california.--Wastewater infrastructure, Los
Osos, California.''.

SEC. 5048. 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. 5049. RAYMOND BASIN, SIX BASINS, CHINO BASIN, AND SAN GABRIEL
BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

(a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation and
coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall
develop a comprehensive plan for the management of water resources in
the Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin,
California. The Secretary may carry out activities identified in the
comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives for water
resources management.
(b) 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 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 of any measures constructed
under this section shall be 100 percent.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

SEC. 5050. 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 30-32, 35, 36, 70 (including Wharves
7 and 8), and 80 in San Francisco, California, substantially in
accordance with the Port's redevelopment plan.
(b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

SEC. 5051. 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 southerly 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. 5052. SAN PABLO BAY, CALIFORNIA, WATERSHED AND SUISUN MARSH
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

(a) San Pablo Bay Watershed, California.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall complete work, as
expeditiously as possible, on the ongoing San Pablo Bay
watershed, California, study to determine the feasibility of
opportunities for restoring, preserving and protecting the San
Pablo Bay watershed.
(2) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2008, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the study.
(b) Suisun Marsh, California.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of opportunities for
restoring, preserving and protecting the Suisun Marsh, California.
(c) San Pablo and Suisun Bay Marsh Watershed Critical Restoration
Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in critical
restoration projects that will produce, consistent with Federal
programs, projects, and activities, immediate and substantial
ecosystem restoration, preservation, and protection benefits in
the following sub-watersheds of the San Pablo and Suisun Bay
Marsh watersheds:
(A) The tidal areas of the Petaluma River, Napa-
Sonoma Marsh.
(B) The shoreline of West Contra Costa County.
(C) Novato Creek.
(D) Suisun Marsh.
(E) Gallinas-Miller Creek.
(2) Types of assistance.--Participation in critical
restoration projects under this subsection may include
assistance for planning, design, or construction.
(d) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a non-Federal
interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a
nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.
(e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of construction of a project under this section--
(1) the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged
material disposal areas, or relocations provided by the non-
Federal interest for carrying out the project, regardless of
the date of acquisition;
(2) funds received from the CALFED Bay-Delta program; and
(3) the cost of the studies, design, and construction work
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of
execution of a partnership agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000.

SEC. 5053. 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. 5054. 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. 5055. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

Section 109 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (enacted
into law by Public Law 106-554) (114 Stat. 2763A-222) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (e)(2) 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.''; and
(2) in subsection (f) by striking ``$100,000,000'' and
inserting ``$100,000,000, of which not more than $15,000,000
may be used to provide planning, design, and construction
assistance to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for a water
treatment plant, Florida City, Florida''.

SEC. 5056. 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. 5057. 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. 5058. 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) Cairo, Illinois Mainline Levee, Cairo, Illinois.
(4) Goose Pond Pump Station, Cairo, Illinois.
(5) Cottonwood Slough Pump Station, Alexander County,
Illinois.
(6) 10th and 28th Street Pump Stations, Cairo, Illinois.
(7) Prairie Du Pont Levee and Sanitary District, including
Fish Lake Drainage and Levee District, 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. 5059. 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 for any project undertaken under this section 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. 5060. 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 ensure aquatic integrity of sidechannels and
backwaters and their connectivity with the mainstem
river;
(E) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture
and business communities; and
(F) 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) a conveyance study of the Kaskaskia River
floodplain from Vandalia, Illinois, to Carlyle Lake to
determine the impacts of existing and future waterfowl
improvements on flood stages, including detailed
surveys and mapping information to ensure proper
hydraulic and hydrological analysis;
(E) the development and implementation of a
computerized inventory and analysis system; and
(F) 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
Watershed Association.
(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) Critical Projects and Initiatives.--If the Secretary, in
cooperation with appropriate Federal agencies and the State of
Illinois, determines that a project or initiative for the Kaskaskia
River Basin will produce independent, immediate, and substantial
benefits, the Secretary may proceed expeditiously with the
implementation of the project.
(e) 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.
(6) Other programs that may be developed by the State of
Illinois or the Federal Government, or that are carried out by
non-profit organizations, to carry out the objectives of the
Kaskaskia River Basin Comprehensive Plan.
(f) 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. 5061. 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. 5062. PROMONTORY POINT, LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.

(a) Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out a third-party
review of the Promontory Point project along the Chicago
Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, at a cost not to exceed $450,000.
(2) Joint review.--The Buffalo and Seattle districts of the
Corps of Engineers shall jointly conduct the review.
(3) Standards.--The review shall be based on the standards
under part 68 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, for
implementation by the non-Federal sponsor for the Chicago
Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, project.
(b) Contributions.--The Secretary shall accept from a State or
political subdivision of a State voluntarily contributed funds to
initiate the third-party review under subsection (a).
(c) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section affects the
authorization for the project for the Chicago Shoreline, Chicago,
Illinois.

SEC. 5063. 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. 5064. 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.--$100,000,000'';
(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. 5065. 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. 5066. 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
Federal expense.''.

SEC. 5067. 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. 5068. 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. 5069. 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. 5070. 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. 5071. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

(a) Modification of Study.--The study for waterfront and riverine
preservation, restoration, and enhancement, Mississippi River, West
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, being carried out under Committee
Resolution 2570 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives adopted July 23, 1998, is modified--
(1) to add West Feliciana Parish and East Baton Rouge Parish
to the geographic scope of the study; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share the cost of the study and 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 study or
project, as the case may be.
(b) Expedited Consideration.--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, West Feliciana,
and East Baton Rouge Parishes, Louisiana, project for
waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and
enhancement modifications.''.

SEC. 5072. 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. 5073. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND.

(a) Comprehensive Action Plan.--Not later than one 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 county
executives of Montgomery County and Prince George's County, Maryland,
and other interested entities, shall develop and make available to the
public a 10-year comprehensive action plan to provide for the
restoration and protection of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia
River and its tributaries.
(b) Public Availability.--On completion of the comprehensive action
plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make the plan available
to the public, including on the Internet.

SEC. 5074. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.

(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 Delaware and Maryland 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. 5075. 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. 5076. 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. 5077. 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. 5078. 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 ``and kathio
township'' and inserting ``, crow wing county, mille lacs
county, mille lacs indian reservation, and kathio township'';
(2) by striking ``$11,000,000'' and inserting
``$17,000,000'';
(3) by inserting ``, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County,
Mille Lacs Indian Reservation (10 Stat. 1165),'' 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, except for assistance
provided directly to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe at the
discretion of the Secretary.''.
(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. 5079. ITASCA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.

The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage reduction,
Trout Lake and Canisteo Pit, Itasca County, Minnesota, irrespective of
normal policy considerations.

SEC. 5080. 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. 5081. 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)), a non-Federal
interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a
nonprofit entity.'';
(4) in subsection (h) by striking ``$40,000,000'' and
inserting ``$54,000,000''; and
(5) 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
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. 5082. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the general
reevaluation report, authorized by section 438 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2640), for the project for flood
protection, 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, and upon the completion of such
report, shall construct the project at a total cost of $20,000,000.

SEC. 5083. 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. 5084. 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. 5085. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(113 Stat. 337) is amended--
(1) by striking ``project'' and inserting ``projects'';
(2) by striking ``$15,000,000'' and inserting
``$35,000,000''; and
(3) by inserting ``and St. Louis County'' before ``,
Missouri''.

SEC. 5086. 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. 5087. 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. 5088. 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. 5089. 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. 5090. 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. 5091. 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. 5092. 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. 5093. 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. 5094. CINCINNATI, OHIO.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to undertake the
ecosystem restoration and recreation components of the Central
Riverfront Park Master Plan, dated December 1999, at a total cost of
$25,000,000.
(b) 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.

SEC. 5095. 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. 5096. 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. 5097. FERN RIDGE DAM, OREGON.

The Secretary may treat all work carried out for emergency corrective
actions to repair the embankment dam at the Fern Ridge Lake project,
Oregon, as a dam safety project. The cost of work carried out may be
recovered in accordance with section 1203 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n; 100 Stat. 4263).

SEC. 5098. 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. 5099. 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''.

SEC. 5100. 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. 5101. 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, Luzerne, and Monroe''.

SEC. 5102. 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. 5103. 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. 5104. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION, SOUTH
DAKOTA.

(a) Disbursement Provisions of the State of South Dakota and the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial
Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds.--Section 602(a)(4) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 386) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in clause (i) by inserting ``and the Secretary of
the Treasury'' after ``Secretary''; and
(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause (i), the
Secretary of the Treasury shall make available
to the State of South Dakota funds from the
State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund established
under section 603, to be used to carry out the
plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the State of South
Dakota after the State certifies to the
Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be
disbursed will be used in accordance with
section 603(d)(3) and only after the Trust Fund
is fully capitalized.''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting
the following:
``(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause (i), the
Secretary of the Treasury shall make available
to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne River
Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration
Trust Fund and the Lower Brule Sioux
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust
Fund, respectively, established under section
604, to be used to carry out the plans for
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration
submitted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively, to
after the respective tribe certifies to the
Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be
disbursed will be used in accordance with
section 604(d)(3) and only after the Trust Fund
is fully capitalized.''.
(b) Investment Provisions of the State of South Dakota Terrestrial
Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund.--Section 603 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 388; 114 Stat. 2664) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Investments.--
``(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest
earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations of
the United States issued directly to the Fund.
``(2) Investment requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest the amounts in the Fund in accordance with
the requirements of this paragraph.
``(B) Separate investments of principal and
interest.--
``(i) Principal account.--The amounts
deposited in the Fund under subsection (b)
shall be credited to an account within the Fund
(referred to in this paragraph as the
`principal account') and invested as provided
in subparagraph (C).
``(ii) Interest account.--The interest earned
from investing amounts in the principal account
of the Fund shall be transferred to a separate
account within the Fund (referred to in this
paragraph as the `interest account') and
invested as provided in subparagraph (D).
``(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned from
investing amounts in the interest account of
the Fund shall be credited to the interest
account.
``(C) Investment of principal account.--
``(i) Initial investment.--Each amount
deposited in the principal account of the Fund
shall be invested initially in eligible
obligations having the shortest maturity then
available until the date on which the amount is
divided into 3 substantially equal portions and
those portions are invested in eligible
obligations that are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued publicly
issued Treasury obligations having a 2-year
maturity, a 5-year maturity, and a 10-year
maturity, respectively.
``(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each 2-
year, 5-year, and 10-year eligible obligation
matures, the principal of the maturing eligible
obligation shall also be invested initially in
the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then
available until the principal is reinvested
substantially equally in the eligible
obligations that are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued publicly
issued Treasury obligations having 2-year, 5-
year, and 10-year maturities.
``(iii) Discontinuance of issuance of
obligations.--If the Department of the Treasury
discontinues issuing to the public obligations
having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities,
the principal of any maturing eligible
obligation shall be reinvested substantially
equally in eligible obligations that are
identical (except for transferability) to the
next-issued publicly issued Treasury
obligations of the maturities longer than 1
year then available.
``(D) Investment of interest account.--
``(i) Before full capitalization.--Until the
date on which the Fund is fully capitalized,
amounts in the interest account of the Fund
shall be invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for transferability) to
publicly issued Treasury obligations that have
maturities that coincide, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the date on which the Fund is
expected to be fully capitalized.
``(ii) After full capitalization.--On and
after the date on which the Fund is fully
capitalized, amounts in the interest account of
the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in
eligible obligations having the shortest
maturity then available until the amounts are
withdrawn and transferred to fund the
activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).
``(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid for
eligible obligations purchased as investments of the
principal account shall not exceed the par value of the
obligations so that the amount of the principal account
shall be preserved in perpetuity.
``(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible obligations
having the same maturity and purchase price, the
obligation to be purchased shall be the obligation
having the highest yield.
``(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible obligations
purchased shall generally be held to their maturities.
``(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less
frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall review with the State of South Dakota the
results of the investment activities and financial status of
the Fund during the preceding 12-month period.
``(4) Audits.--
``(A) In general.--The activities of the State of
South Dakota (referred to in this subsection as the
`State') in carrying out the plan of the State for
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration under section
602(a) shall be audited as part of the annual audit
that the State is required to prepare under the Office
of Management and Budget Circular A-133 (or a successor
circulation).
``(B) Determination by auditors.--An auditor that
conducts an audit under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) determine whether funds received by the
State under this section during the period
covered by the audit were used to carry out the
plan of the State in accordance with this
section; and
``(ii) include the determination under clause
(i) in the written findings of the audit.
``(5) Modification of investment requirements.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury
determines that meeting the requirements under
paragraph (2) with respect to the investment of a Fund
is not practicable, or would result in adverse
consequences for the Fund, the Secretary shall modify
the requirements, as the Secretary determines to be
necessary.
``(B) Consultation.--Before modifying a requirement
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall consult with the State regarding the proposed
modification.'';
(2) in subsection (d)(2) by inserting ``of the Treasury''
after ``Secretary''; and
(3) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses
associated with investing the Fund and auditing the uses of amounts
withdrawn from the Fund--
``(1) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and
``(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal
year.''.
(c) Investment Provisions for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Trust Funds.--Section 604 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 389; 114 Stat. 2665) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Investments.--
``(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest
earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations of
the United States issued directly to the Funds.
``(2) Investment requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest the amounts in each of the Funds in
accordance with the requirements of this paragraph.
``(B) Separate investments of principal and
interest.--
``(i) Principal account.--The amounts
deposited in each Fund under subsection (b)
shall be credited to an account within the Fund
(referred to in this paragraph as the
`principal account') and invested as provided
in subparagraph (C).
``(ii) Interest account.--The interest earned
from investing amounts in the principal account
of each Fund shall be transferred to a separate
account within the Fund (referred to in this
paragraph as the `interest account') and
invested as provided in subparagraph (D).
``(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned from
investing amounts in the interest account of
each Fund shall be credited to the interest
account.
``(C) Investment of principal account.--
``(i) Initial investment.--Each amount
deposited in the principal account of each Fund
shall be invested initially in eligible
obligations having the shortest maturity then
available until the date on which the amount is
divided into 3 substantially equal portions and
those portions are invested in eligible
obligations that are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued publicly
issued Treasury obligations having a 2-year
maturity, a 5-year maturity, and a 10-year
maturity, respectively.
``(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each 2-
year, 5-year, and 10-year eligible obligation
matures, the principal of the maturing eligible
obligation shall also be invested initially in
the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then
available until the principal is reinvested
substantially equally in the eligible
obligations that are identical (except for
transferability) to the next-issued publicly
issued Treasury obligations having 2-year, 5-
year, and 10-year maturities.
``(iii) Discontinuation of issuance of
obligations.--If the Department of the Treasury
discontinues issuing to the public obligations
having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities,
the principal of any maturing eligible
obligation shall be reinvested substantially
equally in eligible obligations that are
identical (except for transferability) to the
next-issued publicly issued Treasury
obligations of the maturities longer than 1
year then available.
``(D) Investment of the interest account.--
``(i) Before full capitalization.--Until the
date on which each Fund is fully capitalized,
amounts in the interest account of the Fund
shall be invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for transferability) to
publicly issued Treasury obligations that have
maturities that coincide, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the date on which the Fund is
expected to be fully capitalized.
``(ii) After full capitalization.--On and
after the date on which each Fund is fully
capitalized, amounts in the interest account of
the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in
eligible obligations having the shortest
maturity then available until the amounts are
withdrawn and transferred to fund the
activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).
``(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid for
eligible obligations purchased as investments of the
principal account shall not exceed the par value of the
obligations so that the amount of the principal account
shall be preserved in perpetuity.
``(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible obligations
having the same maturity and purchase price, the
obligation to be purchased shall be the obligation
having the highest yield.
``(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible obligations
purchased shall generally be held to their maturities.
``(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less
frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall review with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (referred to in this subsection as
the `Tribes') the results of the investment activities and
financial status of the Funds during the preceding 12-month
period.
``(4) Audits.--
``(A) In general.--The activities of the Tribes in
carrying out the plans of the Tribes for terrestrial
wildlife habitat restoration under section 602(a) shall
be audited as part of the annual audit that the Tribes
are required to prepare under the Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-133 (or a successor circulation).
``(B) Determination by auditors.--An auditor that
conducts an audit under subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) determine whether funds received by the
Tribes under this section during the period
covered by the audit were used to carry out the
plan of the appropriate Tribe in accordance
with this section; and
``(ii) include the determination under clause
(i) in the written findings of the audit.
``(5) Modification of investment requirements.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury
determines that meeting the requirements under
paragraph (2) with respect to the investment of a Fund
is not practicable, or would result in adverse
consequences for the Fund, the Secretary shall modify
the requirements, as the Secretary determines to be
necessary.
``(B) Consultation.--Before modifying a requirement
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall consult with the Tribes regarding the proposed
modification.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses
associated with investing the Funds and auditing the uses of amounts
withdrawn from the Funds--
``(1) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and
``(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal
year.''.

SEC. 5105. 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. 5106. 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), and adjacent public
property, including design and construction of support facilities. 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. 5107. 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(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).

SEC. 5108. 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. 5109. 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. 5110. 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) 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.
(2) 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 $10,000,000.

SEC. 5111. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS TEXAS.

(a) In General.--The project for flood control, Trinity River and
tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 2 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 (59 Stat. 18), is modified to--
(1) direct the Secretary to 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;
(2) direct the Secretary to review the Interior Levee
Drainage Study Phase-I report, Dallas, Texas, dated September
2006, prepared by the non-Federal interest; and
(3) if the Secretary determines that the project is
technically sound and environmentally acceptable, authorize the
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of
$459,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $298,000,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $161,000,000.
(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 interest 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 the cost of the project.

SEC. 5112. 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. 5113. 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. 5114. 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. 5115. DYKE MARSH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

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

SEC. 5116. 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. 5117. 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. 5118. 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. 5119. 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. 5120. 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. 5121. 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)), a non-Federal
interest may include for any project undertaken under this section 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
Federal expense.''.

SEC. 5122. 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 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)), a non-Federal
interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a
nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.''.

SEC. 5123. 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:
``(12) Perris, california.--The project for flood control,
Perris, California.
``(13) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--An element
of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan,
Illinois.
``(14) Larose to golden meadow, louisiana.--The project for
flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
``(15) Buffalo bayou, texas.--A project for flood control,
Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project
authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of
June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and modified by section 3a of the
Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414).
``(16) Halls bayou, texas.--A project for flood control,
Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project
for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas,
authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610).''.

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 $42,500,000.
(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 COSTS.

(a) 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.
(b) Maximum Cost of Program Authority.--Section 601(c)(3) of such Act
(114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Maximum cost of program authority.--Section 902
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to the individual project
funding limits in subparagraph (A) and the aggregate
cost limits in subparagraph (B).''.

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
$1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$682,500,000.
``(B) Picayune strand, florida.--The project for
environmental restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15,
2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $187,665,000.
``(C) Site 1 impoundment, florida.--The project for
environmental restoration, Site 1 Impoundment, Florida:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19,
2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $40,420,000.''.

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. MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES.

(a) In General.--The project, Modified 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), as
described in the General Design Memorandum and Environmental Impact
Statement for Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park,
June 1992, is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project substantially in accordance with the Revised General
Reevaluation Report/Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
for the Tamiami Trail Modifications, Modified Water Deliveries to
Everglades National Park, August 2005, at a total cost of $144,131,000.
(b) Use of Funds.--Funds made available under section 102(f) of the
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16
U.S.C. 410r-6), may be used to carry out the project modification under
subsection (a).
(c) Source and Allocation of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), Federal
costs incurred for construction of the project modification
under subsection (a) on or after October 1, 2004, shall be
shared equally between the Secretary and the Secretary of the
Interior.
(2) Acceptance and use of funds.--The Secretary may accept
and expend funds, without further appropriation, provided from
another Federal agency or from non-Federal interests for
construction of the project modification under subsection (a)
or for carrying out such other work that the Secretary
determines to be appropriate and consistent with authorized
purposes of the modified project.

SEC. 6009. DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

The following projects are not authorized after the date of enactment
of this Act:
(1) The uncompleted portions of the project for the C-44
Basin Storage Reservoir of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, authorized by section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), at a
total cost of $147,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$73,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,900,000.
(2) The uncompleted portions of the Martin County, Florida,
modifications to the project for Central and Southern Florida,
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82
Stat. 740), at a total cost of $15,471,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $8,073,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$7,398,000.
(3) The uncompleted portions of the East Coast Backpumping,
St. Lucie-Martin County, Spillway Structure S-311 modifications
to the project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by
section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at
a total cost of $77,118,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$55,124,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $21,994,000.

SEC. 6010. REGIONAL ENGINEERING MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete the development and
testing of the regional engineering model for environmental restoration
as expeditiously as practicable.
(b) Usage.--The Secretary shall consider using, as appropriate, the
regional engineering model for environmental restoration in the
development of future water resource projects, including projects
developed pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680).
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out subsection (a).

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 to 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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the Governor,
shall develop a comprehensive plan for protecting, preserving, and
restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
(b) Integration of Plan Into Comprehensive Hurricane Protection
Study.--In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall
integrate the plan into the analysis and design of the comprehensive
hurricane protection study authorized by title I of the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103; 119
Stat. 2247).
(c) Consistency With Comprehensive Coastal Protection Master Plan.--
In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall ensure that
the plan is consistent with the goals, analysis, and design of the
comprehensive coastal protection master plan authorized and defined
pursuant to Act 8 of the First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana
State Legislature, 2005, including--
(1) investigation and study of the maximum effective use of
the water and sediment of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya
Rivers for coastal restoration purposes consistent with flood
control and navigation;
(2) a schedule for the design and implementation of large-
scale water and sediment reintroduction projects and an
assessment of funding needs from any source; and
(3) an investigation and assessment of alterations in the
operation of the Old River Control Structure, consistent with
flood control and navigation purposes.
(d) Inclusions.--The comprehensive plan shall include a description
of--
(1) the framework of a long-term program integrated with
hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction,
and navigation activities that provide for the comprehensive
protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands,
estuaries (including the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary), barrier
islands, shorelines, and related land and features of the
coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including protection of critical
resources, habitat, and infrastructure from the effects of a
coastal storm, a hurricane, erosion, or subsidence;
(2) the means by which a new technology, or an improved
technique, can be integrated into the program referred to in
paragraph (1);
(3) the role of other Federal and State agencies and programs
in carrying out such program;
(4) specific, measurable ecological success criteria by which
success of the plan will be measured; and
(5) proposed projects in order of priority as determined by
their respective potential to contribute to--
(A) creation of coastal wetlands; and
(B) flood protection of communities ranked by
population density and level of protection.
(e) Considerations.--In developing the comprehensive plan, the
Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating into the
program referred to in subsection (d)(1)--
(1) any related Federal or State project being carried out on
the date on which the plan is developed;
(2) any activity in the Plan; or
(3) any other project or activity identified in--
(A) the Mississippi River and Tributaries program;
(B) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan;
(C) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan; or
(D) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled
``Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana''.
(f) Reports to Congress.--
(1) Initial report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report containing the comprehensive plan.
(2) Updates.--Not later that 5 years after the date of
submission of a report under paragraph (1), and at least once
every 5 years thereafter until implementation of the
comprehensive plan is complete, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report containing an update of the plan and an
assessment of the progress made in implementing the plan.

SEC. 7003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program for ecosystem
restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, substantially in
accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 31,
2005.
(b) Priorities.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall give priority to--
(A) any portion of the program identified in the
report described in subsection (a) as a critical
restoration feature;
(B) any Mississippi River diversion project that--
(i) will protect a major population area of
the Pontchartain, Pearl, Breton Sound,
Barataria, or Terrebonne basins; and
(ii) will produce an environmental benefit to
the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
(C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project
that--
(i) will be carried out in conjunction with a
Mississippi River diversion project; and
(ii) will protect a major population area;
(D) any project that will reduce storm surge and
prevent or reduce the risk of loss of human life and
the risk to public safety; and
(E) a project to physically modify the Mississippi
River-Gulf outlet and to restore the areas affected by
the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet in accordance with
the comprehensive plan to be developed under section
7002(a), subject to the conditions and recommendations
in a final report of the Chief of Engineers.

SEC. 7004. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION TASK
FORCE.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a task force to be known as
the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force
(in this section referred to as the ``Task Force'').
(b) Membership.--The Task Force 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 Governor's Advisory Commission
on Coastal Restoration and Conservation.
(c) Duties.--The Task Force shall make recommendations to the
Secretary regarding--
(1) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and
activities for addressing conservation, protection,
restoration, and maintenance of the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem;
(2) financial participation by each agency represented on the
Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and
maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including
recommendations--
(A) that identify funds from current agency missions
and budgets; and
(B) for coordinating individual agency budget
requests; and
(3) the comprehensive plan to be developed under section
7002(a).
(d) Report.--The Task Force shall submit to Congress a biennial
report that summarizes the activities of the Task Force.
(e) Working Groups.--
(1) General authority.--The Task Force may establish such
working groups as the Task Force determines to be necessary to
assist the Task Force in carrying out this section.
(2) Hurricanes katrina and rita.--
(A) In general.--The Task Force may establish a
working group for the purpose of advising the Task
Force of opportunities to integrate the planning,
engineering, design, implementation, and performance of
Corps of Engineers projects for hurricane and storm
damage reduction, flood damage reduction, ecosystem
restoration, and navigation in those areas in Louisiana
for which a major disaster has been declared by the
President as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Rita.
(B) Expertise; representation.--In establishing the
working group under subparagraph (A), the Task Force
shall ensure that the group--
(i) has expertise in coastal estuaries,
diversions, coastal restoration and wetlands
protection, ecosystem restoration, hurricane
protection, storm damage reduction systems,
navigation, and ports; and
(ii) represents the State of Louisiana and
local governments in south Louisiana.
(f) Compensation.--Members of the Task Force and members of a working
group established by the Task Force may not receive compensation for
their services as members of the Task Force or working group, as the
case may be.
(g) Travel Expenses.--Travel expenses incurred by members of the Task
Force and members of a working group established by the Task Force, in
the performance of their service on the Task Force or working group, as
the case may be, shall be paid by the agency or entity that the member
represents.
(h) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Task Force or any working group
established by the Task Force.

SEC. 7005. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

(a) Review.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the non-Federal
interest of the project involved, shall review each Federally-
authorized water resources project in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem
being carried out or completed as of the date of enactment of this Act
to determine whether the project needs to be modified--
(1) under the program authorized by section 7003; or
(2) to contribute to ecosystem restoration under section
7003.
(b) Modifications.--Subject to subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary
may carry out the modifications described in subsection (a).
(c) Public Notice and Comment.--Before completing the report required
under subsection (d), the Secretary shall provide an opportunity for
public notice and comment.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Before modifying an operation or feature of
a project under subsection (b), 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 modification.
(2) Inclusion.--A report describing a modification under
paragraph (1) shall include such information relating to the
timeline for and cost of the modification, as the Secretary
determines to be relevant.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.

SEC. 7006. CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Science and Technology.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a coastal
Louisiana ecosystem program substantially in accordance with
the Plan, at a total cost of $100,000,000.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the program under paragraph
(1) shall be--
(A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the
physical, chemical, geological, biological, and
cultural baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana
ecosystem;
(B) to improve knowledge of the physical, chemical,
geological, biological, and cultural baseline
conditions in coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
(C) to identify and develop technologies, models, and
methods to carry out this subsection.
(3) Working groups.--The Secretary may establish such working
groups as the Secretary determines to be necessary to assist
the Secretary in carrying out this subsection.
(4) Contracts and cooperative agreements.--In carrying out
this subsection, the Secretary may enter into a contract or
cooperative agreement with an individual or entity (including a
consortium of academic institutions in Louisiana) with
scientific or engineering expertise in the restoration of
aquatic and marine ecosystems for coastal restoration and
enhancement through science and technology.
(b) Demonstration Projects.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary may
carry out demonstration projects substantially in accordance
with the Plan and within the coastal Louisiana ecosystem 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(a).
(2) Maximum cost.--
(A) Total cost.--The total cost for planning, design,
and construction of all projects under this subsection
shall not exceed $100,000,000.
(B) Individual project.--The total cost of an
individual project under this subsection shall not
exceed $25,000,000.
(c) Initial Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out the
following projects substantially in accordance with the Plan:
(A) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet environmental
restoration at a total cost of $105,300,000.
(B) Small diversion at Hope Canal at a total cost of
$68,600,000.
(C) Barataria basin barrier shoreline restoration at
a total cost of $242,600,000.
(D) Small Bayou Lafourche reintroduction at a total
cost of $133,500,000.
(E) Medium diversion at Myrtle Grove with dedicated
dredging at a total cost of $278,300,000.
(2) Modifications.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out each project under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall carry out such
modifications as may be necessary to the ecosystem
restoration features identified in the Plan to address
the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the areas
of the project.
(B) Integration.--The Secretary shall ensure that
each modification under subparagraph (A) is taken into
account in conducting the study of comprehensive
hurricane protection authorized by title I of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006
(119 Stat. 2247).
(3) Construction reports.--Before the Secretary may begin
construction of any project under this subsection, the
Secretary shall submit a report documenting any modifications
to the project, including cost changes, to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.
(4) Applicability of other provisions.--Notwithstanding
section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2280), the cost of a project described in paragraph (1)
and any modifications to the project shall not exceed 150
percent of the cost of such project set forth in paragraph (1).
(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.
(e) Additional Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out a
project for ecosystem restoration for the Chenier Plain,
Louisiana, and the following projects referred to in the Plan
if the Secretary determines such projects are feasible:
(A) Land Bridge between Caillou Lake and the Gulf of
Mexico at a total cost of $56,300,000.
(B) Gulf Shoreline at Point Au Fer Island at a total
cost of $43,400,000.
(C) Modification of Caernarvon Diversion at a total
cost of $20,700,000.
(D) Modification of Davis Pond Diversion at a total
cost of $64,200,000.
(2) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary
shall submit feasibility reports on the projects described in
paragraph (1) to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
(3) Construction.--No appropriations shall be made to
construct any project under this subsection if the report under
paragraph (2) has not been approved by resolutions adopted by
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.

SEC. 7007. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE.

(a) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of a study or project under this title the cost of work
carried out in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem by the non-Federal
interest before the date of the execution of the partnership agreement
for the study or project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the study or project.
(b) Sources of Funds.--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) Treatment of Credit Between Projects.--Any credit provided under
this section toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a study or
project under this title may be applied toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of any other study or project under this title.
(d) 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 or project under this title during each 5-year period
beginning after the date of commencement of the first study or
project under this title, the Secretary shall--
(A) monitor for each study or project under this
title the non-Federal provision of cash, in-kind
services and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-
way, relocations, and disposal areas; and
(B) manage the requirement of the non-Federal
interest to provide for each such study or 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,
preconstruction engineering and design phase, and 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.
(e) 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. 7008. 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 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 of a project intended to produce benefits that
are predominantly unrelated to the protection, preservation, and
restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.

SEC. 7009. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

The Secretary shall establish the Louisiana Water Resources Council
which shall serve as the exclusive peer review panel for projects under
this title as required by section 2037 of this Act.

SEC. 7010. EXPEDITED REPORTS.

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) The projects identified in the study of comprehensive
hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2447).
(2) A project for ecosystem restoration for the Chenier
Plain, Louisiana.
(3) The project for Multipurpose Operation of Houma
Navigation Lock.
(4) The project for Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline
Restoration.
(5) The project for Small Diversion at Convent/Blind River.
(6) The project for Amite River Diversion Canal Modification.
(7) The project for Medium Diversion at White's Ditch.
(8) The project to convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern
Terrebonne Marshes.
(9) The projects identified in the Southwest Coastal
Louisiana hurricane and storm damage reduction study authorized
by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives on December 7, 2005.

SEC. 7011. REPORTING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 6 years after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report
including a description of--
(1) the projects authorized and undertaken under this title;
(2) the construction status of the projects;
(3) the cost to date and the expected final cost of each
project undertaken under this title; and
(4) the benefits and environmental impacts of the projects.
(b) External Review.--The Secretary shall enter into a contract with
the National Academy of Sciences under which the National Academy of
Sciences shall perform and submit to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate an external review of the
demonstration program authorized by subsection 7006(b).

SEC. 7012. NEW ORLEANS AND VICINITY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to--
(1) raise levee heights where necessary and otherwise enhance
the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project and the West Bank
and Vicinity Project to provide the levels of protection
necessary to achieve the certification required for
participation in the national flood insurance program under the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.);
(2) modify the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London Avenue
drainage canals and install pumps and closure structures at or
near the lakefront at Lake Pontchartrain;
(3) armor critical elements of the New Orleans hurricane and
storm damage reduction system;
(4) modify the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to increase the
reliability of the flood protection system for the city of New
Orleans;
(5) replace or modify certain non-Federal levees in
Plaquemines Parish to incorporate the levees into the New
Orleans to Venice Hurricane Protection Project;
(6) reinforce or replace flood walls in the existing Lake
Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project and the existing West Bank
and Vicinity Project to improve performance of the flood and
storm damage reduction systems;
(7) perform one time stormproofing of interior pump stations
to ensure the operability of the stations during hurricanes,
storms, and high water events;
(8) repair, replace, modify and improve non-Federal levees
and associated protection measures in Terrebonne Parish; and
(9) reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater New
Orleans metropolitan area by restoring the surrounding wetlands
through measures to begin to reverse wetland losses in areas
affected by navigation, oil and gas, and other channels and
through modification of the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion
structure or its operations.
(b) Funding Authority.--Activities authorized by subsection (a) and
section 7013 shall be carried out in a manner that is consistent with
the cost-sharing requirements specified in the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234).
(c) Conditions.--The Secretary shall notify the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate if
estimates for the expenditure of funds on any single project or
activity identified in subsection (a) exceeds the amount specified for
that project or activity in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006
(Public Law 109-234). No appropriation in excess of 25 percent above
the amount specified for a project or activity in such Act shall be
made until an increase in the level of expenditure has been approved by
resolutions adopted by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

SEC. 7013. MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET.

(a) In General.--The project for navigation, Mississippi River-Gulf
outlet, authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize
construction of the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet'', approved March 29,
1956 (70 Stat. 65), as modified by section 844 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4177), is not authorized.
(b) Plan for Closure and Restoration.--The Secretary shall carry out
a study and implement a project to physically modify the Mississippi
River-Gulf outlet and to restore the areas affected by the Mississippi
River-Gulf outlet in accordance with the plan to be developed under
section 7002(a), subject to the conditions and recommendations in a
final report of the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the
Chief is completed not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this Act. The plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the
Interim Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Deep-Draft De-Authorization
Report submitted to Congress in December 2006.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on
the project described in subsection (b).
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 for the costs of carrying out the study and
developing the report of the Chief of Engineers required by subsection
(b). Such costs shall be a Federal expense.

TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY 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 or other alternative
locations that are economically and environmentally
feasible;
(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 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. Such
sums shall remain available until expended.
(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 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. Such
sums shall remain available until expended.
(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 to benefit
the environment; 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 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d-5b), 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) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall carry out a long term resource
monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and applied
research program for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River to
determine trends in ecosystem health, to understand systemic changes,
and to help identify restoration needs. The program shall build upon
the monitoring program established under section 1103(e)(1)(A)(ii) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
652(e)(1)(A)(ii)).
(d) 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.
(e) Consultation and Funding Agreements.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the environmental
sustainability, ecosystem restoration, and monitoring
activities authorized in this section, the Secretary shall
consult with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
(2) Funding agreements.--The Secretary is authorized to enter
into agreements with the Secretary of the Interior, the Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association, and natural resource and
conservation agencies of the States of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to provide for the direct
participation of and transfer of funds to such entities for the
planning, implementation, and evaluation of projects and
programs established by this section.
(f) 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). Such
sums shall remain available until expended.
(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.
(4) Monitoring.--In addition to amounts authorized under
paragraph (1), there are authorized $10,420,000 per fiscal year
to carry out the monitoring program under subsection (c) if
such sums are not appropriated pursuant to section 1103(e)(4)
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
652(e)(4)).
(g) Implementation Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2008, 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) one 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) one representative of the Department of
Agriculture;
(iii) one representative of the Department of
Transportation;
(iv) one representative of the United States
Geological Survey;
(v) one representative of the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service;
(vi) one representative of the Environmental
Protection Agency;
(vii) one representative of affected
landowners;
(viii) two representatives of conservation
and environmental advocacy groups; and
(ix) two 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.).
(h) 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;
(2) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the
projects are being carried out at comparable rates; and
(3) make an annual report to Congress, beginning in fiscal
year 2008, regarding whether the projects are being carried out
at a comparable rate.
(b) No Comparable Rate.--If the Secretary or Congress determines
under subsection (a)(2) that projects authorized under this title 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

H.R. 1495, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2007'',
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 2007 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 U.S. 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 2007 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 more than 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 more than two billion tons of
cargo pass each year. 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 our nation's 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 is $119 billion. Thus, for every dollar
invested, 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 more than $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, undertaking an ecosystem restoration
project for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
system, 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. If, based on the reconnaissance
study, the Corps determines there is a potentially feasible
water resources project, it 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 generally takes about two years.
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 to the nation. The Committee also holds
these professionals to the highest standards and expects all
work products generated by the Corps of Engineers to be able to
withstand any level of 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, fewer technical concerns, and increased
public acceptance of proposed projects.

Summary of the Legislation

Section 1. Short title; table of contents

This section establishes the short title of this Act as the
``Water Resources Development Act of 2007'' and includes a
table of contents.

Section 2. Definition of Secretary

This section 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) 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...................................... $11,232,000
Haines Borough.......................................... 2,808,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 14,040,000

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:

[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Annual Average
Account Equivalent Annual
Beneficial 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 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.
(2) Port Lions, Kodiak Island, Alaska.
Location of Study Area: The study area is located at the
Native Village of Port Lions, located on Kodiak Island, Alaska.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The primary
problem is the lack of adequate wave protection for the
existing inner harbor facilities and moored vessels at Port
Lions. The mooring basin is subject to severe damages and
undesirable wave conditions from northeast waves entering the
basin through the near-shore breach and around the deep-water
end of the main breakwater. Damages are also caused by smaller,
locally generated waves from the southwest. Wave heights of
three to five feet have been observed within the harbor limits.
Damage to the float system is especially prevalent on the outer
portions of the three main floats due to exposure to higher
waves. Significant portions of the mooring floats are unsafe
and have been blocked off from public access or removed from
the water. Year round use of the basin has been reduced from
about 124 to 35 vessels. For the general Kodiak Island area,
demand for year around moorage exceeds all planned expansion. A
shortage of regional moorage that is both safe and convenient
has led to lost income, vessel damages, lost time, and
inconvenience.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives plans
investigated included; the no-action plan, non-structural
plans, and various alternative structural plans. The
alternatives were designed to meet the planning objectives and
criteria and were evaluated based on environmental, economic,
and engineering considerations.
Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan
provides a new rubblemound breakwater at the existing harbor to
provide protected moorage for the design fleet.
Benefits to the Nation would include; reduced harbor and
vessel damages, reduced harvest costs, reduced local emergency
costs, and reduced water taxi service costs. Other direct
benefits include; increased subsistence opportunities, harbor
of refuge, and reduced search and rescue costs. Because the
Recommended Plan would not have any significant adverse
effects, no mitigation measures (beyond management practices
and avoidance) or compensation were required. The Recommended
Plan is the National Economic Development (NED) Plan.
Physical Data on Project Features: The Recommended Plan
provides a new rubblemound breakwater 1,360 feet in length,
located southwest and east of the existing mooring basin. The
new breakwater would protect the design fleet from northeast
and southwest waves. The new breakwater would not be shore-
connected to provide a 150-foot opening for fish passage. This
would allow fish to remain in the shallow water near the shore
and minimize the threat of deep-water predation. Additionally,
the width of the near-shore opening at the existing breakwater
would be reduced to 30 feet by a combination of extending the
existing breakwater 40 feet shoreward and by extending the
existing stub breakwater 75 feet seaward. The breakwaters would
provide protection for a 10-acre mooring basin. The basin would
provide protected moorage for a total of 124 commercial and
subsistence vessels ranging in length from 22 to 55 feet. The
entrance channel is 1,100 feet long by 100 feet wide with a
depth of -14 feet, mean lower low water (MLLW).
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(ADOT&PF) is the non-Federal sponsor. The ADOT&PF and community
of Port Lions strongly support the project and will fund the
non-Federal share of the project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service supports the Recommended Plan. There were no
objections to the Recommended Plan. There are no outstanding
issues.
Status of NEPA Document: The Environmental Assessment is
included as part of the Feasibility Report dated October 2005.
There were no objectionable comments received during the public
comment period. A Finding of No Significant Impact was signed
26 September 2005.
Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $7,624,000
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities.......................................... 1,906,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 9,530,000

The estimated cost for all features required to obtain the
projected navigation benefits, including the general navigation
features (GNF); lands, easements, rights-of-way, and
relocations; local service facilities; and aids-to-navigation
is estimated to be $10,460,000 (October 2005 price level). The
estimated Federal share of the GNF is $7,440,000 in addition to
the cost the Government would incur for navigations aids
currently estimated to be $10,000.
Direct Beneficiaries: The residents Port Lions and the
surrounding area and transient commercial fishers are the
direct beneficiaries of the project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 14 June 2006.
(3) Rio Salado Oeste, Salt River, Phoenix, Arizona.
Location of Study Area: The study area is located within
Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Key
problems within the study area include severe ecosystem
degradation as a result of land use changes, groundwater
overdraft and modifications to the river channel and hydrology.
There is potential for flood damages throughout the study area
and recreation opportunities associated within riverine and
riparian habitat in the Phoenix area are lacking. There are
opportunities to restore riparian habitat and river function,
reduce flood damages and increase recreation opportunities.
Historically, the study area supported significant biological
resources including extensive riparian and marsh habitats.
Urban development, diversion of water to support agriculture,
and domestic livestock grazing have eliminated or altered most
of the natural vegetation communities that occupied the study
area leaving only scattered remnants of the original vegetation
communities. The study evaluated both structural and non
structural alternatives to reduce flood damages through the
study area, although none of those alternatives were
economically justified. The restoration plan does provide
incidental flood damage reduction benefits.
Alternative Plans Considered: The study considered numerous
alternatives to address the problems and opportunities
described above. The final array of alternatives considered
included no action and nine action alternatives, one of which
is the Recommended Plan.
Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan is
described in the Chief's Report, dated 19 DEC 2006. This plan
includes the restoration of four significant habitat types
which are scarce and ecologically significant in the desert
southwest. These habitats are cottonwood/willow, mesquite,
wetlands, and riparian shrub. Multiple measures make up the
restoration plan including water supply and distribution,
channel restoration, revegetation, and invasive species
removal.
Physical Data on Project Features: The Recommended Plan
includes restoration of four significant habitat types
throughout the project area. These are habitats that are scarce
and ecologically significant in the desert southwest, including
cottonwood/willow (375 acres), mesquite (417), wetlands
including within the river channel (190 acres), and restoration
of 8 miles of river channel made up of approximately 500 acres
of active channel and riparian scrub. Multiple measures make up
the restoration plan, including, water supply and distribution,
channel restoration, revegetation, and invasive-species
removal. There are existing lake features created from
aggregate mining operations at 27th and 37th Avenues that will
be modified by a significant amount of regrading. Invasive
species such as salt cedar would require removal and management
with project implementation. A recreation component is also
part of the Recommended Plan that was developed by the City of
Phoenix, consistent with USACE policy. Major recreation
features include multipurpose trails, shelters, signage,
utilities, park furniture, and interpretive media. Access
points are identified in the plan, with four drive-in points
with parking facilities and five smaller access points for
walk-in use.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The City of Phoenix is the local sponsor. The City of Phoenix
strongly supports the project and will fund the local share of
the project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Flood Control
District of Maricopa County supports the recommended plan.
There are no outstanding issues.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Impact
Statement has been included as part of the Final Feasibility
Report, dated September 2006. These documents were released for
public review and comment on 28 APR 2006 and minor comments
were received by the close of the public comment period on 26
JUN 2006.
Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $106,629,000
City of Phoenix......................................... 60,021,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 166,650,000

Estimated Effects of the NED Plan:

[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Annual Average
Account Purposes Equivalent Annual
Beneficial Adverse
Effects Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development FDR............ N/A N/A
Plan (NED).
ER............. N/A N/A
Rec............ 1,433 N/A
-------------------------
Total.................. ............... $1,433 $0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit-Cost Ratio: N/A
NER plan recommended? Yes.

The NER plan would restore approximately 1,466 acres and
would produce approximately 267 average annual functional
capacity units (AAFCU). Environmental benefits are not
quantified monetarily and therefore environment specific costs
are not included in the project benefit/cost ratio.
Direct Beneficiaries: The residents and visitors to Phoenix
and surrounding areas and the ecosystem are the direct
beneficiaries of the project. Combined with other projects in
the watershed will restore 42 miles of the Salt River from the
Granite Reef Dam downstream to the Salt-Agua Fria River
confluence.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on December 19, 2006.
(4) Santa Cruz River, Paseo de las Iglesias, Pima County,
Arizona.
Location of Study Area: The study area is located in
southeast Arizona within Pima County and flows through the city
of Tucson, the 2nd largest city in Arizona.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The loss of
riparian habitat in the arid southwest is extremely
significant. Originally comprising a mere 1% of the landscape
historically, over 95% of riparian habitat has 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 extensive degradation and loss of 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. The existing functional capacity of the
ecosystem in the study area is forecasted to deteriorate
significantly over the next 50 years.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in
detail included three plans; the no-action, the National
Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan and the Preferred Alternative.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan for
ecosystem restoration and recreation would restore ecosystem
functions and values to approximately a 7.5 mile reach of the
Santa Cruz River. No flood damage reduction project could be
justified within the 5,000 acre study area.
Physical Data on Project Features: The Recommended Plan
includes restoring 1,098 acres including 718 acres of mesquite
bosque, 356 acres of riparian shrub, 18 acres of cottonwood-
willow, and 6 acres of emergent marsh. The plan includes five
water harvesting basins and eight water harvesting basins at
tributary confluences. The recommended plan would restore a
significant ecosystem resource along the Pacific Flyway for
neo-tropical birds, reconnect wildlife corridors, restore
wildlife habitat for species significant to Pima County,
provide potential habitat for threatened and endangered
species, and restore threatened plant communities of
cottonwood/willow riparian forest and Mesquite Bosque. The
ecosystem function will increase fourteen (14) times over the
expected future without project degraded condition.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The Pima County Regional Flood Control District is the local
sponsor and they strongly support the project and will fund the
local share of the project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, and the Center for
Biological Diversity have all stated support for the proposed
restoration efforts.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment
has been included as part of the Final Feasibility Report,
dated July 2005. These documents were released for public
review and comment on 8 October 2004 and minor comments were
received and responded to and are included in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
Estimated Implementation Costs of Addendum Modified
Recommended LPP Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $63,300,000
Pima County Regional Flood Control District............. 34,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 97,700,000

Estimated Effects of the Addendum Modified NER Plan: N/A

[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Annual Average
Account Purposes Equivalent Annual
Beneficial Adverse
Effects Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development FDR............ N/A N/A
Plan (NER).
ER............. N/A ...........
Rec............ N/A ...........
-------------------------
Total.................. ............... ........... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: FDR = Flood Damage Reduction; ER = Ecosystem Restoration; Rec =
Recreation.
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.3.
NED plan recommended? No.
NER plan recommended? No.

Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area
are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 28 March 2006.
(5) 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...................................... $3,836,000
Pima County Flood Control District...................... 2,070,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 5,906,000

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:

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.
(6) 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 ongoing
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...................................... $105,200,000
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the
City of Mesa........................................ 56,900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total:.............................................. 162,100,000

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
Account Equivalent Average Annual
Beneficial Adverse Effects
Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Functional Capacity Units Net 1006 AAFCU Not Applicable
Increase...............................
Annualized Recreational Benefits........ $170,800 Not Applicable
Annualized Incidental Flood Damage 32,300 Not Applicable
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.
(7) May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Location of Study Area: The study area is located within
the corporate limits of Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The
principal water resources problems in the May Branch Basin are
flood damages to industry, businesses, and residences, and
limited aquatic habitat. The P Street storm sewer is the major
drainage outlet for the May Branch basin. Runoff with a
recurrence interval of approximately ten years exceeds the
capacity of the outlet. A major flood event occurred in spring
1990. At that time, the Arkansas River experienced high flows
and the P Street gravity outlet on May Branch was closed.
Pumping and the P Street storm sewer could not handle the flow.
The heavy rainfall resulted in flooding that caused an
estimated $2.5 million in damages to 26 businesses and 44
residential units. In 2004, a 13-year old boy slipped into a
side drain. He was swept 1.5 miles through the rough, dark P
Street storm sewer until he was rescued at the P Street weir.
There is an opportunity to open up the channel to allow for
rescue of persons falling into the drainage system. Expected
annual flood damages are estimated to be $1.7 million to
include damages to the 136 structures located in the 500-year
floodplain. The opportunity exists to improve the social
wellbeing of those who live and work in the May Branch
floodplain by alleviating the flood damages to the homes,
businesses, and infrastructure.
Construction of the P Street storm sewer in 1910 to replace
the May Branch open channel reduced the aquatic habitat to
virtually nonexistent. The opportunity exists to reconstruct
the May Branch channel, which would restore some minor aquatic
habitat.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated
included no action, nonstructural, parallel storm sewers,
additional pump capacity, detention basins, and open channel
plans. The plans investigated in detail included the no-action
plan, the National Economic Development (NED) Plan and the
Locally Preferred Plan (LPP).
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
the LPP. The LPP provides for a new 2.77-mile long open channel
to convey flood waters from the May Branch basin to the
Arkansas River.
Physical Data on Project Features: The new channel
alignment would require 15 structure relocations, 5 rail and 9
road crossings, and a gated hydraulic control structure at the
Fort Smith (Arkansas River) Levee. These features are to
provide flood damage reduction benefits. From O Street to the
Fort Smith (Arkansas River) Levee, the new open channel would
augment the flow capacity of the P Street Storm Sewer. Most of
the road and rail crossings would be covered channel sections.
The channel bottom width varies from 24 feet in the downstream
portion to 4 feet for the upstream most 0.5 miles. The channel
would be mainly trapezoidal with three horizontal to one
vertical (3H:1V) side slopes. The channel slopes would be rip-
rapped, except for a short vertical concrete wall section, and
a 1,500-foot long segment downstream of Grand Avenue where the
channel has 2H:1V concrete-lined side slopes to avoid area
buildings. The reporting officers find that approximately 2.25
miles of the new channel, from the Arkansas River upstream to
Grand Avenue (Reaches 1 through 4), satisfy requirements for
full Federal participation in cost sharing under current
Administration policy. The remaining 0.52 miles of new channel
(Reaches 5 and 6) will lie upstream of the limit of Federal
interest and will be constructed at 100-percent non-Federal
cost.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The State Of Arkansas supported the project by letter dated
November 27, 2006. The City of Fort Smith is the local sponsor.
By letter dated October 19, 2006, the City of Fort Smith
affirmed its full support and ability to fund the local share
of the project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: No comments were
received from the Federal and Regional Agencies as part of the
State and Agency Review.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment
was an integral part of the Final Feasibility Report, dated
September 2006. The draft report was released for a 30-day
public review on 28 July 2006. The public review was completed
on 6 September 2006. Comments received were favorable.
Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended LPP Plan:

Corps of Engineers/Flood Damage Reduction............... $15,010,000
City of Fort Smith/sponsor.............................. 15,840,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 30,850,000

Estimated Effects of the LPP:

[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Annual Average
Purposes Equivalent Annual
Beneficial Adverse
Effects Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED--FDR...................................... $1,740 $0
ER--N/A....................................... ........... N/A
Rec--N/A...................................... ........... N/A
-------------------------
Total:.................................. 1,740 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: FDR = Flood Damage Reduction; ER = Ecosystem Restoration; Rec =
Recreation.
Period of Analysis: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.13. (Discount Rate: 4.875%)

NED plan recommended? No, the features of the NED plan are,
in all material respects, identical to those of Reaches 1
through 4 of the LPP, except that the NED plan would have
smaller flow capacity in Reaches 1 and 2 nearest the Arkansas
River. Implementing the NED plan would be approximately
$1,981,000 less costly than the LPP. However, the LPP would
provide greater flood damage reduction and less expected
residual flood damages compared to the NED Plan. Implementation
of the recommended LPP would remove 127 structures from the
100-year flood plain of May Branch. Consequently, the
recommended project has the potential to reduce future net
Federally subsidized reimbursements for flood losses.
The recommended LPP would decrease expected annual flood
damages along May Branch by more than 96 percent and nearly
eliminate the flood damages expected to be caused by a flood
that has a 1.0-percent chance of occurring in any given year
(100-year event). The recommended plan would also diminish
flood damages for events larger than the 1.0-percent chance
event by decreasing flood stages and increasing the chances of
successful emergency flood fighting. The project would also
reduce highway and railroad traffic interruptions, lessen
flood-induced disruptions to the delivery of health and safety
services, and decrease the threat of loss of life attendant to
flash flooding in urban settings.
Based on the preceding information, the Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Civil Works), by memorandum dated 27 October 2005,
granted an exception to the Administration policy requirement
that the NED plan be recommended for implementation.
Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area
are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 19 December 2006.
(8) 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 an 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:

Corp of Engineers....................................... $34,100,000
The State of California Reclamation Board............... 18,300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 52,400,000

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.
(9) Imperial Beach, California.
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 yards), so that
initially the nourished beach would be 32 meters (105 yards)
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...................................... $8,521,000
Imperial Beach.......................................... 5,179,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 13,700,000

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 Average annual
Account beneficial adverse effects
effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storm Damage Reduction.................. $2,395,000 N/A
Recreation.............................. 744,000 N/A
-------------------------------
Total............................. 3,139,000 N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
(10) 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 National 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...................................... $ 89,700,000
Ventura County Watershed Protection District............ 54,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total:.............................................. 144,500,000

Estimated Effects: This project will restore a vital link
to a fragmented ecosystem in Ventura County and will provide
access to pristine habitat area 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/acre
First Cost per Acre................................... 43,984/acre

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 Habitat Riparian Habitat Natural Processes Totals
Component Component Component -------------------------
Target year ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With With With No Action With
No Action Project No Action Project No Action Project 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.
(11) 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
were 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...................................... $29,500,000
Lake County............................................. 15,700,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 45,200,000

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.
(12) 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...................................... $87,500,000
Non-Federal Interest.................................... 47,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 134,500,000

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.
(13) 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 a 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
benefits. 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...................................... $13,680,000
Non-Federal............................................. 7,370,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 21,050,000

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.
(14) 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 International. 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 effects 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...................................... $ 75,140,000
Miami-Dade County Seaport Department.................... 50,130,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 125,270,000

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.
(15) 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...................................... $134,910,000
Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Madison and
St. Clair counties.................................. 73,350,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 208,260,000

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 interal 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 1780's, 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.
(16) 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...................................... $11,840,000
Non-Federal (IDNR)...................................... 6,380,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 18,220,000

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 nationally renowned
fishery. The Illinois River valley is part of the integrally
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.
(17) Wood River Levee System Reconstruction Project,
Madison County, Illinois.
Location of Study Area: The study area is located in the
Mississippi River flood plain of Madison County, Illinois,
upstream of the city of East St. Louis.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The
potential for levee failure is a major problem. As time
continues to pass without a comprehensive reconstruction being
undertaken for the Wood River Drainage and Levee System the
probability that the project will fail continues to increase.
The Wood River Drainage and Levee District has remained a good
steward of this Federal infrastructure. They have historically
and continue to provide routine operation and maintenance of
the system and take action to repair as circumstances require
in accordance with the agreements under which they assumed
Sponsorship responsibility. However, as all parts of this
integral system continue to degrade with time the chances of
multiple failures occurring simultaneously continue to
increase. This serious situation truly creates a ``pay me now''
or ``pay me later'' scenario. The opportunity exists to
proactively take action to reconstruct the system now in order
to prevent a future catastrophe caused by system deterioration.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in
detail included three plans; the no-action, reconstruction, and
replacement alternatives.
Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan
includes replacement of 163 existing relief wells, construction
of 60 new relief wells, and reconstruction/replacement of
various components of 26 closure structures, 38 gravity drains,
and 7 pump stations. Relief well work is considered a design
deficiency and has been approved under existing project
authority. The remaining reconstruction work requires new
authorization.
Physical Data on Project Features: Wood River Drainage and
Levee District (Levee District) lies in southwestern Illinois,
on the left bank of the Mississippi River flood plain, within
Madison County, Illinois, between river miles 195 and 203 above
the Ohio River. The levee district is protected by an urban
design levee, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis and
St. Charles counties in Missouri. This system includes
approximately 21 miles of main line levee, 170 relief wells, 26
closure (road and railroad) structures, 41 gravity drains and 7
pump stations. Only 163 wells are included in the
reconstruction project as 7 wells are 8-inch diameter PVC
wells, installed in 1985 as a part of the Wood River
Alterations, Design Memorandum No. 16; L&D 26(R) and are not
included as part of the replacement/rehabilitation
alternatives. The study area lies in the Mississippi River
flood plain of Madison County, Illinois, just upstream of the
city of East St. Louis. There are approximately 13,700 acres of
bottomland within the District and 4,700 acres of hill land
tributary to the levee units.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The Wood River Drainage and Levee District is the local
sponsor. The levee district strongly supports the project and
will fund the local share of the project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: As a result of the
public review, the District received responses from three
agencies. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources
indicated no concerns. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Marion, Illinois indicated no comment. Comments were received
from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency; coordination
will continue as necessary with that agency as the project
moves forward.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment
has been included as part of the Final General Reevaluation
Report, dated March 2006. These documents were released for
public review and comment on 10 January 2005 and comments were
received by the close of the public comment period on 15
February 2005.
Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... 11,193,000
Wood River Drainage and Levee District.................. 6,027,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 17,220,000

Estimated Effects of the Recommended Plan

[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual
Equivalent Average Annual
Total Levee System Account Purposes Beneficial Adverse Effects
Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic.......................... FDR.......................... $6,763.7 $1,240.5
Development Plan (NED)..................... ER........................... N/A N/A
Rec.......................... N/A N/A
-------------------------------------
Total.................................. ............................. $6,763.7 $1,240.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: FDR = Flood Damage Reduction.
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 3.32 (Current Discount Rate: 4-7/8%)
Design Deficiency Correction.

[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual
Equivalent Average Annual
(Relief Wells) Account Purposes Beneficial Adverse Effects
Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic.......................... FDR.......................... $2,752.2 $1,110.4
Development Plan (NED)..................... ER........................... N/A N/A
Rec.......................... N/A N/A
-------------------------------------
Total.................................. ............................. $2,752.2 $ 1,110.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: FDR = Flood Damage Reduction.
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 3.56 (Current Discount Rate: 4-7/8%)

[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual
Equivalent Average Annual
Reconstruction Account Purposes Beneficial Adverse Effects
Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic.......................... FDR.......................... $3,948.8 $1,329.6
Development Plan (NED)..................... ER........................... N/A N/A
Rec.......................... N/A N/A
-------------------------------------
Total.................................. ............................. $3,948.8 $1,329.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: FDR = Flood Damage Reduction.
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 3.23 (Current Discount Rate: 4-7/8%)
NED plan recommended? No

Direct Beneficiaries: The residents, businesses, and
industry in the surrounding area are the direct beneficiaries
of the project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed and transmitted to the ASA(CW) on
18 July 2006.
(18) Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa.
Location of Study Area: The study area is located within
the corporate limits of Polk County, and the City of Des
Moines, Iowa.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The City of
Des Moines has been subject to frequent flooding that impacts
large numbers of residential, commercial, and industrial
properties. During the Great Flood of 1993, Polk County
suffered more than $152,000,000 in flood damages, mostly in the
Des Moines metropolitan area. More than 3,000 properties were
damaged in this event. In addition, Des Moines was without
water service for more than a week causing closure of most
businesses and industries in the city. The Birdland Park and
Central Place levees on the Des Moines River failed during the
1993 flood event and do not provide reliable flood protection,
placing nearly 200 homes and businesses at risk. These two non-
Federal levees require reconstruction. An opportunity also
exists at the Birdland Park levee to incorporate a multipurpose
recreational trail with access to Riverview Park. Downtown Des
Moines along both the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers also
flooded in 1993 due to incomplete installation of levee
closures. These Federal levees have large numbers of closures
which decreases the reliability of the system, and increases
the flood threat for hundreds of commercial, industrial, and
residential structures. Improvements and reduction in the
numbers of closures would not only reduce operation and
maintenance costs, but would improve the system reliability.
Homes and businesses along selected portions of Walnut Creek,
Fourmile Creek, and Leetown Creekway are subject to frequent
flash floods.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternative plans were
developed and evaluated for each of the 11 reaches included in
the study. Alternatives included levees and floodwalls,
reservoirs, channel improvements, and nonstructural measures
such as flood warning systems and relocation/removal of
existing structures. Preliminary screening focused detailed
analysis on plans that provided the most benefits and potential
to be economically justified. Alternatives that were developed
and evaluated in detail include:
--three levee alignments at three levee heights to
protect the Birdland Park area;
--an improved and extended recreational trail at
Birdland Park;
--three levee heights for an improved levee to
protect the Central Place area;
--raising the levees and floodwalls of the existing
downtown levee system;
--improving the closures in the existing downtown
levee system; and
--constructing new levees along portions of Walnut
Creek and Fourmile Creek.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan
provides for increased flood protection along the Des Moines
and Raccoon Rivers to the areas of Birdland Park, Central Place
and downtown Des Moines. The flood damage reduction features of
the recommended plan consist of constructing 7,700 feet of
levee and 440 feet of retaining wall with one closure structure
generally along and extending the existing non-Federal levee at
Birdland Park; constructing 5,900 feet of levee generally along
and extending the existing non-Federal Central Place levee; and
modifying three existing pump stations. The recommended plan
also includes modification to nineteen closure structures in
the existing Federal downtown levee system. The recreation
features include 5,100 feet of recreational trail along the
Birdland Park levee with access to Riverview Park and
landscaping along the levee crossing Riverview Park.
Compensatory mitigation to offset the environmental impacts of
the project will be accomplished through the creation of 13 to
16 acres of emergent wetland, open water, upland forest, and
herbaceous upland buffer at the Chichaqua mitigation site,
northeast of Des Moines. Further compensation includes
approximately 5 acres of bottomland forest enhancement, and
upland forest creation on the riverside of the levee at Central
Place. The recommended plan is the locally preferred plan
(LPP). The LPP has greater net benefits than smaller scaled
plans and is smaller in scope and less costly than the national
economic development plan. The LPP would provide the maximum
level of protection desired by the non-Federal sponsor.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The City of Des Moines is the local sponsor and 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 Iowa Department of Natural Resources
support the recommended plan as it mitigates impacts to the
environment. There are no outstanding issues.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment
has been included as part of the Final Feasibility Report,
dated Dec 2005. These documents were released for public review
and comment on May 2005 and minor comments were received by the
close of the public comment period on Aug 2005.
Estimated Implementation Costs of the Recommended Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... 6,967,000
City of Des Moines...................................... 3,813,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 10,780,000

Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual
Purpose Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood Damage Reduction............................... $1,667,000
Recreation........................................... 127,000
------------------
Total project.................................... 1,794,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Analysis: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: (Discount Rate: 4\7/8\%)
Flood Damage Reduction: 2.6
Recreation: 7.9
Total project: 2.7
NED plan recommended? No.

Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area
are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
Relationship to Other Plans: The Des Moines and Raccoons
Rivers project LPP recommended plan is part of a greater Des
Moines flood control and recreational system. The following
projects are part of those FDR and recreational systems for the
City of Des Moines:
(1) Des Moines Recreational River and Greenbelt
(Greenbelt), Iowa: This project was authorized in the
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-88) to
provide recreation facilities along the Des Moines River.
Riverfront recreation facilities are proposed in downtown Des
Moines as part of the Des Moines Riverwalk project.
(2) Raccoon River, Des Moines, Iowa: This Federal project
was authorized under Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
1948. The project is located along the south bank of the
Raccoon River and in Des Moines. It was completed in 2000. This
project has been designated Reach 6 for the purposes of this
study.
(3) Des Moines River Basin, Iowa and Minnesota: (Also known
as the West Des Moines--Des Moines project) this Federal
project was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986. The project is located along the Raccoon River, Walnut
Creek, and Jordan Creek in the cities of West Des Moines and
Des Moines. It was completed in 1998. This project has been
designated Reach 8 for the purposes of this study.
(4) Saylorville Lake, Iowa: The project is located on the
Des Moines River approximately 6 miles upstream of Des Moines.
The reservoir has a conservation pool covering about 5,400
acres and a total capacity of 676,000 acre-feet.
(5) Des Moines, Iowa: This Federal flood protection project
was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944. The project is
located along the Des Moines River and Raccoon River in
downtown Des Moines.
(6) Red Rock Dam, Iowa: This Federal project was authorized
by the Flood Control Act of 1944. The project is located on the
Des Moines River downstream of Des Moines, Iowa. The 110-foot-
tall dam has been in operation since 1969 and forms a 19,000-
acre lake. The Red Rock Remedial Works levees were constructed
along the upper portions of the lake to protect properties from
flooding during high reservoir stages.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 28 March 2006. It was submitted
to the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) on 5 April 2006.
(19) Licking River, Cynthiana, Kentucky.
Location of Study Area: Cynthiana is located in Harrison
County, Kentucky, along the South Fork Licking River,
approximately 25 miles north of Lexington, Kentucky. The
project would be located along upstream tributaries of the
South Fork Licking River in the Counties of Bourbon, and
Nicholas, Kentucky.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Problems
identified in the watershed include flooding of 415 structures
in the 1% (100-year) floodplain, with flood damages of
$3,639,000 on an average annual basis. A recurrence of the 1997
flood event in this portion of the Licking River Basin would
result in an estimated $34,000,000 in flood related damages.
The benefit-to-cost ratio for this project is estimated to be
3.1. The only compensable mitigation requirement for this
project will be for 90 acres of hardwood plantings on project
lands to offset the impacts of these structures on the existing
riparian hardwood corridors in the vicinity of the proposed
detention basins.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in
detail included no action, non-structural plans, and structural
plans, including detention basin storage, levees and
floodwalls, and channel modifications.
Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan
consists of two dry bed detention basins located in Bourbon and
Nicholas Counties along upstream tributaries of the South Fork
Licking River. The basins would reduce existing damages in the
study area by up to 86% and would have a fully funded cost of
about $20.6M for project completion in FY 2013. The dry bed
detention basins would be created by construction of a roller
compacted concrete dam on both the Hinkston and Strodes Creek
tributaries.
Physical Data on Project Features: The Hinkston Creek
detention structure, located just upstream of the town of
Millersburg, would have a height of about 30,, a length of
about 680,, and would create a pool with a volume of about
8,188 acre-feet, given an occurrence of the 0.2 percent chance
(500-year flood). The Strodes Creek detention structure,
located about 26 miles upstream of the town of Paris, would
have a height of about 25,, a length of about 700,, and would
create a pool with a volume of about 3,923 acre-feet, given an
occurrence of the 0.2 percent chance (500-year flood).
Mitigation for unavoidable environmental impacts associated
with the proposed project would consist of 90 acres of hardwood
plantings on project lands to offset the impacts of the
detention structures on the existing riparian hardwood
corridors in the vicinity of the proposed project.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The City of Cynthiana is the local sponsor. The City of
Cynthiana and Harrison County support the project and will fund
the local share of the project. The Kentucky Governor's Office
for Local Development (GOLD) is a strong supporter of the
project, and is providing funds to augment the local cost share
for the project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is in concurrence with the recommended plan,
including mitigation features. There are no outstanding issues.
Status of NEPA Document: The Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) was signed on September 14, 2005. The Final
Environmental Assessment and FONSI were included as a part of
the Final Feasibility Report, dated September 2005. The draft
Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment was released
for public review and comment in July 2005.
Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended LPP:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $11,200,000
City of Cynthiana....................................... 6,370,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 18,200,000

Estimated Effects of the NED Plan:

The NED plan would reduce existing damages in the study
area by up to 86% and would have a fully funded cost of about
$20.6M for project completion in FY 2013.
Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in Cynthiana, and to a
lesser extent, Paris and Millersburg are the direct
beneficiaries of the project.
Relationship to Other Plans: A Flood Warning System for the
entire Licking River Basin was completed under Section 205 of
the Continuing Authorities Program in 2004. The Corps
constructed Cave Run Reservoir is located in the basin, along
with three local protection projects in Salyersville, Newport
and Dayton, Kentucky.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 24 October 2006.
(20) 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
$9,680,000 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.
(21) 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 against 50-,
85-, 100- and 500-year flood frequency events. The structural
plans included earthen levees, sector-gated floodgate
structures, and environmental water control structures to
maintain tidal ebb and flow. The non-structural plans involved
relocating, purchasing and elevating structures.
Description of 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...................................... $576,355,000
Non-Federal............................................. 310,345,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 886,700,000

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:

[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
(22) Port of Iberia, Louisiana.
Location of Study Area: The study area is bounded by the
cities of Lafayette and New Iberia, to the north; the
Atchafalaya River to the east; the Vermilion River and FWB to
the west; and the Weeks Bay/Vermilion Bay complex and the Gulf
of Mexico to the south. Major communities in the study area
include New Iberia, Lafayette, Jeanerette, Franklin, Abbeville,
and numerous smaller communities.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: This study
focused on examining opportunities to alleviate the problems
stemming from the shallow depth of water access to and from the
POI by improving navigation access. Rigs and platforms designed
for the shallow offshore environment were light and could use
navigation channels with the same width and depth as those used
for inland waterborne commerce. New structures that
economically extract the hydrocarbons from the deep-sea bottom
are much larger and heavier than the traditional shallow rigs.
These large structures require deeper navigation waterways to
the Gulf of Mexico than shallow water rigs.
Some of the ports along the Gulf of Mexico that were
traditionally leaders in shallow water rig component
fabrication and rehabilitation have found themselves shut out
of the deepwater market due to insufficient draft in existing
navigation channels. The POI is one such port. The POI has
facilities, infrastructure, and skilled labor in place for
fabricating deepwater topsides, but many of the major producers
will not consider bids submitted by the POI fabricators due to
draft restrictions.
Alternative Plans Considered: The plan formulation
rationale is used to evaluate a range of alternatives that
would satisfy the planning objectives identified previously.
The POI, Louisiana Navigation Reconnaissance Report evaluated a
range of alternative alignments from the POI to the Gulf of
Mexico and recommended a single economically feasible alignment
for further analysis, known as the FWB Alignment. In
feasibility, various channel dimensions were investigated to
improve navigation from the port and facilitate the
construction and transportation of larger, heavier deepwater
platforms to the Gulf of Mexico. A preliminary screening was
performed and one channel dimension was selected for detailed
analysis. The feasibility analysis evaluated several
alternatives for dredge disposal.
Several alternatives existed for routing POI vessel traffic
to the Gulf of Mexico (Coastal Engineering and Environmental
Consultants, Inc. 2001 and USACE August 2002). All alternatives
used the existing channel, known as the Commercial Canal, and
connected with the GIWW. The first alternative was to route
vessel traffic west on the GIWW and south through the Vermilion
River Cutoff to the Gulf of Mexico. The second alternative was
to route the vessel traffic southwest through Vermilion Bay and
into the Gulf of Mexico. The third alternative was to route
vessel traffic east on the GIWW and south through the Lower
Atchafalaya River. Cursory investigations that explored the
maintenance of navigation channels through Vermilion Bay and
the Lower Atchafalaya River revealed that the existence of
fluid mud rendered these channels inefficient and, in the case
of Vermilion Bay, increased the likelihood of saltwater
intrusion. The Lower Atchafalaya River route requires an
increased travel distance and would likely incur added
transportation delays because of existing structures. Thus,
enough information existed to rule out these three alternatives
from further study.
The FWB Alignment incorporates four existing channels--
Commercial Canal, west on the GIWW and then south on FWB to the
Gulf of Mexico--in order to reduce costs. Vessel dimensions are
used to determine both depth and width of a navigation channel.
Several proposed channel dimensions were evaluated based on
current traffic patterns and projected vessel sizes based on
traffic analysis prepared for the USACE. It was determined that
the 150-foot channel would adequately serve the majority of
vessel traffic and therefore, was the maximum channel width
evaluated. Prior to selection of the 16-foot channel depth 18
and 20-feet NAVD88 channels were considered, plus 3 feet of
advanced maintenance and overdepth dredging.
In response to the marsh loss and erosion in the study
area, the USACE and other resource agencies concluded that all
dredged material excavated from the inshore channels for the
construction and maintenance of this project would be confined
behind rock dikes and used to reestablish the bank line of the
eroding channels. Any material not in the confined bank line
disposal area would then be used for wetland restoration in
broken marsh areas and shallow open water areas.
Given the substantive uncertainties that exist with regards
to projecting market conditions and the associated share of the
business the Port of Iberia may garner over the next 50 years,
scenarios were used as the basis for initial decision-making
for federal investments at the Port of Iberia.
An incremental analysis was conducted on alternative
channel depths. The selection of the channel depths is based on
the size of the deepwater fabrication topsides that POI is
projected to win. The largest units--12,000 to 15,000-ton
deepwater topsides fabricated for floating production storage
and offloading (FPSO) and floating production systems (FPS)--
are comprised of distinct modules, which can be transported on
two or three separate barges. Allowing for multiple barge tows
of topside movements means that all projected benefits will
accrue to the 16-foot channel. The larger topsides projected
for the GOM market are in the 12,000 to 15,000 ton range. Only
1-2 larger topsides are projected to be fabricated at POI and
they are comprised of a 10,000 ton module and 5,000 tons of
add-on components. The 16-foot channel will accommodate the
10,000 ton module and therefore the 16-foot channel will
accommodate all the contracts that are projected to be
constructed by POI fabricators. Incremental benefits of channel
depths beyond 16 feet are zero, but there are additional
construction costs plus incremental maintenance and thus net
benefits will decrease with larger projects.
Description of Recommended Plan: The plan that reasonably
maximizes net contributions to economic development is
designated as the NED Plan. Due to the uncertainty of
projections of both the GOM market and the POI market share, a
scenario approach was taken to evaluate the project benefits.
Of the 24 possible scenarios, a total of 17 (71 percent of all
possible outcomes) are expected to produce positive net
benefits and in every one of these outcomes the 16-foot channel
alternative produces the highest average annual net benefits
and corresponding BCR. The range of average annual net benefits
is from a maximum of $14,193,000 to a minimum of $562,000 and
the range of BCR is from a maximum of 2.16 to a minimum of
1.05, all for the 71 percent of positive outcomes. Given these
results, the 16-foot channel alternative is identified as the
NED plan and best meets the Federal Criteria for recommending
authorization.
The recommended plan would provide for the enlargement of
GIWW (20 miles), FWB (18 miles) and bar channel (7.5 miles) and
Commercial Canal (7.5 miles), with an additional 7 miles
through the Port of Iberia itself. The enlarged channel would
provide a 16-foot depth and a 150-foot width. Two new concrete
barge floodgates with concrete receiving structures would be
constructed for salinity control and navigation--one at each
end of the FWB Bypass Channel. The least-cost environmentally
acceptable method of enlarging the channels to 16-feet deep and
150-feet wide was developed. Dredged material would be used to
reestablish the bank line, create marsh, and nourish the
shoreline resulting in net positive environmental impacts. The
GIWW and FWB channel bank lines would be stabilized to +3.5-
feet NAVD88 and +5-feet NAVD88, respectively, with rock
armoring that would settle to +1.4-feet NAVD88 (which
corresponds to the adjacent marsh elevation) within 5 years.
Removals would be required for impacted facilities including
oil and gas pipelines and electrical lines. Private and
commercial bulkheads impacted by the channel enlargement would
be replaced or modified as appropriate. The recommended plan
includes features such as floodgates and other features
designed to accommodate a 20-foot navigation depth in the
anticipation that channel improvements will be warranted in the
future.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
Coordination with state, local agencies and the public was
maintained throughout the study to assure that all aspects of
the water resource problems were addressed. The following
statement was provided by the Port of Iberia on 7 March 2006:
The Local Sponsor's interest in navigation improvements for
the POI and Acadiana Region has been established since the
early 1900s. In the early years of the port, access to the Gulf
of Mexico was primarily needed for recreational and commercial
fisheries but as the oil & gas industry developed and matured,
the POI systematically became a ``hub'' for the central Gulf of
Mexico offshore oil & gas fabrication and service industry. For
many years the POI, Iberia Parish, Acadiana Business Community,
and the State of Louisiana have invested millions of dollars of
infrastructure in support of the jobs and economic well-being
of the POI. Currently the POI requires significant waterway and
channel improvements for it to continue to support and service
the oil & gas industry as the industry moves further out into
the Gulf of Mexico.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Other Federal
agencies including The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service support
the project. There are no outstanding issues.
Status of NEPA Document: Team members representing various
Federal and state resource agencies were invited to actively
participate and take ownership in the navigation study early in
the process. Invoking the EOPs early in the study process
supported National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance
and promoted public acceptance toward the feasibility study.
Inviting the resource agencies and stakeholders to be actively
involved in the decision-making process during the entire plan
formulation process allowed for early resolution of some of the
controversial issues of the project hence making the review
process smoother.
Identification of channel alignment and dredge material
disposal was accomplished with the help of various agency
participants as well as stakeholders to ensure a plan was
pursued that would ensure balance and synergy among human
development activities and natural systems. The entire dredge
material disposal plan was considered precedent setting by the
resource agencies and the majority of the public involved in
portions of the study process. As a result, the project
delivery team (PDT) recognized the interdependence of life and
the physical environment and incorporated this relationship
into the study process for the best possible outcome. With
involvement from individuals outside of the USACE, the
environmental consequences related to deepening existing
navigation channels allowed a win-win alternative to be
identified early in the study process. Existing data was used
to exclude unreasonable alternatives, thus minimizing study
time and cost.
The recommended plan meets the majority of the sponsor and
stakeholder needs while fully engaging nearly all of the EOPs
to culminate in a positive environmental output. The EOPs are
consistent with NEPA, the Army's Environmental Strategy with
its four pillars of prevention, compliance, restoration and
conservation, and other environmental statutes and Water
Resource Development Act that govern USACE activities.
Estimated Implementation Costs:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $105,315,000
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.. 25,935,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 131,250,000

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal sponsor's 10 percent share of general navigation
features required during construction would be $12,951,435. In
addition, the sponsor would provide LERRD and local service
facilities amounting to $1,778,385 and $16,440,900
respectively. For the purpose of this report, all pipeline
relocations are non-compensable and thus are removals. The
facility owners would be responsible for $23,743,965 for
removals. Upon completion of the project, the sponsor would be
responsible for a 10 percent payback to the USACE based on the
GNF costs, reduced by credit for the non-Federal sponsor's cost
of LERRD's. Therefore, the $1,778,385 for real estate would be
creditable towards the 10 percent after construction. The
resulting payback amount would be $11,173,050 and can be paid
over a period of 30 years, with interest. The responsibility
for Real Estate efforts (lands, easements, and rights-of-way),
pipeline removals, and bulkhead replacements belongs to the
non-Federal sponsor.
Estimated Effects:

TABLE 1.--AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS
[5.125 interest rate, thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Infield GOM Market MMS High GOM Market MMS Low GOM Market
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Increased Increased No Increased Increased No Increased Increased
Competition Competition Competition Competition Competition Competition Competition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-Foot Channel......................................... 3,274 1,599 7,430 5,272 1,335 (114)
18-Foot Channel......................................... 2,982 1,530 7,541 5,670 855 (401)
20-Foot Channel......................................... 4,702 1,965 10,371 6,846 2,056 (312)
20 Percent EPC:
16-Foot Channel..................................... 371 (969) 3,689 1,962 (1,178) (2,337)
18-Foot Channel..................................... 302 (1,373) 4,087 1,929 (1,464) (2,914)
20-Foot Channel..................................... 793 (1,441) 5,335 2,457 (1,327) (3,260)
50 Percent Integration:
16-Foot Channel..................................... (634) (1,751) 2,394 955 (2,047) (3,014)
18-Foot Channel..................................... (1,485) (2,825) 1,785 58 (3,011) (4,170)
20-Foot Channel..................................... (2,334) (3,898) 1,306 (708) (4,033) (5,386)
Staging:
16-Foot Channel..................................... (2,198) (3,147) 379 (844) (3,400) (4,222)
18-Foot Channel..................................... (3,048) (4,221) (229) (1,740) (4,364) (5,378)
20-Foot Channel..................................... (3,898) (5,293) (708) (2,507) (5,386) (6,594)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The market share effects are sequential and cumulative rather than independent of each other.

Of the 24 scenarios evaluated using the updated MMS
forecasts and maximum net benefits, 8 indicated the 20-foot
channel plan was optimal, 3 indicated the 16-foot channel plan
was optimal, and the remaining 13 scenarios indicated no
deepening was justified. Of the 24 scenarios evaluated using
the updated MMS forecasts and positive net benefits, 9
scenarios indicated positive net benefits for the 20-foot
channel plan, 10 scenarios indicated positive net benefits for
the 18-foot channel plan, and 11 scenarios indicated positive
net benefits for the 16-foot channel plan. Given the
substantive uncertainties that exist with regards to projecting
market conditions and the associated share of the business the
Port of Iberia may garner over the next 50 years, Corps
leadership determined that the scenarios could be used as the
basis for initial decision-making for federal investments at
the Port of Iberia.
The second new piece of information is regarding the
modularization of shipments. The measurement of benefits
described in the April 2006 feasibility report was predicated
on the assumption that a single barge will be required to
transport very large topsides. Industry preference is that the
entire topside structure (fabricated and add-on pieces) be
transported on one barge to the integration site. Therefore,
the analysis described in the feasibility report assumed that
single barge transport would be the most likely future
alternative and would continue throughout the period of
analysis. However, subsequent to submission of the feasibility
report, the split shipment (two barges) possibility was
researched through a series of interviews and no information to
preclude the engineering feasibility of moving large topsides
on multiple barges was offered. The largest units--12,000 to
15,000-ton deepwater topsides fabricated for floating
production storage and offloading (FPSO) and floating
production systems (FPS)--are comprised of distinct modules,
which can be transported on two or three separate barges. The
topside Thunderhorse floating production system is just one
example of separate transport of individual topside modules.
Three topsides modules were constructed by J. Ray McDermott
(JRM) in Morgan City, Louisiana. The modules included the
5,700-ton gas compression module, 5,140-ton production module
and 6,740-ton power generation module, which together at over
17,000 tons represent the type of large topside modules
forecast to move on the 20-foot channel plan. The modules were
shipped individually on separate barges from JRM's Morgan City
facility to another firm's facility in Ingleside, Texas, for
attachment to the hull structure.
Use of more than one barge to transport the individual
topside modules leads to significant benefit and formulation
changes. Allowing for multiple barge tows of topside movements
means that all projected benefits will accrue to the 16-foot
channel. The larger topsides projected for the GOM market are
in the 12,000 to 15,000 ton range. Only 1-2 larger topsides are
projected to be fabricated at POI and they are comprised of a
10,000 ton module and 5,000 tons of add-on components. The 16-
foot channel will accommodate the 10,000 ton module and
therefore the 16-foot channel will accommodate all the
contracts that are projected to be constructed by POI
fabricators. Incremental benefits of channel depths beyond 16
feet are zero, but there are additional construction costs plus
incremental maintenance and thus net benefits will decrease
with larger projects.
Table 2 displays the revised average annual net benefits
that incorporate the two new pieces of information described
above. Net benefits, representing the difference between
incremental average annual benefits and incremental average
annual costs, were calculated for each alternative channel
depth and are displayed in table 2 by GOM market size and POI
market share scenario. The estimates are in 2004 price levels
and were annualized using an interest rate of 5.125 percent and
a 50-year amortization period. The resulting benefit-to-cost
ratios (BCR) are displayed in table 3.
As tables 2 and 3 show, of the 24 possible scenarios, a
total of 17 (71 percent of all possible outcomes) are expected
to produce positive net benefits and in every one of these
outcomes the 16-foot channel alternative produces the highest
average annual net benefits and corresponding BCR. The range of
average annual net benefits is from a maximum of $14,193,000 to
a minimum of $562,000 and the range of BCR is from a maximum of
2.16 to a minimum of 1.05, all for the 71 percent of positive
outcomes. Given these results, the 16-foot channel alternative
is identified as the NED plan and best meets the Federal
Criteria for recommending authorization.
Production in very deep water is still in its infancy.
Consequently the specific nature and size of production units
is associated with a high degree of uncertainty. This raises
the possibility of future topsides larger than currently
addressed that could not be accommodated by a 16-foot channel
even with multiple barges. Given the uncertainty associated
with larger units, individual modules could require more than a
16-foot channel.
As a result, the 16 foot channel deepening plan includes
accommodations for a future 20-foot channel. The placement of
the bypass-channel flood gates, removals and associated costs,
all will accommodate a 20-foot channel. Such an action could
avoid costs in the future if a 20-foot channel is deemed
appropriate. The added cost to build a bypass-channel floodgate
to accommodate a 20-foot channel depth (approximately $3.8
million) is considered a reasonable and prudent accommodation
to provide flexibility for this uncertain future. There would
be no additional change in the removal costs for a 20-foot
channel versus a 16-foot channel. This additional cost to the
16-foot channel plan has been incorporated in the calculation
of the estimates shown in tables 4 and 5. Any additional
channel depth over 16 feet would have to be justified and
authorized when deemed viable in the future.

TABLE 2.--AVERAGE ANNUAL NET BENEFITS FOR TWO-BARGE TRANSPORT
[5.125 interest rate, 2004 price levels, thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Infield GOM Market MMS High GOM Market MMS Low GOM Market
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Increased Increased No Increased Increased No Increased Increased
Competition Competition Competition Competition Competition Competition Competition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-Foot Channel............. 8,523 5,787 14,193 10,668 5,877 3,510
18-Foot Channel............. 6,835 4,099 12,505 8,979 4,189 1,821
20-Foot Channel............. 4,702 1,965 10,371 6,846 2,056 (312)
20 Percent EPC:
16-Foot Channel......... 4,615 2,381 9,157 6,279 2,495 562
18-Foot Channel......... 2,926 693 7,469 4,591 807 (1,126)
20-Foot Channel......... 793 (1,441) 5,335 2,457 (1,327) (3,260)
50 Percent Integration:
16-Foot Channel......... 1,488 (76) 5,128 3,113 (211) (1,564)
18-Foot Channel......... (200) (1,764) 3,440 1,425 (1,899) (3,252)
20-Foot Channel......... (2,334) (3,898) 1,306 (708) (4,033) (5,386)
Staging:
16-Foot Channel......... (76) (1,472) 3,113 1,315 (1,564) (2,772)
18-Foot Channel......... (1,764) (3,160) 1,425 (373) (3,252) (4,460)
20-Foot Channel......... (3,898) (5,293) (708) (2,507) (5,386) (6,594)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The market share effects are sequential and cumulative rather than independent of each other.

TABLE 3.--BENEFIT TO COST RATIOS FOR TWO-BARGE TRANSPORT
[2004 Price Levels]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Infield GOM Market MMS High GOM Market MMS Low GOM Market
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No No No
Competition Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased
Competition Competition Competition Competition Competition Competition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16-Foot Channel................... 1.70 1.47 2.16 1.87 1.48 1.29
18-Foot Channel................... 1.49 1.30 1.90 1.65 1.30 1.13
20-Foot Channel................... 1.29 1.12 1.65 1.43 1.13 0.98
20 Percent EPC:
16-Foot Channel............... 1.38 1.20 1.75 1.51 1.20 1.05
18-Foot Channel............... 1.21 1.05 1.54 1.33 1.06 0.92
20-Foot Channel............... 1.05 0.91 1.33 1.15 0.92 0.80
50 Percent Integration:
16-Foot Channel............... 1.12 0.99 1.42 1.26 0.98 0.87
18-Foot Channel............... 0.99 0.87 1.25 1.10 0.86 0.77
20-Foot Channel............... 0.85 0.76 1.08 0.96 0.75 0.66
Staging:
16-Foot Channel............... 0.99 0.88 1.26 1.11 0.87 0.77
18-Foot Channel............... 0.87 0.77 1.10 0.97 0.77 0.68
20-Foot Channel............... 0.76 0.67 0.96 0.84 0.66 0.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The market share effects are sequential and cumulative rather than independent of each other.

Direct Beneficiaries: The Port of Iberia and the State of
Louisiana the direct beneficiaries of the project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 31 December 2006.
(23) Smith Island, Somerset County, Maryland.
Location of Study Area: The study area is Smith Island,
which is located 12 miles offshore of Crisfield in Somerset
County on Maryland's Eastern Shore.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Smith
Island is part of a chain of islands that form the border
between Chesapeake Bay and Tangier Sound, and is comprised of
97-percent emergent wetlands. The study area is within the
largest contiguous submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) bed in
the Bay. Although SAV coverages have been rebounding in the
last decade throughout the Bay, the Tangier Sound area has seen
continual decreases in coverage. There are many factors that
determine whether or not SAV flourishes, some factors are local
and some are larger-scale. SAV experts have determined that the
likely over-riding factor in the study area is the effect of
erosion. As the landmasses that make up Smith Island erode, it
allows increased wave and current action into shallow-water
areas that were previously protected, quiescent, and suitable
for SAV growth. The eroded material also adds turbidity and
nutrients to the water column that further inhibit SAV
colonization and growth. Additionally, the landmasses
themselves are extremely high quality emergent wetlands. These
wetlands are even more valuable than most since they are part
of a remote island with little human disruption. In its
entirety, Smith Island has lost over 3,300 acres of wetlands in
the last 150 years, and, in the identified project areas alone,
it lost almost 2,400 acres of SAV between 1992 and 1998.
Alternative Plans Considered: After a number of screening
processes to evaluate various combinations of management
features to address the erosion problems at Smith Island in the
interest of ecosystem restoration, the study team identified 10
alternatives in addition to the no action alternative, to
consider in detail. The alternatives consisted of various
lengths and designs of structures to attenuate wave energy and
thus reduce erosion in order to protect and restore wetlands
and SAV.
Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan is
described in the Chief's Report, dated 29 October 2001. The
proposed plan provides for construction of a series of
segmented breakwaters along the western shore of the Martin
National Wildlife Refuge at the north end of Smith Island. The
breakwaters would extend over a distance of approximately 4
miles. Sand would be placed behind the structures to establish
wetland habitat. Areas that currently support SAV would be
protected while additional habitat would be restored due to the
reduction in sedimentation and its associated negative impacts.
The recommended plan would protect approximately 216 acres of
marsh and 540 acres of SAV, and restore approximately 24 acres
of marsh and 1440 acres of SAV.
Physical Data on Project Features: The Recommended Plan
consisted of various structural measures along the Martin
Wildlife Refuge. The three plan components are the western
shoreline, Fog Point Cove and Back Cove. Specifically, the plan
is as follows. (1) Construction of a series of segmented
breakwaters parallel to the western shoreline of the Refuge
from Swan Island to Fog Point. The protection would be 9,840
feet long and be comprised of stone breakwaters, approximately
150 feet long, placed 30 to 100 feet offshore with gaps between
the structures of varying lengths. Sand would be placed behind
the structures to insure project success, and to create wetland
habitat. The project includes protection and restoration of Fog
Point Cove by recreating and protecting landmasses at the
western and eastern sides of the cove. The protection would be
in the form of stone breakwaters and continuous stone sills
with sand backfill to create wetland habitat and sandy
shoreline to restore terrapin habitat. The eastern shoreline of
Fog Point Cove will be protected to help to protect Back Cove
from sedimentation and flanking of the northern peninsula. The
project includes protection of Back Cove by constructing a
series of segmented breakwaters and sills along to northern
protective peninsula and along the southeastern shoreline.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MdDNR) is the
local sponsor. The MdDNR strongly supports the project and will
fund the local share of the project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The formulation of
the proposed projects has been coordinated with local, state
and federal agencies and all agencies have indicated their
support for the project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
provided a letter of support. The local communities of
Tylerton, Ewell and Rhodes Point and the Chesapeake Bay
community have also expressed their support for the project.
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 2001. These documents were released for public review
and comment in March 2001 and minor comments were received by
the close of the public comment period. A supplemental
Environmental Assessment was conducted and a Finding of No
Significant Impact was signed on 1 June 2004.
Estimated Implementation Costs:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $10,127,000
Maryland Department of Natural Resources................ 5,543,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total:.............................................. 15,580,000

Estimated Effects of the NER Plan:

[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Annual Average
Account Purposes Equivalent Annual
Beneficial Adverse
Effects Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development ER N/A 809.7
Plan (NER)......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: ER = Ecosystem Restoration.
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: N/A (Current Discount Rate: 5-1/8%).
NED plan recommended? No.
NER plan recommended? Yes.

The project is estimated to protect 216 acres of wetlands
and 540 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation over a 50-year
lifespan, while creating or restoring 24 acres of wetlands and
1,440 acres of SAV. The impacts are minimal and temporary and
are related to construction activities such as borrow
operations and staging. Environmental benefits are not
quantified monetarily and therefore there is no project
benefit/cost ratio.
Direct Beneficiaries: The project is for the purpose of
ecosystem restoration. It is assumed that local residents will
benefit from the improved environment and stabilized marshes.
The local watermen will benefit due to the improved habitat and
spawning areas for commercially important species.
Relationship to Other Plans: Smith Island is one of a
series of islands along the Eastern Shore of Maryland. This
area is a critical component of the Atlantic migratory flyway,
and the islands provide critical protection, nursery, and
habitat areas for fish and crabs as the move up and down the
Chesapeake Bay. For these reasons, the Smith Island project is
related to other island protection and restoration projects in
the Bay such as Poplar Island Environmental Restoration
Project, and the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project that is
being proposed for construction.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 29 October 2001.
(24) Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota.
Location of Study Area: Roseau, Minnesota
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The city of
Roseau is vulnerable to flooding from both spring snowmelt and
rainfall events. During the summer of 2002 a rainfall event
caused flooding in more than 80 percent of the city causing
damages estimated at more than $120,000,000. The flood lasted
several weeks and city services were significantly affected for
months.
The city of Roseau relies heavily on temporary emergency
levees, which are in poor condition, leaving the city
vulnerable to levee failures and catastrophic flooding. These
levees were overtopped during the 2002 flood and do not provide
reliable flood protection. Additional flood protection is
needed to reduce flood damages in the city from these frequent
events. An opportunity also exists to provide the city with
passive, family oriented recreational resources which are
currently not present.
Alternative Plans Considered: Both structural and
nonstructural flood damage reduction measures were considered
during the development of alternatives. Structural measures
considered include: levees, reservoirs, channel modifications,
cutoff channels, and diversion channels. Nonstructural measures
considered included: buyouts of flood prone structures, flood
proofing of structures, and elevating structures. Ecosystem
restoration and recreational features were also considered.
The study team identified 11 possible plans, including the
no action plan, as potential alternatives which could provide
some benefit to the City of Roseau and meet the goals and
objectives of the project. Of those 11 plans, 3 were initially
eliminated because they were conceptually found to have
extremely large costs and were not expected to have a
significant amount of flood damage reduction benefits. The
remaining plans were analyzed based on economic costs and their
ability to provide outputs similar to the other plans
considered. Those with fewer net benefits were eliminated at
that time. The result was that two plans remained, the East
Diversion Channel and the In-Town Levee alternative. Various
sizes of these two plans were evaluated, resulting in the plan
with the greatest net benefits being the selected plan. This
plan, the East Diversion Channel, was then optimized by looking
at smaller secondary measures which would be able to add net
benefits to the overall project, resulting in the NED plan.
It was determined that the selected NED plan would cause a
0.1 foot increase in stage downstream of the project area for
the 100-year flood event. This was not acceptable to the City
of Roseau. As a result, two large storage areas were added to
the plan, and the NED plan plus the storage areas became the
recommended locally preferred plan (LPP). Recreational features
were determined to be economically justified and were included
as part of both the NED plan and the recommended LPP.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is
the locally preferred plan. This alternative includes the NED
plan and two large storage areas to eliminate downstream stage
increases. The plan meets the project objectives and
constraints. The following is a description of the NED and
recommended plans.
NED Plan Features
Approximately 4.5 miles of diversion channel
(ranging from a maximum depth of 16 feet to areas where no
channel cut is needed, with a bottom width of 150 feet and
1V:5H side slopes).
763 acres of land acquisition.
Approximately 5.1 miles of levees used to contain
flows within the diversion channel. The majority would have a
height of less than 5 feet.
0.51 mile of road raises ranging from 2 to 4 feet.
An inlet control structure to regulate the events
that would pass into the diversion channel, beginning with 2-
year frequency events.
A restriction structure to increase the efficiency
of the diversion channel. This structure would be 16 feet wide
and 100 feet long. It would begin to restrict flows at the 5-
year event (20-percent exceedance frequency).
Construction of three bridges (two associated with
roads crossing the diversion and one railroad bridge crossing
the diversion).
Relocations of electrical, sewer, gas, and
telephone infrastructure.
Riprap at various locations to protect the levees
and diversion structures from erosion.
Approximately 200 acres of native plantings to
provide ground cover in the project area.
LPP Features (Changes to NED Plan)
Approximately 4.1 miles of additional levees used
to contain peak flows within the storage areas. The majority
would be less than 5 feet, the highest would be 15 feet.
Approximately 5.1 miles of reduced levee heights;
the reduction would vary from 2 to 5 feet (see NED plan
features above).
1,089 acres of additional land acquisition for
storage areas and associated levees.
0.69 mile of additional road raises ranging from 2
to 4 feet.
9.0-acre reduction in disposal stockpiles; the
material would be used in levee construction.
Four additional spillways along the levee system
to allow for peak flow storage.

Recreation Plan Features

Three multipurpose recreational trail loops
combining for a total of approximately 7 miles of paved or
compacted gravel trails.
4.3 miles of canoe trails in two segments, the
north being 1.3 miles and the south 3 miles.
One scenic overlook, two interpretative sites, and
birding stations.
A total of 9 miles of off-road vehicle trails of
different levels of difficulty.
Restrooms, potable water, picnic facilities,
grills, and parking at the off-road vehicle trailhead where the
project intersects with Highway 11.
5 acres of hardwood planting for trail head and
park areas.
Planting of 25 acres of wooded areas near trails.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The City of Roseau is the project sponsor. The feasibility
study included extensive coordination with numerous groups
including federal, state, county, township, and city agencies;
businesses, landowners, the media, and the general public. All
stakeholder concerns identified during the study have been
resolved.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service supports the project. There are no outstanding
issues.
Status of NEPA Document: An environmental assessment was
completed which resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) signed on 29 August 2006.
Estimated Implementation Costs:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $13,280,000
City of Roseau.......................................... 11,280,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 25,100,000

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal sponsor would be required to cost share the flood
damage reduction features for the NED plan in accordance with
cost sharing provisions of Section 103 of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended, and provide 100
percent of the additional costs associated with design and
construction of the LPP. Thus the non-Federal cost of the flood
damage reduction features is estimated at $10,430,000 of which
$2,930,000 is the additional costs associated with the LPP. The
estimated total first cost of the separable recreational
features is $1,700,000; and based on cost sharing requirements
of Section 103 of WRDA 1986, it would be shared 50 percent
Federal and 50 percent non-Federal. The overall non-Federal
share of the estimated total first cost of the recommended
project would be $11,280,000. The City of Roseau, Minnesota, is
the non-Federal cost sharing sponsor for all features of the
plan.
Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual
Purpose Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDR.................................................. $2,350,000
Recreation........................................... 2,160,000
------------------
Total project.................................. 4,510,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Analysis: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: (Discount Rate: 4\7/8\%).
Flood Damage Reduction: 1.7.
Recreation: 19.8.
Total project: 3.0.
NED plan recommended? No.

Direct Beneficiaries: The residents of Roseau are the
direct beneficiaries of the project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 19 December 2006.
(25) Mississippi Coastal, Mississippi.
Location of Study Area: Recommendations made in this report
encompass the entire three-county area of coastal Mississippi,
with specific actions in each county.
Problems and Opportunities: The hurricanes of 2005 caused
numerous deaths and injuries to local residents and visitors to
the area, extensive damage to environmental resources, homes,
businesses and industries, exacerbated saltwater intrusion
problems, caused widespread coastal erosion, and damage to
public infrastructure and the regional economy. Damage from
hurricane-induced storm surge was particularly devastating
along the coast of Mississippi. Hurricane Katrina alone caused
over $125 billion in damages along the Mississippi coast;
caused 236 deaths statewide, and resulted in 67 missing;
destroyed 65,380 homes, and resulted in 141,000 insurance
claims in the three-county area.
Opportunities identified for the interim report study
effort included addressing 2005 hurricane-caused: 1) storm
damage to public infrastructure; 2) flood inundation to public
infrastructure; 3) saltwater intrusion problems; and 4) damage
to ecosystems supporting important fish and wildlife resources.
Additional, opportunities include addressing the need for
potential future structural and non-structural solutions to the
problems identified above.
Alternative Plans Considered: The ongoing MsCIP
comprehensive study and this interim report comply with the
Congressional legislative direction governing this effort. The
analysis process for the near-term recommendations essentially
followed ER 1005-2-100, the Corps' ``Planning Guidance
Notebook,'' with the specific exclusion of the determination of
National Economic Development and National Ecosystem
Restoration Plans and conduct of an incremental analysis, as
called for in the authorizing language. In general the plan
formulation followed the traditional sequence of identifying
problems, opportunities, and planning constraints, developing
and screening measure to address problems, formulating
alternatives, screening alternatives using established ``System
of Accounts'' criteria, and selection of recommended plans
based on cost-effectiveness, technical, environmental, and
acceptability criteria.
Final alternatives consisted of steel, aluminum, or vinyl
sheet-pile repairs to existing seawalls; structural channel
modifications; residential purchase and removal plans; dune
restoration or beach modification plans; sediment and debris
removal or channel modifications to restore drainage flow, and
repair of existing structures using different methods and
materials.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan for
near-term recommendations for the coastal Mississippi study
area includes the following components:
Evacuation Planning. The critical need for adequate
evacuation planning was borne out by Hurricane Katrina. An
evacuation plan is an essential component of a comprehensive
plan for ensuring the safety of residents of, and visitors to,
the coast of Mississippi. The preservation of life is the
single most important goal and objective of the recommendations
presented in this Interim Report. The joint FEMA/NOAA/COE/MEMA
task force's Mississippi Hurricane Evacuation Study of April
2002 has provided great value to-date in aiding local
government, individual and family readiness, in the face of
approaching events. There is still much that can be done to
update this on-going effort, and to provide new, and more
widely-disseminated tools in evacuation planning by local
county and city governments, and also for use by individuals
and families in their preparation for an impending event.
Support for this program is a critical element of the
recommendations for coastal Mississippi.
Bayou Caddy Ecosystem Restoration, Hancock County, MS. This
recommendation consists of restoration of marshlands badly
damaged during the hurricanes of 2005. Restoration would
involve use of clean concrete rubble created by the demolition
of local projects for use in development of a protective
breakwater, construction of an earthen containment barrier,
fill material placement of approximately 120,000 cubic yards to
re-establish the marsh substrate, and planting of native
vegetation on the approximately 18-acre site.
Hancock County Beaches Hurricane and Storm Damage
Reduction, Hancock County, MS. This recommendation consists of
restoring a destroyed dune field atop an existing 6-mile long
beach system. The plan would replace approximately 31,000 cubic
yards of lost sand dune material and add stabilizing fencing
and dune vegetation. The finished stable dune would be
approximately 2 feet high with a crest width of approximately
10 feet. The material will come from the established upland
borrow areas within 10 miles of the work area. Plantings would
have a density of 1 plant per 4 square feet and the fence would
protect the entire length of the project site.
Hancock County Streams Flood Damage Reduction, Hancock
County, MS. This recommendation consists of restoring lost
capacity in local drainage channels, caused by sediment and
debris deposition resulting from storm surge during Hurricane
Katrina. Sediment and debris deposition has caused a reduction
in conveyance, leading to inundation of residences and
businesses within the communities adjacent to these channels.
Channels where sediment and debris removal would not restore
lost flood drainage capacity are not included in this
recommendation. Restoring lost drainage capacity would involve
removal of approximately 1,035,500 cubic yards of sediment and
debris.
Jackson Marsh Ecosystem Restoration, Hancock County, MS.
This recommendation consists of repairing numerous outfalls
heavily damaged by Hurricane Katrina, to restore connection of
Jackson Marsh to the Gulf. The marsh is a high value resource
along this reach of the coast, providing habitat for numerous
species. Blockage of 12 of 15 existing outfalls has already
caused damage to the resource. The repair would reinforce
portions of the 12 damaged existing outlet channels with vinyl
sheet-pile, and remove deposited sediment and debris blocking
the outfalls. The average length of the outfall structures is
approximately 155 feet.
Clermont Harbor Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction,
Hancock County, MS. This recommendation consists of replacing
erosion protection on an existing seawall heavily damaged by
Hurricane Katrina, to prevent undermining and failure of the
structure. The seawall protects a heavily-used road, which
serves as an evacuation route, and associated utilities. The
repair would incorporate the existing seawall, with emplacement
of a new sheet-pile toe wall seaward of that feature, tied
together by construction of a new concrete cap. The length of
this repair is approximately 2,000 feet.
Downtown Bay St. Louis Hurricane and Storm Damage
Reduction, Hancock County, MS. This recommendation consists of
replacing a seawall heavily damaged or destroyed by Hurricane
Katrina, with a new gravity concrete seawall. The seawall
protects a heavily-used road, which serves as an evacuation
route, and associated utilities. The new seawall would consist
of a concrete gravity concrete seawall approximately 6,500 feet
in length, incorporating 20-inch and 14-inch pre-stressed
foundation piles, vinyl sheet-pile cut-off wall, cast in-place
concrete, scour protection, and new storm drains. The top
elevation of the new wall would match the existing elevation of
Beach Boulevard ranging from approximately, 7 feet NGVD to 20
feet NGVD (approximately 10 feet higher than the original wall)
to minimize future storm and erosion damage to the road and
utilities landward of this feature.
Cowand Point Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction, Hancock
County, MS. This recommendation consists of replacing erosion
protection on an existing seawall heavily damaged by Hurricane
Katrina, to prevent undermining and failure of the structure.
The seawall protects a heavily-used road, which serves as an
evacuation route, and associated utilities. The repair would
incorporate the existing seawall, with emplacement of a new
sheet-pile toe wall seaward of that feature, tied together by
construction of a new concrete cap. The length of this repair
is approximately 5,000 feet.
Long Beach Canals Flood Damage Reduction, Harrison County,
MS. This recommendation consists of replacement of a damaged
culvert, canal modification, bank stabilization, sediment and
debris removal, construction of a diversion channel and bridge
replacement in and along Canal 2 in Harrison County. These
modifications would significantly improve floodwater
conveyance, aesthetics, and circulation for better water
quality and fish habitat conditions. Work would include 375
feet of 24-inch culvert and 263,000 cubic yards of sediment
removal.
Harrison County Beaches Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane
Storm Damage Reduction, Harrison County, MS. This
recommendation consists of restoring approximately 26 miles of
dune systems, along a reconstructed beach, destroyed by
Hurricane Katrina. These beach dune systems played host to the
largest concentration of Least Tern on the entire Mississippi
coast, and were also valued habitat for other coastal species.
Restoration would consist of placement of approximately 681,000
cubic yards of dune sand, fencing along a 134,000 foot
perimeter, to offer protection to the resource, and
approximately 125 acres of native vegetation plantings. The 5-
foot-high profile dune system would provide a secondary
hurricane storm damage reduction benefit by absorbing surge and
wave energy along this heavily-trafficked and occupied portion
of the Mississippi coastline.
Courthouse Road Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem
Restoration, Harrison County, MS. This recommendation consists
of replacing 14 channel braces and restoring 14,200 square feet
of adjacent marshland, both damaged by Hurricane Katrina. The
channel walls protect adjacent land from erosion and potential
collapse into the channel outfall, while the marsh provides
avian and aquatic species habitat. The repair would install new
pre-cast concrete channel braces, to prevent failure of the
channel walls, anchoring to prevent future damage, and
restoration of the damaged marsh by placement of fill, grading,
and planting of native vegetation. The length of the channel
repair is approximately 235 feet.
Shearwater Bridge Hurricane Storm Damage Reduction, Jackson
County, MS. This recommendation consists of repairing the
damaged approaches to Shearwater Bridge, a local traffic artery
and evacuation route damaged during Hurricane Katrina. Failure
to repair the approaches could result in failure of the
approach and roadway surface during a future storm event.
Repairs would consist of placement of vinyl sheet-pile along
the bridge abutments, sand fill, and a concrete cap.
Gautier Coastal Streams Flood Damage Reduction, Jackson
County, MS. This recommendation consists of restoring lost
capacity in the Old Spanish Trail, Graveline Bayou, Hiram
Drive, Ladner Road, and Seacliff Bayou drainage channels,
caused by sediment and debris deposition resulting from storm
surge during Hurricane Katrina. Sediment and debris deposition
has caused a reduction in conveyance, leading to inundation of
residences and businesses within the communities adjacent to
these channels. The total length of channels requiring clean-
out is approximately 2.7 miles. Restoration of tidal flow will
re-establish saltwater exchange with habitat in these areas.
Channels in which sediment removal would not restore lost flood
control capacity are not included in this recommendation.
Restoration of lost capacity would involve removal of
approximately 73,300 cubic yards of sediment and debris.
Pascagoula Beach Boulevard Hurricane and Storm Damage
Reduction, Jackson County, MS. This recommendation consists of
repairing an existing seawall heavily damaged by Hurricane
Katrina, with vinyl sheet-pile reinforcement of the existing
breakwater, replacement of joint caulking, repair of an
existing outfall channel, cell capping, and construction of new
concrete channel wall panels. The seawall protects a heavily-
used road, which serves as an evacuation route, and associated
utilities. The repair would incorporate portions of the
existing seawall, with emplacement of a new sheet-pile seaward
of that feature, tied together by construction of a new
concrete cap. Approximately, 270,000 cubic yards of beach sand
at the toe of the wall would replace sand lost during the
hurricane. The length of this repair is approximately 2,590
feet.
Upper Bayou Casotte Flood Damage Reduction, Jackson County,
MS. This recommendation consists of restoring lost capacity in
local drainage channels, caused by sediment and debris
deposition resulting from storm surge during Hurricane Katrina.
Sediment and debris deposition has caused a reduction in
conveyance, leading to inundation of residences and businesses
within the communities adjacent to these channels. The total
length of channels requiring sediment and debris removal is
approximately 2.7 miles. Channels where debris removal would
not restore lost flood drainage capacity are not included in
this recommendation. Restoration of lost capacity would involve
removal of approximately 15,900 cubic yards of sediment and
debris.
Franklin Creek Floodway Flood Damage Reduction, Jackson
County, MS. This recommendation consists of purchase and
removal of approximately 24 traditional slab-on-grade or
curtain-wall-foundation residences, and approximately six
mobile homes occupying the heavily damaged community of Pecan,
near the Mississippi-Alabama border. These homes were inundated
by approximately four and a half feet of water, as a result of
storm surge created by Hurricane Katrina. This low-lying area
would be extremely hard to protect from any number of land-
based flood events or large hurricane surges.
Views of States, Non-federal Interests and Other Countries:
The state of Mississippi Clearinghouse for Federal Programs
responded by letter dated September 13, 2006. The letter states
the following: ``None of the state agencies involved in the
review had comments or recommendations at this time. This
concludes the State Clearinghouse review, and we encourage
appropriate action as soon as possible. A copy of this letter
is to be attached to the application as evidence of compliance
with Executive Order 12372 review requirements.''
The vast majority of comments received from the public,
either on study conduct or the draft report, have been
generally supportive. Criticism has mainly been in the form of
anticipation of the effects various actions might have on plans
that will be analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan phase to
follow. Other comments focused mainly on why their particular
problem area was not recommended in the Interim Report phase.
The reasons for this were almost always that the particular
problem area required more extensive engineering or
environmental analysis or coordination than would have allowed
it to be included in the Interim Report study. The vast
majority of public respondents support a combination of natural
and engineered features in pursuit of the larger goal of storm
damage reduction. The recommended plans have been reviewed by,
and are supported, by the State of Mississippi, all three
counties in which they would be implemented, and the
communities that would be affected by their implementation.
Several State compliance letters have been received concurring
and supporting the near-term improvements. A letter of support
has been received from the State of Mississippi.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Federal Agencies.
The U.S. Department of Interior responded by letter dated
September 29, 2006. The letter stated that the Department does
not object to the proposed project and has no comments to
offer. The Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), responded by telephone on November 7, 2006.
NMFS had no comment on the proposed project. The Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, responded by telephone on October
11, 2006. The EPA had no comment on the project proposal.
Status of NEPA Document:
Estimated Implementation Cost of the Recommended Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $ 70,000,000
State of Mississippi, and the counties of Hancock,
Harrison, and Jackson, Mississippi.................. 37,690,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 107,690,000

Estimated Effects of the Recommended Plan:
Equivalent Annual Costs and Benefits. Because the
authorizing language specifically excluded the completion of a
benefit-cost analysis, that information was not developed;
however, each recommendation's contribution to the NED, EQ,
RED, and OSE accounts is summarized below.

RECOMMENDED PLANS--OUTPUTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Name County Impacts to NED \1\ Impacts to EQ Impacts to RED \2\ Impacts to OSE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayou Caddy....................... Hancock.............. Affects: FHI score of 465; Increase of: Improved community
2,800 people; 1,500 18 acres of tidal $14,651,000 in sales cohesion;
structures (value not wetlands and $3,533,000 in income; Potential increase in
available) estuarine habitat; 90 new jobs tax revenue from new
Prevention of future jobs.
shoreline erosion
losses
Hancock County Beaches............ Hancock.............. Affects: FHI score of 405; Increase of: Improved community
13,500 people; 14.5 acres (8 miles) $4,493,000 in sales cohesion;
6,800 structures- of vegetated dune $1,083,000 in income; Potential increase in
average value of habitat; 28 new jobs tax revenue from new
$85,000; Benefits to nearshore jobs.
$795,000 in avg. ecosystem including
annual recreation protected shorebirds
benefits
Hancock County Streams............ Hancock.............. Affects: 17,500 FHI score of 195; Increase of: Improved community
people; 35,000 linear feet $16,096,000 in sales cohesion;
9,100 structures- (6.6 miles) of $3,881,000 in income; Reduce risk of harm
average value of coastal stream and 98 new jobs to children and
$78,400; waters; pets;
$3,820,000 in avg. restoration of Potential increase in
annual recreation circulation and tidal tax revenue from new
benefits exchange jobs.
Jackson Marsh..................... Hancock.............. Affects: FHI score of 525; Increase of: Improved community
2,800 people; Connectivity to MS $13,894,000 in sales cohesion;
1,500 structures Sound restored for $3,350,000 in income; Potential increase in
(value not 977 acres of tidal 86 new jobs tax revenue from new
available); prevent salt marsh wetland jobs.
loss of 1,000 ac
coastal marsh
Clermont Harbor................... Hancock.............. Affects: 2000 linear feet of Increase of: Improved community
7,800 people; seawall modification; $5,327,000 in sales cohesion;
4,100 structures- Shoreline $1,284,587 in income; Potential increase in
average value of stabilization, reduce 33 new jobs tax revenue from new
$86,100; erosion jobs.
Avg. Annual reduction
of $1,206,000 in road
damage, vehicle
operating, and
maintenance costs
Downtown Bay St. Louis............ Hancock.............. Affects: 6500 linear feet of Increase of: Improved community
5,700 people; seawall modification; $2,067,000 in sales; cohesion;
2,700 structures- Shoreline $412,000 in income; Potential increase in
average value of stabilization, reduce 12 new jobs tax revenue from new
$83,900; erosion jobs.
$2,267,000 in avg.
annual costs and
damage
Cowand Point...................... Hancock.............. Affects: 5000 linear feet of Increase of: Improved community
5,700 people; seawall modification; $12,656,000 in sales cohesion;
2,700 structures- Shoreline $3,052,000 in income; Potential increase in
average value of stabilization, reduce 76 new jobs tax revenue from new
$83,900; erosion jobs.
$510,500 in avg.
annual damage and
costs
Long Beach Canals................. Harrison............. Affects: Removal of debris; Increase of: Improved community
12,600 people; 4,900 Improved habitat; $57,375,000 in sales cohesion;
structures-average improved fish $12,145,000 in income; Reduce risk of harm
value of $88,000 migration 364 new jobs to children and
pets;
Potential increase in
tax revenue from new
jobs.
Harrison County Beaches........... Harrison............. Affects: FHI score of 405; Increase of: Improved community
23,000 people; 47 acres (26 miles) of $39,064,000 in sales cohesion;
13,100 structures vegetated dune $7,618,000 in income; Potential increase in
(value not available) habitat; 221 new jobs tax revenue from new
$4,707,000 in avg. Benefits to nearshore jobs.
annual rec. benefits ecosystem
Courthouse Road................... Harrison............. Affects: FHI score of 525; Increase of: Improved community
4,200 people; 0.33 acres of coastal $3,081,000 in sales cohesion;
2,500 structures marsh and associated $805,000 in income; 24 Potential increase in
(value not available) wetland functional new jobs tax revenue from new
values jobs.
Shearwater Bridge................. Jackson.............. Affects: Estuarine shoreline Increase of: Improved community
10,400 people; stabilization; $3,489,900 in sales cohesion
$330 in avg. annual Improvement of $680,600 in income Potential increase in
reduction in vehicle aesthetics tax revenue from new
operating costs jobs.
Gautier Coastal Streams........... Jackson.............. Affects: FHI score of 245; Increase of: Improved community
12,500 people; 14,880 linear feet of $11,840,000 in sales cohesion;
4,900 structures- coastal streams; $2,309,000 in income; Reduce risk of harm
average value of Removal of sediment 67 new jobs to children and
$76,100 and debris Restore pets;
ecosystem Potential increase in
connectivity tax revenue from new
jobs.
Pascagoula Beach Boulevard........ Jackson.............. Affects: FHI score of 395; Increase of: Improved community
6,400 people; 35 acres (7,700 feet) $50,789,000 to sales cohesion
2,900 structures- of beach with $9,905,152 to income; Potential increase in
average value of vegetated dunes; 288 new jobs tax revenue from new
$68,500; Benefits nearshore jobs.
$20,500 avg. annual ecosystem
reduction in damage Beach/shallow water
and costs; edge benefits aquatic
$2,632,200 avg. annual habitats
recreation benefits
Upper Bayou Casotte............... Jackson.............. Affects: 14,880 linear feet of Increase of: Improved community
10,400 people; coastal streams; $3,554,000 in sales; cohesion;
4,100 structures- Improved habitat $693,028 in income; 19 Reduce risk of harm
average value of Improved water new jobs to human beings.
$59,400 quality; ecosystem
connectivity
Franklin Creek Floodway........... Jackson.............. Affects: 180 acres coastal pine Increase of: No future development
Approx. 150 people; savannah; $0 to sales; of land for
Full FDR benefits from Remove obstacles for $0 to income; 0 new residential or
the buyout of approx. restoration of jobs commercial purposes.
30 structures-average hydrology of overland
value of $50,000 flows into Grand Bay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Population and structure counts represent the total possible number that could be affected. Structure value is for the dwelling only and does not
include land value or the value of any secondary structures. All numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred.
2. All numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred except for employment.
* Functional Habitat Index, or FHI score, is a measure of the functional capacity of a given area of habitat.

Direct Beneficiaries: The beneficiaries are the affected
local communities where the projects are located.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 31 December 2006.
(26) Kansas Citys Levees, Missouri and Kansas.
Location of Study Area: The project area is located in the
Kansas City metropolitan area at the confluence of the Missouri
and Kansas Rivers, in Kansas City, Missouri, North Kansas City,
Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The entire
system of seven levee units withstood the Great Flood of 1993,
but some elements of the system were seriously challenged as
the flood crested. This flood experience raised a concern that
the levees may provide less than the level of protection for
which they were designed. Accordingly, this feasibility study
was undertaken to further investigate the Federal interest in
planning, designing and constructing economically viable
measures to address any changed conditions and levee
performance issues. After a comprehensive risk based assessment
of the existing levee system, the total expected annual
physical flood damages for the existing units in the Interim
Report are $50,299,000.
Alternative Plans Considered: A variety of alternatives
were examined to address levee reliability problems. Depending
on the particular unit, they included engineering measures to
address structural reliability, foundation underseepage,
foundation stability, pump station reliability, and reliability
against overtopping. The Argentine Unit on the Kansas River was
designed to pass a discharge of 390,000 cfs (typically
associated with the 0.2% chance flood event or nominal 500-year
flood). Updated hydraulic analyses indicated that the Argentine
Unit is not able to pass the design discharge. This problem was
related to changed conditions in the Kansas River as well as a
more current and technologically improved hydrologic analysis.
The Fairfax-Jersey Creek Unit floodwall in the vicinity of the
BPU Power Plant is structurally inadequate for approximately
1,500 linear feet. Measures were considered to replace or
reinforce this section of floodwall. Also in the Fairfax-Jersey
Creek Unit, a section of sheetpiles was found to be
significantly degraded requiring replacement. Two sites in the
North Kansas City Unit, known as ``National Starch'' and
``Harlem'', require additional underseepage control. The East
Bottoms Unit requires additional underseepage control at the
confluence of the Missouri River and Blue River.
Four alternatives were considered for the Argentine Levee
Unit, including, raising the levee 2 feet (0.2% chance
profile), raising it 5 feet (0.2% chance profile plus 3 feet),
raising it 7 feet (0.2% chance profile plus 5 feet), and
increasing the structural reliability of pump stations with no
levee raise. The two alternatives for the Fairfax-Jersey Creek
BPU Floodwall were modification / reinforcement of the existing
floodwall, and a combination of new wall segments with
reinforcement of the existing wall. At the Fairfax-Jersey Creek
Sheetpile Wall replacement site, a closed sheetpile wall, an
open cell sheetpile wall, an augur cast pile wall, and the
option of flood fighting were considered. At the North Kansas
City Harlem and National Starch Underseepage Sites, seepage
berms, buried collector pipes, pressure relief wells, and the
option of flood fighting were considered. For the East Bottoms-
Blue River Confluence Underseepage Site, a sheetpile wall, a
slurry cut-off wall, and pressure relief wells were considered.
Description of Recommended Plan and Features: The
recommended plan is the National Economic Development (NED)
plan. The recommended measures include three that can be
implemented under existing construction authority (deficiency
corrections) and three that require modification of the
existing construction authority and some that do not. The
recommended Argentine Levee modifications would increase the
project capabilities beyond existing authorized levels and thus
require modification of the existing construction authority.
The Fairfax-Jersey Creek Sheetpile Wall would involve the
reconstruction due to deterioration over time and a section of
new sheetpile wall, and thus requires modification of the
existing construction authority. The East Bottoms underseepage
modification addresses changed conditions, which also require
modification of the existing construction authority. Both of
the North Kansas City underseepage modifications and the
Fairfax-BPU floodwall strengthening would correct design
deficiencies, which can be implemented under existing project
authority.
Argentine Levee Raise: Approximately 5.5 miles of levee
would be raised an average of about 5 feet. The levee unit
raise includes modifying earthen levee and berms, about 1,340
feet of flood wall, stop log gaps, and other necessary line of
protection features. Fourteen utility crossings would be
relocated over the levee, including pressure pipelines that
currently pass under the levee. Three pump stations would be
modified or replaced to retain the reliability of the line of
protection. This work is based upon changed conditions and will
require new authorization under the WRDA.
Fairfax Jersey Creek Levee Unit--Fairfax-Jersey Creek
Sheetpile Wall: The modifications would include reconstructing
about 868 linear feet of sheetpile wall to ensure the wall's
stability and construction about 590 linear feet of new
sheetpile wall to reduce the risk of levee failure. This work
is categorized as reconstruction and will require new
authorization under the WRDA.
East Bottoms Levee Unit: Modifications would include
installing approximately seventeen pressure relief wells to
reduce underseepage and reduce the risk of failure and
constructing approximately 2,100 linear feet of 30-inch pipe
system to transfer collected seepage from the wells to the
proximity of the Hawthorne pump plant. This work is based upon
changed conditions and will require new authority under the
WRDA.
North Kansas City Levee Unit--Harlem Area: Modifications
would include constructing a new buried collector system about
2,600 feet long and 18-inches in diameter with seepage
collection vaults to enable pumping during flood events. This
would control underseepage pressures at the interior toe of the
existing levee. National Starch Area: Modifications would
include installing approximately 20 pressure relief wells, an
approximately 2,000 feet long and 30-inch diameter pipeline,
and a new pump station to collect, move and remove water in
order to control underseepage at the interior toe of the
existing levee. This work is categorized as design deficiency
correction and will not require new authorization under the
WRDA.
Fairfax Jersey Creek Levee Unit--Fairfax-BPU Floodwall: The
modifications would include strengthening about 1,446 linear
feet of floodwall using approximately 50-foot deep; 24-inch
diameter piles about seven feet apart. This work is categorized
as design deficiency and will not require new authorization
under the WRDA.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The local sponsors include Kaw Valley Drainage District,
Fairfax Drainage District, North Kansas City Levee District,
and the City of Kansas City, Missouri. They are all strongly
supporting this project. Recreation enthusiasts in the area are
encouraging the sponsors and the Corps to provide opportunities
for trails to be incorporated in the levee systems. Where this
is practicable, the Corps is supportive of the sponsors
accommodating compatible recreation into their projects if they
so desire. There is broad support for the project in the
metropolitan area and the sponsors are unified in their
cooperation with the Corps. The State and Agency Review for the
interim report began 29 September 2006 and ended 29 October
2006. In a letter dated 10 October 2006, the State of Missouri
had no comments or recommendations. In a letter dated 03
November 2006, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
summarized state permit requirements and water quality
protection requirements. It noted that the review of HTRW sites
is dated and may need to be updated. It encouraged the Corps to
participate in an upcoming watershed protection effort. CECW-
NWD replied with letter on 22 November 2006 that acknowledged
the state's concerns and recommendations
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The Environmental
Protection Agency is a cooperating agency in the study and is
in concurrence with the findings. In a letter dated 27 October
2006, the Department of the Interior did not object to the
proposed project and had no comments to offer. The Department
of Agriculture (Natural Resource Conservation Service),
Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration),
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, indicated by phone
or e-mail that they had no comments.
Status of NEPA Document: The Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) has been included as part of the Interim Feasibility
Report. These documents were released for public review and
comment on 2 June 2006 and minor comments were received by the
close of the public comment period on 17 July 2006.
Estimated Implementation Costs for the Recommended Plan:
The estimated total cost of the project recommended in the
interim feasibility report is $79,431,000, the Federal share is
$51,630,000, and the local share is $27,801,000 in fiscal year
2006 prices. For the work requiring new authorization in WRDA,
the total cost is $63,400,000, the Federal share is
$41,200,000, and the non-Federal share is $22,200,000 in fiscal
year 2006 prices. The work requiring new authorization in WRDA
has a total cost of $65,430,000, a Federal share of
$42,530,000, and a non-Federal share of $22,900,000 in fiscal
year 2007 prices.
Estimated Implementation Costs:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $42,530,000
Kansas City, Missouri; Fairfax D.D.; Kaw Valley D.D.;
North KC Levee Dist................................. 22,900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 65,430,000

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
Federal implementation costs for the interim report Recommended
Plan consist primarily of the cost related to the acquisition
of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposals.
Estimated cost of LERRD is approximately $3.61 million. Non-
Federal cash for the NED is approximately $24,193,000;
Estimated Effects of the Recommended Plan:

[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual
Equivalent Average Annual
Account Purposes Beneficial Adverse
Effects Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic............................. FDR............................. $41,404,000 $5,204,000
Development Plan (NER)........................ ER.............................. N/A N/A
............................................ Rec............................. N/A N/A
-------------------------------
Total................................... ................................ $41,404,000 $5,204,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: FDR = Flood Damage Reduction; ER = Ecosystem Restoration; Rec = Recreation.
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 8.0 (Current Discount Rate: 5-1/8%).
NED plan recommended? Yes.
NER plan recommended? N/A.

Direct Beneficiaries: The project includes 60 miles of
levee and floodwalls and protects 32 square miles of urban
industrial, commercial, and residential area, including 5,000
significant structures, 94,000 jobs, and $16 billion in fixed
investment. Beneficiaries include the multiple protected
communities, cities, counties, and states.
Relationship to Other Plans: The Kansas Citys Metropolitan
Levee System was initially authorized by the 1936 Flood Control
Act and modified by subsequent acts as a system to provide
uniform flood protection to the industrial and commercial areas
at the confluence of the Missouri and Kansas Rivers. The system
was designed to pass a related set of design discharges on the
Kansas and Missouri Rivers and has been analyzed and modified
subsequently as a system with uniform levels of protection. The
effects of reservoirs upstream in the Missouri and Kansas River
Basins were taken into account in the analysis for this study.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 19 December 2006.
(27) 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 US 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...................................... $11,037,000
Non-Federal............................................. 5,943,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 16,980,000

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.
(28) New Jersey Shore Protection, Great Egg Harbor Inlet to
Townsends Inlet, New Jersey.
Location of Study Area: This study area extends
approximately 16 miles from Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends
Inlet, and includes the municipalities of Ocean City, Upper
Township, and Sea Isle City.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The study
investigated methods of reducing impacts from coastal erosion
and storms. The recommended plan calls for construction of a
beachfill with a berm and dune along the study area oceanfront
utilizing sand from an offshore borrow source and periodic
nourishment for a period of 50 years.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in
detail included two plans: the no-action plan and the National
Economic Development (NED) Plan.
Description of Recommended Plan: The selected plan for
South End Ocean City consists of a berm and dune utilizing sand
obtained from an offshore borrow source. The dune crest will
have a top elevation of +3.9 meters (+12.8 ft) NAVD88, while
the berm will extend from the seaward toe of the dune for a
distance of 30.5 meters (100 feet) at an elevation of 2.1
meters (7.0 ft) NAVD88 before sloping down at 1V:25H to
elevation -0.38 meters (-1.25ft) NAVD88. The remainder of the
design template parallels the existing profile slope to the
depth of closure. The total width from the seaward toe of the
dune to Mean High Water (MHW) is 66 meters (218 feet).
The plan extends from 34th Street to 59th Street for a
total length of 4,268 meters (14,000 feet or 2.6 miles).
Initial sand quantity is estimated at 1,218,000 cu meters
(1,603,000 cu yds) which includes design fill quantity of
912,000 cu meters (1,192,000 cu yds) plus advanced nourishment
of 306,000 cu meters (403,000 cu yds). Periodic nourishment of
306,000 cu meters (403,000 cu yds) is scheduled to occur every
3 years synchronized with the existing Federal beachfill
project at Ocean City (Great Egg Harbor Inlet to 34th Street).
The selected plan for Ludlam Island consists of a berm and
dune utilizing sand obtained from an offshore borrow source.
The dune crest will have a top elevation of +4.5 meters (+14.8
ft) NAVD88, while the berm width will extend from the seaward
toe for a distance of 15 meters (50 ft) at an elevation of 1.8
meters (6.0 ft) NAVD88 before sloping down (varying from 1V:30H
to 1V:50H) to elevation -0.38 meters (-1.25 ft) NAVD88. The
remainder of the design template parallels the existing profile
slope to the depth of closure. The total width from the seaward
toe of the dune to Mean High Water (MHW) varies depending upon
location from 58 to 87 meters (190 to 285 feet).
The plan extends from 38 meters (125 feet) north of Seaview
Avenue in Strathmere to Pleasure Ave (just beyond 93rd Street)
in Sea Isle City for a total length of 10,507 meters (6.5
miles). In addition, there is a taper of 224 meters (734 feet)
into Corson's Inlet State Park and a taper of 20 meters (66
feet) into the terminal groin south of 93rd Street. Total
length of beachfill, including tapers, is 10,751 meters (6.7
miles). The plan also includes the extension of two stormwater
outfall pipes at both 84th and 88th Street in Sea Isle City by
46 meters (150 feet).
Initial sand quantity is 3,911,000 cu meters (5,146,000 cu
yds) which includes design fill quantity of 2,528,000 cu meters
(3,326,000 cu yds) plus advanced nourishment of 1,383,000 cu
meters (1,820,000 cu yds). Periodic nourishment of 1,383,000 cu
meters (1,820,000 cu yds) is scheduled to occur every 5 years.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The non-Federal sponsor for the New Jersey Shore Protection
Program is the NJ Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP). NJDEP coordinates with the appropriate municipal
governments to fulfill non-Federal project requirements,
including cost-sharing, LERRD, etc. State and affected
municipal governments support this project.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The DEIS was made
available for public review and filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency on May 11, 2001. Public notification of the
availability of the DEIS was made through a public notice,
District press release, the District internet website, and
public workshop meetings held in Sea Isle City and Ocean City.
A Planning Aid Report and a Section 2(b) Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act Report were received from the USFWS. These
reports provided official USFWS comments on the project
pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. A Coastal
Zone Management Federal Consistency determination was provided
by the NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program on 27 February 2006.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment
was included as part of the Final Feasibility Report, dated
September 2001.
Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $35,069,000
NJ Department of Environmental Protection............... 19,291,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 54,360,000

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: There are no Federal annual O&M
costs. The local sponsor, NJDEP, will be responsible for all
O&M costs for the recommended plan estimated at $72,000
annually.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: O&M responsibilities
include maintaining dune grass and dune fence, pedestrian beach
accesses, and beach shaping to maintain the design template.
Direct Beneficiaries: The residents of the three included
municipalities, plus local, regional and national members of
the public who utilize the beaches for recreation.
Relationship to Other Plans: The recommended project
features for Ocean City, NJ, will extend a continuous line of
shore protection for the 38,000 lineal feet of shoreline of
that municipality. Presently only 24,000 lineal feet of
shoreline from Surf Road to 34th Street in Ocean City is
included in the Great Egg Harbor and Peck Beach (Ocean City),
NJ shore protection project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 24 October 2006.
(29) Hudson Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New
Jersey.
Location of Study Area: The study area under this interim
response consists of the Liberty State Park, located in Jersey
City, Hudson County, New Jersey, which is on the western side
of New York's Upper Bay, a few hundred feet from Ellis Island
and the Statue of Liberty.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Liberty
State Park was once mostly open cove and coastal marshland
until it was filled in the 19th century to create a large urban
rail yard. The rail yard and nearby properties were converted
into an urban waterfront park in 1976 as part of the United
States bicentennial celebrations. While many improvements have
been made, in the absence of this project, the study area
ecosystem will experience a long-term decrease in ecological
value, due to successional processes and accelerated dominance
of invasive and opportunistic species. Tidal marsh habitat has
been lost through filling. Existing maritime grassland
communities located adjacent to monocultures of invasive plant
species will likely become non-existent within the Liberty
State Park restoration area at some future point. Freshwater
wetland functional value will likely decrease over time, as
common reed and purple loosestrife are common in most of the
freshwater wetlands, and are poised to spread in many cases.
Existing wetlands may develop into monocultures of these
invasive species, losing ecological value and further reducing
the already severely depleted acreage of tidal wetlands, a key
driver of a healthy system.
It would not be practical to restore this site to its
``original'' or ``predevelopment'' condition of open water,
intertidal flats, and tidal marshlands. However, direct
restoration of 160 acres (and indirect restoration for a total
of 234 acres) of mostly undeveloped parkland that is now fenced
off in an inaccessible interior section will provide
substantial benefit to all 1,121 acres of the park by linking
previously developed and restored, but isolated, components of
the park into one cohesive whole to a more ecologically
valuable condition.
Throughout the planning process, the study team was mindful
of a Consent Decree issued by the United States District Court,
District of New Jersey, in June 2000 on behalf of the
Interfaith Community Organization, Inc. to the NJDEP. A consent
decree is a judicial decree expressing a voluntary agreement
between parties to a suit. The Consent Decree describes
problematic areas within Liberty State Park identified by the
Interfaith Community Organization and outlines mutually
acceptable solutions for these areas. The Consent Decree
recites that the parties do not make any admission of law,
fact, or liability, and that no law, fact, or finding of
liability has been finally adjudicated by the court.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated
included combinations of the following ecosystem restoration
measures:
(1) No Action Alternative.
(2) Removal of invasive species.
(3) Planting of native species.
(4) Topsoil/Sand Treatment.
(5) Addition of water to freshwater wetlands.
(6) Enhancement of existing wetlands.
(7) Creation of infiltration basin.
(8) Single inlet tidal creek with on-site placement of
excavated material.
(9) Single inlet tidal creek with off-site placement of
excavated material.
Best buy plans included combinations of tidal wetland,
freshwater wetland and related aquatic upland buffer measures.
These plans including the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER)
Plan and the no action plan were assessed in more detail.
Description of Recommended Plan: The NER Plan is described
in the Chief's Report, dated 26 Aug 2006. In total, this
recommended plan would restore ecosystem values (as measured
through Ecological Functional Units) on 160 acres of the
project area as follows:
--Construction of a 46 acre salt marsh and tidal
creek system;
--Construction of a 50 acre upland berm, utilizing
700,000 cubic yards of material from the excavated
tidal creek;
--Construction and restoration of 26 acres of
freshwater wetlands;
--Enhancement of 23 acres of seasonal wetlands;
--Construction of two drainage pipes;
--Construction of a drainage swale to connect
interior freshwater wetlands;
--Construction of 15 acres of buffer areas
surrounding the tidal marsh, and 25 acres of buffer
areas surrounding existing freshwater wetlands. The
implementation of these two measures will result in
significant incidental benefits to 74 acres of existing
uplands that are not the subject of any actions under
the recommended plan.
The creation of a tidal creek with on-site material
placement (berm creation), freshwater wetland enhancement
including Liberty Science Center water, an enhancement of the
LSC wetland, and clearing and grubbing of the upland portion of
the site, adequately addresses the problems, opportunities, and
objectives of the study, it was chosen as the Recommended Plan.
Physical Data on Project Features: The proposed restoration
of rare and ecologically significant saltwater tidal marsh and
tidal creek system, and improvement/protection of existing
freshwater wetlands, grasslands, and forest and shrub habitats
will provide an improvement to significant habitats in a highly
urbanized environment within the New York-New Jersey Harbor.
Constructing 46 acres of salt marsh at LSP will increase a
scarce resource in the harbor, significantly enhance the
ecological value of limited nearby existing salt marshes in the
harbor, and contribute invaluable wildlife habitat in the
center of the most densely populated area of the country. Use
of the excavated material for a sheltering berm provides a cost
effective disposal method, improves the hydrology of adjacent
freshwater wetlands, buffers the project from nearby developed
areas, and provides approximately 50 acres of warm weather
grasslands in the southwest comer of the site. Grassland
habitat values, largely replaced by agricultural fields in the
past, are fast disappearing as agriculture lands are now
developed for more intensive uses; therefore, this type of
habitat is also considered threatened in New Jersey. The warm
weather grasses will provide forage and breeding areas for many
passerine and raptor species. They will enhance the potential
for successful nesting of the Northern Harrier, a state listed
species. The development of 26 acres of freshwater wetland
systems will help to restore this locally endangered habitat.
While no action is planned for the remainder of the site,
management of the site by the sponsor will provide a protective
buffer for these rare habitats. The interior area includes the
23 acres of seasonally flooded wetlands and an urban forest of
about 74 acres which is currently dominated by northern
hardwood tree species and maritime shrubs assemblages. The
urban forest is one of the largest contiguous areas of
naturally established successional hardwoods in the
metropolitan area and will indirectly contribute to the
reestablishment of a diverse ecological mosaic of habitats.
Construction impacts associated with this project will be
temporary and long term beneficial effects of the project fully
compensate for the temporary impacts. Based on October 2006
prices and a Federal discount rate of 4.875 percent, the
estimated average annual cost of the recommended plan is
$2,162,000, providing a net gain of 4,436 ecological functional
units.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is the local
sponsor for the study. The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) strongly supports the project
and will act as the implementation sponsor, funding the local
share of the project. The State of New Jersey (November 30,
2005 and December 2, 2005) noted that the project would greatly
enhance habitat viability within Liberty State Park and add to
the passive recreation opportunities enjoyed by millions of
visitors per year, but had no specific comments on the report.
The Liberty State Park project has enjoyed wide support from
the public. The Recommended Plan was warmly received at the
Public Meeting held on September 26, 2005.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: A number of
agencies and environmental groups cooperated with the New York
District in executing this study including the EPA, NJDEP,
Baykeeper, NOAA and USFWS. The Liberty State Park project has
enjoyed wide support from the public and resource agencies. In
the spirit of EC1105-2-409, representatives from resource
agencies have participated in monthly Project Delivery Team
meetings and have been generous with their insights and
recommendations throughout the planning process. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (December 6, 2005) expressed support for
the selected alternative for habitat enhancements at Liberty
State Park, but had no additional comments on the draft report
of the Chief of Engineers. FWS did request additional
coordination be conducted to complete Endangered Species Act
consultation for the bald eagle. With regard to the requested
coordination for the bald eagle, FWS was notified that we do
not believe that the development of such a plan is appropriate
at this time, given that the Fish and Wildlife Service has
determined that the proposed project would not adversely affect
the species. Normally, a ``no adverse affect'' determination
leads to the closure of the section 7 consultation process
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. They were advised that
the Corps of Engineers would support the preparation of a bald
eagle management plan should the species be attracted to the
site in the future, and would enlist the cooperation of the
non-Federal sponsor in the event that future consultation under
section 7 13 of the ESA is warranted. Continued cooperation was
promised for the upcoming phases of the project. Four agencies
responded by e-mail that they had no comments on the final
report. These included: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Agency of the Department of Commerce (December 20, 2005), the
National Center for Environmental Health within the Department
of Health and Human Services (December 20, 2005), the U.S.
Coast Guard (24 January 2006), and the Environmental Protection
Agency (15 March 2006). Continued support for the project was
also expressed by the Friends of Liberty State Park (November
25, 2005). There are no outstanding issues.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Impact
Statement has been included as part of the Final Feasibility
Report, dated October 2005. The final report and proposed Chief
of Engineers report were circulated to the State of New Jersey
and Federal agencies for comment. The 30-day review period
ended on December 12, 2005. These documents were previously
released for public review and comment in August 2005 and minor
comments were received by the close of the public comment
period.
Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $22,200,000
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection....... 11,900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 34,100,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: N/A (Current Discount Rate: 4\7/8\%)
NER plan recommended? Yes.

Environmental benefits are not quantified monetarily and
therefore environment specific costs are not included in the
project benefit/cost ratio.
Estimated Annual O&M Costs: There are no Federal annual O&M
costs. The local sponsor, the NJDEP, will be responsible for
all O&M costs for the NER plan estimated at $175,000 annually.
Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: O&M responsibilities
include:
--Clearing drainage pipes along Philips Drive and the
connecting swales in the LSC freshwater wetland complex.
--Clearing the culvert opening for the tidal creek on
Freedom Way.
--Clearing accumulated debris, such as trash left behind by
park visitors.
--Maintaining signage along the perimeter trail.
--Maintaining additional LSP staff to oversee the
constructed habitat features.
--Mowing, trash collection and, as needed, replacements or
rehabilitation of any of its components.
Direct Beneficiaries: The State, residents in the
surrounding area and all Liberty Science Center visitors are
the direct beneficiaries of the project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 26 Aug 2006.
(30) 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 1970s and
1980s 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, berm 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...................................... $46,735,000
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection....... 25,165,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 71,900,000

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
costs)............................................ $4,260,000
Periodic Nourishment (includes $264,000 in monitoring
costs).............................................. $1,795,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal Average Annual Cost (includes $340,000
in monitoring costs).......................... $6,055,000
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.
(31) Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey.
Location of the Study Area: The Union Beach project area is
located in the northern portion of Monmouth County, New Jersey.
It occupies a 1.8 square mile area of land along the coast of
the Raritan Bay. The study area is defined by the Raritan Bay
to the north, the Borough of Keansburg to the east, the
Township of Hazlet to the south, and Keyport to the west.
Chingarora Creek, Flat Creek, and East Creek flow through
sections of Union Beach. All creeks flow north into Raritan
Bay. However, during coastal storms these creeks convey tidal
waters throughout much of the Borough of Union Beach. The
developed section of Union Beach at the Raritan Bay shoreline
is protected by assorted bulkheads and seawalls.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study:
Extratropical storms, northeasters, and hurricanes historically
impact the Raritan and Sandy Hook Bayshore areas. These storms
produce storm surges and waves that cause extensive flooding
and erosion to the study area. Damages to homes and commercial
properties, utility lines, shore structures, roads and bridges
have been extensive. Union Beach is composed of mostly
residential structures. The population of Union Beach in 2000
was reported to be 6,650. There are approximately 2,083 year-
round residential structures and 114 commercial structures in
the study area. Approximately 1,000 structures would be
inundated by a 100-year storm event. A 100-year combined storm
frequency has a stage of about 12.5 ft NGVD. Historically, the
Union Beach area experiences most of its problems from bay
surges caused by severe storms resulting in the inundation of
structures between Chingarora Creek, Flat Creek, and East
Creek. During even moderate storms tidal floodwaters enter the
creeks and quickly spread over the broad low-lying floodplain
from both the east and the west. A storm stage of 10 ft NGVD,
approximately equal to the December 1992 storm, results in
flooding so severe that emergency services are interrupted due
to impassable roads and most residents north of Route 36 are
stranded. Extensive damage to hundreds of structures has been
recorded in the Union Beach area during such storms. The small
shorefront area to be protected is highly developed especially
along Front Street where there is a fully public bathing beach
with parking open to all, though not a typical tourist
destination.
The study area includes approximately 500 acres of State
and Federal designated jurisdictional wetlands. In general,
vegetation in the Raritan Bay-Sandy Hook Bay area is typical of
coastal dune, intertidal marsh, and deciduous forested upland
plant communities common in the mid-Atlantic region. The type
and quality of wildlife habitat in the Raritan Bay-Sandy Hook
Bay region are suitable for a diverse group of migratory and
resident species of fish and wildlife. With the exception of
the occasional transient bald eagle, no Federally-listed
endangered or threatened species are known to occur in the
Project area.
The greatest need in the study area is for an effective,
long-term storm damage reduction program that provides
acceptable levels of protection from the impacts of tidal
inundation. Due to the low elevations of the land along the
area's creeks, an effective barrier against high bay surges
from both the bay and its adjoining creeks is a necessary
component of a comprehensive plan of protection. In addition,
along some portions of the study area, storm-driven waves have
resulted in erosion of beaches and dunes. Stabilization of
these areas is needed to ensure the integrity and effectiveness
of any storm surge barrier as well as to protect upland
structures from damaging waves and storm recession. There is
also a need to ensure minimal impacts to environmental and
cultural resources.
Alternative Plans Considered: During formulation of
potential plans of improvement, structural and non-structural
measures were examined, including: buy-outs, zoning
restrictions, floodproofing, channelization, floodwalls,
levees, storm gates, beach nourishment, coastal structures, and
beach nourishment with structures. A wide variety of
alternatives were investigated. The no action plan was also
part of the assessment. A formulation document was prepared and
it included 101 alternatives for a comprehensive plan of
improvement. A first phase screening analysis identified plan
components for further analysis. Subsequent screening resulted
in plan selection for optimization. A line of protection was
formulated and optimized separately from the interior drainage
analysis. Interior drainage plan alternatives included the
investigation of drainage structures, excavated ponds, pump
stations, and use of pump stations in conjunction with ponds.
A Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) and Evaluation of
Planned Wetlands (EPW) were followed to determine project
impacts. An interagency HEP/EPW team was formed to facilitate
the process. This was an integral part of overall plan
formulation and the NED plan.
The NED plan is the alternative that reasonably maximizes
net excess benefits and is the baseline against which other
alternatives are compared. Normally, the Federal share of the
NED plan is the limit of federal expenditures on any more
costly plan.
Although the NED plan was recommended, the planning process
recognized that the non-Federal partner may have had additional
desires for storm damage reduction or recreation beyond that
provided by the NED plan. A locally preferred plan may have
been recommended, provided the non-Federal partner agreed to
pay the difference in cost.
Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended project in
the Feasibility Report includes environmental mitigation and
consists of the following primary elements: levees, floodwalls,
road raisings, road closure gates, pump stations, a storm
(sector) gates across East and Flat Creeks, a sluice gate
across the Chingarora/East Tributary, drainage outlets, gravity
outlets, a reconstructed dune, initial beach fill, and periodic
renourishment. The line of protection consists of a combination
of levees and floodwalls tied into the existing Keansburg levee
(eastern project boundary), including storm gates spanning
across East and Flat Creek up to the Bayshore area at which
point the alignment ties into a reconstructed beach dune and
berm incorporating terminal groins and revetments, which run
west from Flat Creek to the northwest end of Front Street. The
alignment ties into a series of levees, floodwalls, and road
closure gates that run along Chingarora Creek and terminate
near the intersection of Florence Avenue and Bank Street.
Physical Data on Project Features:
Construction of 10,870 feet of levee, with a
10-foot crest width, 2.5:1 side slopes and top
elevation of +15 feet NGVD;
Construction of 3,388 feet of interior
levee, with a 2-foot crest width, 2:1 side slopes and
top elevation of +8 feet NGVD;
Construction of 6,885 feet of floodwall,
with top elevation of +15 feet NGVD;
Construction of 580 feet of road raising and
relocations in the vicinity of both the Harris Avenue
and Jersey Avenue intersection and Rose Lane and Jersey
Avenue intersection;
Construction of one road closure (Mitre)
gate;
Construction of a storm (sector) gate across
Flat Creek, 20 feet high, with a 35 foot wide opening;
Construction of a storm (sector) gate across
East Creek, 20 feet high, with a 35 foot wide opening;
Construction of a 250 cfs pump station at
Flat Creek, a 100 cfs pump station at East Creek, a 40
cfs pump station at Chingarora Creek, and 11 primary
and 37 secondary outlet structures;
Construction of a dune, with 50 foot crest
width, landward slope of 1:5, seaward slope of 1:10,
with a top elevation of +17 feet NGVD;
Construction of a beach berm, with a minimum
50 foot berm width, and foreshore slope of 1:15 and
elevation of +9-feet NGVD;
Construction of design, advance, overfill,
and tolerance fill as part of initial beach fill;
Construction of a 17.5-acre wetland
mitigation site, 14.5 acres within Flat Creek and 3
acres within East Creek;
Renourishment at a 9-year cycle of 21,000
cubic yards by trucking;
Acquisition of 90.55 acres of perpetual and
temporary easements for levees, floodwalls, beach, and
dune.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Counties:
The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
has indicated, by letter dated, September 12, 2003, their
support for the project and are willing to cost-share the Pre-
construction, Engineering, and Design Phase. Similarly, by
letter dated September 23, 2003, the Borough of Union Beach
supports the findings of the Feasibility Report.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Generally, there
were no major objections to the recommended plan by Federal
agencies. Some local interest groups raised objections to the
recommended plan. Their comments, along with district
responses, are included in the final report.
Status of NEPA Documentation:
Draft EIS was filed in the Federal Register
on June 30, 2003
DEIS Public meeting was held on July 18,
2003 at Union Beach Borough Hall
Final EIS was completed September 2003
Estimated Implementation Costs:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $74,800,000
NJDEP................................................... 40,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 115,000,000

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The non-
Federal implementation costs include LERRD. Relocations include
costs for relocations of access ways and outfall extensions due
to the configuration of the dune, which would otherwise impede
beach access and outfall operability respectively. Relocations
also include dune walkovers (and removal of existing beach
access ramps), a dune walkway, vehicle access ramps, extension
of the existing stone encased storm outfall and raising of one
timber deck due to dune positioning.

October 2006
LERRD................................................... $5,743,900
Cash.................................................... 35,598,500
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 41,342,400

Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Charges attributed to
the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the project consist of
annualized replacement costs, anticipated energy charges, and
the cost of routine maintenance. Project components requiring
routine care include levees, floodwalls, and the interior
drainage facilities, outlets, closure structures, gate
structures and pump stations.
The major mechanical equipment within the storm gate and
interior drainage pump stations have anticipated life
expectancies of 20-25 years. The cost of periodic equipment
replacement has been estimated, annualized over the 50-year
period of analysis and incorporated into the O&M estimate. In
addition, electric power requirements based on anticipated
frequency of pump station and storm gate operations have been
added to the project's annual operation charge.
Estimated Effects:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual
Equivalent Average Annual
Account Beneficial Adverse
Effects Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Total.......................... $13,888,300 $7,140,000
Economic (HSDR)......................... $13,877,500 ..............
Development (Recreation)................ $10,800 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Economic Life: 50 Years
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR): 1.9
Net Benefits: $6,748,300
4NED Plan Selected? Yes
Environmental Quality: N/A.
Regional Economic: N/A.
Development Effects:
Other Social Effects: N/A.

Direct Beneficiaries: Those that work and live within the
flood-prone regions of Union Beach.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 4 January 2006.
(32) 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...................................... $79,500,000
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection....... 42,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 122,300,000

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 burrows, 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*
Average Annual Costs:
Storm Damage Reduction:
Initial Construction............................ $3,478,600
Interest During Constructiond................... $ 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............................................ 334.9 AAHU's
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

* AAHU's = Average Annual Habitat Units

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.
(33) 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 ponds 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.
Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $16,150,000
Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority
and Bernalillo County............................... 8,690,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 24,840,000

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.
(34) Montauk Point, New York.
Project Location/Congressional District: The study area is
located at Montauk, in the Town of East Hampton, Suffolk
County, New York, between the Atlantic Ocean and Block Island
Sound at the easternmost end of the south fork of Long Island
(see figure). The study area extends far enough southwest and
northwest to fully evaluate down drift effects, in order to
prevent any adverse impacts, and make sure the project is
environmentally sustainable. The critical area of study
consists of the fronting bluff, covering about 900 feet of
shoreline. The project protects the entire historic Montauk
Point Lighthouse Complex situated on a 70-foot-high bluff
underlain with glacial till.
Problems and Opportunities: In the absence of Federal
action, the study area will be subject to continued erosion of
the shoreline. Because the present shore protection measures
were not designed to withstand major storm events over a
substantial duration, i.e. lack of buried toe, inadequate stone
size, insufficient overtopping protection, it is expected that
the revetment now in place will fail in the foreseeable future.
As a result of future projected revetment instability and
subsequent bluff erosion, the historic structure, a functioning
lighthouse, as well as the associated artifacts within the
vicinity, will be in critical danger if a long-term protection
plan is not implemented. Opportunities exist to complement,
enhance and augment local efforts in a collaborative planning
environment.
Final Array of Alternatives/Comparison of Alternatives:
1. No Action: The No Action Plan (no Federal action through
the Corps of Engineers) would consist of a continuation of the
without-project condition, which includes the eventual
displacement of the existing revetment and subsequent erosion
of the exposed bluff. If allowed to occur, progressive
instability of the bluff would result in the irrecoverable loss
of the lighthouse and its associated structures, along with
archaeological resources.
2. Stone Revetment: A riprap stone revetment was proposed
for long-term erosion control. The plan consists of 840 feet of
revetment protection. The protection covers the most vulnerable
bluff area that would directly endanger the lighthouse complex
due to bluff failure without the project.
3. Offshore Breakwater: The purpose of an offshore
breakwater is to reduce the storm wave height offshore of the
revetment toe, thus reducing the wave impact force and runup
elevation on the bluff. Shoreline recession would be reduced
with the construction of an offshore breakwater. The existing
revetment and terracing of the upper bluff would provide an
acceptable level of protection with the offshore breakwaters in
place. Breakwaters would be particularly difficult to construct
due to difficult site access and in-water construction.
4. T-groins with Beachfill: Similar to a nearer-to-shore
segmented breakwater system with shore-attached groins, T-
Groins are considered as a second breakwater alternative.
Similar to the breakwater alternative presented, the purpose of
T-groins is to reduce the storm wave height, thus reducing the
wave impact force and runup elevation on the bluff. The
consistent beach and shoreline recession would be reduced with
the construction of T-groins and beach fill. The existing
revetment and terracing of the upper bluff would provide a
reasonable level of protection with the T-groins in place. T-
groins would be difficult to construct due to difficult site
access, however, land-based equipment could be utilized.
Protective beach fill would require renourishment at a rate
that is difficult to predict until it is constructed and
monitored.
5. Beach Fill: For this design, a construction berm with an
elevation of +11 feet NGVD and 150-feet in width is created.
Approximately 200,000 cubic yards of beach fill would be
placed. This alternative was considered not feasible for many
reasons, including high longshore transport rates requiring
constant renourishment, environmental impacts from frequent
renourishment and potential adverse impacts to surfing
interests. This alternative was rejected because the protection
would not be reliable.
6. Relocation: Moving the Montauk Point Lighthouse complex
would preserve the existing structures, but allow for the
eventual destruction of the bluff. Prior to the relocation of
the existing buildings, the arrangement and relationships of
the structures on the landscape as well as the view to and from
the lighthouse and bluff would be documented. In addition,
subsurface archeological investigations would be required at
the current site as well as at the new lighthouse location. The
relocation of the Montauk Point Lighthouse complex would have
an adverse effect on the above and below ground resources.
Moving the Lighthouse complex would have an adverse impact on
the archaeological resources and compromise the integrity of
the lighthouse and associated structures. The New York State
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has
objected to any alternative which would involve relocation of
the lighthouse.
Recommended Plan: Based on the advantages and disadvantages
of each of the alternatives discussed, including an evaluation
of environmental quality, other social effects, regional
economic development, and national economic development (see
Table 1), as well as the estimated costs of construction and
periodic nourishment required as well as benefits provided with
the potential alternatives (see Table 2), the selected plan for
protection of Montauk Point and the lighthouse complex and
bluff is the stone revetment. The stone revetment alternative
has the lowest annual cost and highest net benefits of the
alternatives considered. Revetments are a proven method of
shore protection in this area and have a record of acceptance
by state and local agencies. In addition, by re-using some of
the stone already on site in the existing structure, cost
savings will be realized. Environmental impacts are
insignificant as are impacts to fishing and surfing interests.

TABLE 1: PLAN EVALUATION MATRIX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Regional National
Environmental Social Economic Economic
Quality Effects Development Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1--No Action Plan............................. - - - -
Alternative 2--Stone Revetment............................ 0 0 + +
Alternative 3--Offshore breakwater with beach fill........ - - + -
Alternative 4--T Groins with Beach Fill................... - - + -
Alternative 5--Beach fill only............................ - - + -
Alternative 6--Relocation of Lighthouse................... - 0 0 -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Indicates a net positive influence or effect
0 Indicates no positive or negative effect
- Indicates a net negative influence or effect
The alternative plans have been evaluated based upon four accounts to facilitate plan selection.
Based upon these evaluations the revetment alternative is the selected NED plan.
The Environmental quality account displays non-monetary effects on significant cultural and natural resources.
The Other Social Effects account registers plan effects relevant to planning process but not captured in other
three accounts.
The Regional Economic Development account registers changes in regional economic activity.
The National Economic Development account displays changes in economic value of national output of goods and
services.

Table 2: PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE, Oct. 2004 Price Levels--FIRST & ANNUAL COSTS &
ANNUAL BENEFITS SUMMARY--SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative #3
Alternative #2 Offshore Alternative #4
Stone Breakwater and T-Groins and
Revetment Beach Fill Beach Fill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total First Cost................................................ $14,843,000 $14,481,000 $12,094,000
Interest during Construction @5.375%............................ 949,000 752,000 629,000
Total Investment Cost........................................... 15,792,000 15,233,000 12,723,000
Annualized Total Investment Cost Based on 50-year Design Life 916,000 884,000 738,000
Annual Interest of 5.375%......................................
Annualized Maintenance Cost..................................... 55,000 57,000 47,000
Annualized Periodic Nourishment Cost Based on 50-year design Zero Cost 502,000 502,000
life Annual interest of 5.375% 100,000 cy nourishment every 3
years..........................................................
Total Annual Cost........................................... 971,000 1,443,000 1,287,000
Total Annual Benefits*...................................... 1,578,700 1,578,700 1,578,700
Total Net Benfits........................................... 607,700 135,700 291,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives #2 through #4 are developed at the same 73-year storm design. The benefits claimed are the same
because each of the alternatives will protect the same land to the same degree, and each alternative avoids
the same average annual project damages.

Of the potential alternatives discussed above, the stone
revetment alternative is the plan that maximizes net benefits.
Design Optimization of the Recommended Plan: Three design
variations in the selected revetment alternative were
considered to economically optimize the construction cost
relative to the economic benefits (provide the greatest net
economic benefits): a 150-year storm design; a 73-year storm
design; and a 15-year storm design (see Table 3).

TABLE 3: STONE REVETMENT--CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES FOR 3 ALTERNATIVES, OCT. 2004 PL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Alternative Alternative
#2A 150-year #2B 73-year #2C 15-year
protection protection protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total First Cost................................................ $15,998,900 $13,722,900 $5,804,000
Total Annual Cost............................................... 1,050,400 889,300 524,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4 summarizes the National Economic Development (NED)
Plan Selection of Alternative 2B. The 73-year design is the NED
plan because it has the greatest net benefits (Line 6). All
recreation benefits (Line 2) are included in the total
benefits, total net benefits and final BCR (lines 8, 9 and 10)
because the criterion for Federal participation with limited
recreation benefits has been met. Based on maximum net excess
benefits, the selected plan consists of the construction of a
stone revetment with a 73-year storm design.

TABLE 4: NED PLAN SELECTION
[Oct 2004 PL, 5.375% discount rate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 yr Storm 73 yr Storm 150 yr Storm
Description Design Design Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Annual Storm Damage Benefits................................. $213,500 $541,400 $564,200
2. Annual Recreation Benefits................................... 551,200 1,037,300 1,062,400
3. Annual Recreation Benefits used for Project Justification.... 213,500 541,400 564,200
4. Total Benefits used for Project Justification................ 427,000 1,082,800 1,128,400
5. Annual Costs................................................. 524,700 889,300 1,050,400
6. Net Benefits................................................. -97,700 193,500 78,000
7. BCR.......................................................... 0.8 1.2 1.1
8. Total Benefits............................................... .............. 1,578,700 ..............
9. Total Net Benefits........................................... .............. 689,400 ..............
10 Final BCR.................................................... .............. 1.8 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Systems/Watershed Context: The recommended plan,
construction of a stone revetment, is consistent with the Fire
Island to Montauk Point reformulation project sediment budget
modeling and will not impact the results of that study. The
goals of both that study and this project are consistent and
include protection of historic and cultural resources. The
recommended plan, construction of the stone revetment, is the
National Economic Development Plan and satisfies the
Environmental Quality requirements. In addition, this feature
is consistent with existing recreation purposes, such as
fishing, surfing and sightseeing as well as the regional
economic development requirements.
Stakeholder Perspectives and Differences: Construction of
the project would result in short-term, direct impacts to
recreational uses, such as use of pedestrian trails and the
revetment for recreational fishing, by temporarily limiting
and/or blocking access to the beachfront and the existing
revetment. These short-term, direct impacts would primarily
affect recreational fishing because surfcasting from the
existing revetment is a popular activity at Montauk Point. As a
result of this potential impact, the District has coordinated
with the Montauk Surfcasters Association and the New York Sport
Fishing Federation to develop a plan that would minimize
impacts on access to the revetment by fishermen during
construction and enhance access after construction. The
District has developed a construction schedule that will allow
fishermen limited access to the revetment area during the
initial stages of construction. Both organizations understand
the importance of ensuring that there is a strong, stable, and
long-lasting revetment wall at Montauk Point and offered their
full support of the project. Access impacts during construction
would be reduced by allowing limited access to the current
revetment for fishing during the construction period to the
maximum extent practicable, without causing a safety hazard. By
initiating construction on the south end of the revetment while
having a delayed construction start date on the north end of
the revetment, a few additional months of access to the
revetment by fishermen would be possible. However, eventually
the entire revetment and staging areas immediately adjacent to
the northern and southern ends of the revetment would need to
be closed to the public for about 21 months. During this time,
fishermen would still be able to fish from the adjacent beach
areas.
The Surfrider Foundation, Long Island Chapter, raised
concerns regarding the impact of the proposed project on
recreational surfing. In response to the Surfrider Foundation's
concerns, the District performed an analysis to determine the
potential effect of implementation of the proposed project on
offshore waves. The results determined that the wave reflection
coefficient for the existing revetment ranged from 0.30 to
0.33, whereas the reflection coefficient for the proposed
revetment would range from 0.25 to 0.28, an approximate 15
percent reduction from that of the existing revetment. This
reduction is due to the milder front slope, the greater
porosity of the cap stone layer, and the replaced 1946 stone at
the toe of the proposed revetment. The analysis shows that from
a coastal engineering perspective, the negative effects of the
reflected waves would be slightly less with the proposed
revetment alternative. The District believes that
implementation of the proposed project would have little to no
perceptible impact on the quality or surfability of the waves
in the offshore waters of Montauk Point.
Several comments, including The Nature Conservancy, have
questioned whether the project would have an impact on the FIMP
Reformulation Study because of downdrift changes to coastal and
littoral processes. We have prepared responses that explain
that long term impacts due to the proposed project are small,
essentially continuing the effects of the existing revetment.
An equally small increase in erosion downdrift, which rapidly
diminishes in a westerly direction on both the north and south
shores would have an insignificant effect on the environment
and no effect on the formulation of plans for the FIMP project.
Estimated Costs of Recommended Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $7,300,000
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 7,300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 14,600,000

Equivalent Annual Benefits and Costs:

OCTOBER 2006 PRICE LEVEL, 50-YEAR PERIOD OF ANALYSIS, 4.875% AND 7%
DISCOUNT RATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Costs:....................................
Total Project Construction Costs................. $14,600,000
Interest During Construction..................... $758,000
Total Investment Cost............................ $15,358,000
Average Annual Costs:................................
Interest and Amortization of Initial Investment $890,000
(additional annual amounts, if applicable)......
OMRR&R........................................... $56,000
Total Average Annual Costs....................... $946,000
Average Annual Benefits.............................. $1,680,000
Net Annual Benefits.................................. $734,000
Benefit-Cost Ratio................................... 1.8
Benefit-Cost Ratio (computed at 7%).................. 1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Status of Chief's Report: The Chief of Engineers
Report was signed on 31 March 2007.
(35) Hocking River Basin Ecosystem Restoration, Monday
Creek, Ohio.
Location of Study Area: Monday Creek, a tributary of the
Hocking River, encompasses 116 square miles of Perry, Athens,
and Hocking Counties near Nelsonville in southeastern Ohio.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Problems
identified in the watershed include impacts to 235 acres of the
aquatic ecosystem from past coal mining activities. Underground
mining has caused the generation of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD)
and subsidence impacts in the watershed that have affected the
flora and fauna of the watershed. Iron hydroxide flocculent
increases siltation/sedimentation of the streams causing severe
acid loadings and metal precipitants from AMD have greatly
impacted the aquatic and terrestrial biological community and
in some areas have left sections of the mainstem of Monday
Creek and its tributaries unable to support aquatic life.
Subsidence impacts occur in the watershed when underground mine
voids that are close to the surface collapse. The collapsed
overburden captures surface water into the mine voids, allowing
contact with sulfide minerals and oxygen, thus generating AMD
within the watershed. Subsidences can take the form of large
gaping holes in the stream bed or of hidden underground cracks
that allow surface water to dissipate into the underground mine
workings, thus continuing the generation of AMD. Approximately
82 of the 107 miles (77%) of streams assessed by Ohio EPA
during the 2001 biological and water quality surveys were found
to be impaired due to AMD from both a water quality issue and a
siltation/sedimentation issue.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in
detail included 7 plan combinations; PC1 No Action; PC 2; PC 3;
PC 4; PC 5; PC 6 National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan; PC
7 Locally Preferred Plan (LPP).
Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan is
Plan Combination 6, the NER Plan, and addresses AMD impacts in
seven of the major subwatersheds within Monday Creek and
includes connectivity of the aquatic resources with the
headwaters. The Recommended Plan successfully reduces the toxic
concentrations of iron, aluminum, acidity, and increases pH
which meet the water quality thresholds in the mainstem of
Monday Creek. The minimum resource requirements considered
necessary to support the aquatic ecosystem will exist in 98% of
the watershed except for Monkey Hollow.
Physical Data on Project Features: Currently, the project
consists of 178 total restoration structures located within the
following eight subwatersheds locations: Jobs Hollow, Dixie
Hollow, Rock Run, Monkey Hollow, Lost Run, Snake Hollow, Coe
Hollow, and Snow Fork (which is comprised of Salem Hollow,
Sycamore Hollow, Spencer Hollow, Brush Fork, Long Hollow,
Whitmore Cemetery and Orbiston). Proposed structures include
open limestone channels, low head dams, limestone leach beds,
slag leach beds, aerobic wetlands and dosers. Other forms of
construction activities involve the closure of stream-capturing
subsidences, re-routing dissipating streams, and either
breaching or removal of spoil blocks.
Approximately 230.3 acres of aquatic habitat and 58.55
miles of the 61.62 miles of AMD impacted streams within the
watershed would be restored.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The Ohio Division of Natural Resources is the local sponsor.
The ODNR 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, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Office of Surface
of Mines, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the 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 July 2005. These documents were released for public
review and comment on 2 May 2005 and minor comments were
received by the close of the public comment period on 3 June
2005.
Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $13,440,000
Ohio Division of Natural Resources...................... 7,540,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 20,980,000

Estimated Effects of the Addendum Modified NER Plan
(Effects for the LPP were not calculated):

[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual
Equivalent Average Annual
Account Purposes Beneficial Adverse Effects
Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development Plan (NER)... FDR.......................... $ N/A $ N/A
ER........................... N/A N/A
Rec.......................... N/A N/A
-------------------------------------
Total:................................. ............................. N/A N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: FDR = Flood Damage Reduction.
ER = Ecosystem Restoration.
Rec = Recreation.
Project economic life: 20 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: N/A (Current Discount Rate: 5-1/8%)
NED plan recommended? No
NER plan recommended? Yes

Environmental benefits are not quantified monetarily and
therefore environment specific costs are not included in the
project benefit/cost ratio.
Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area
are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
Relationship to Other Plans: The Corps has two major
projects in the Hocking River Watershed, the Athens Local
Protection Project (flood damage reduction) and the Tom Jenkins
Dam-Burr Oak Reservoir (flood damage reduction, water supply
and recreation). The Athens project consisted of a channel
modification project of the Hocking River in Athens, Ohio,
authorized by Congress in 1965, and completed in 1971. The
project shortens the Hocking River by about 1,400 feet. The
channel bottom was widened from its former width of 120-140
feet to 215 feet. The modified channel is about 26,000 feet in
length. The Tom Jenkins Dam-Burr Oak Lake is located on the
East Branch of Sunday Creek. The project is operated for flood
damage reduction in the Sunday Creek valley and as a unit of a
coordinated system for flood protection in the Hocking and Ohio
River valleys. The reservoir also includes storage for water
supply use and recreational facilities.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 25 August 2006.
(36) Town of Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania.
Location of Study Area: Bloomsburg, PA is located in
Columbia County within the Middle Susquehanna River sub-basin.
The Susquehanna River forms the Town's southern boundary, and
Fishing Creek forms the northern and western boundaries.
Extensive portions of the Bloomsburg study area are within the
500-year floodplain of the Susquehanna River and Fishing Creek.
The floodplain includes approximately 525 residential
structures, and 75 businesses and local government buildings.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The primary
water resource problem along the Susquehanna River at
Bloomsburg is recurrent flooding. Since the early 1800's, the
River has flooded, on average, once every twenty years. In the
Bloomsburg area, the Susquehanna River has very little slope
and shallow banks. Therefore, when storms occur, the River is
slow to recede, causing the River floodwaters to flow upstream
and overtop the banks of Fishing Creek. Normal discharge from
Fishing Creek to the main stem of the River is also hindered
and exacerbates the backwater flooding. When the Susquehanna
River and Fishing Creek simultaneously rise above flood stage,
overbank flooding can cover up to 33 percent of the land mass
within the Town's boundaries, resulting in extensive damages to
structures, water and sewer services and transportation
systems. Therefore, any solution must be able to provide
protection from the River and from backwater flooding along
Fishing Creek.
Alternative Plans Considered:
Structural flood damage reduction measures
considered. The following structural measures were considered
and evaluated: (1) stream modifications, such as channel
deepening and widening, modification of bridge and culvert
openings, and dredging, (2) detention basins that would store
large volumes of water, and then release them at a controlled
rate, and (3) floodwater barriers, such as levees, floodwalls,
and mechanically-stabilized earth (MSE) walls that confine
flood flows to the existing channel footprint and prevent
breakout of floodwaters. The type of floodwater barrier is
usually a function of available space, cost of real estate, and
the desire to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to affected
properties.
Preferred structural flood damage reduction
solution. Of the solutions considered, floodwall barriers were
the most viable solution to meet defined objectives.
Furthermore, there is an alternative that is justified,
supported by the Sponsor, and offers opportunities to mitigate
for its adverse impacts. Towards that end, the following
alignments were developed as a baseline to determine viable
preliminary alternatives: (1) interior alignment, (2) fringe
alignment, and (3) east Bloomsburg extension alignment (Figure
3-10 in Main Report).
Interior alignment. The Interior Alignment is
9,100 linear feet long and consists of earthen levee, MSE wall,
and concrete floodwall. The Interior Alignment was positioned
as a setback levee along Fishing Creek (south of Route 11), and
would cover the shortest distance across the Fairgrounds
parking area to provide a line of protection. The setback
feature provides a flow area for floodwaters and minimizes the
level of increased flooding to property located on the right
descending bank of Fishing Creek. While the design of the
Interior Alignment provides an efficient floodwater flow area,
potential problems include:
The likelihood of encountering hazardous,
toxic, and radiological waste (HTRW) since the
alignment runs along the borders of two known closed
landfills. Extensive excavation would be required to
reach a depth where foundation suitable soil would be
present. There is extremely limited space to shift the
interior alignment to avoid these landfills without
severely disrupting operations for two key industries
nearby.
Not providing protection for sixteen
residential and two commercial structures located
immediately west of the main Fairground entrance on
Route 11.
Fringe alignment. The overall length is 12,450
linear feet, consisting of earthen levee, MSE wall, and
concrete floodwall. The Fringe Alignment provides protection
for the same area as the Interior Alignment but also protects
the sixteen residences and two commercial properties not
protected by the Interior Alignment. Furthermore, the Fringe
Alignment maintains some flexibility to avoid known landfills.
East Bloomsburg Levee Extension. The East
Bloomsburg Levee Extension, comprised of 9,300 linear feet of
earthen levee and closure structures, would provide protection
to a relatively large area where a majority of residential and
non-residential structures are located at elevations above the
100-year floodplain.
Description of Recommended Plan: The NED Plan (alternative
4) is the recommended plan and provides protection for Agnes-
level events (440-year) on the Susquehanna River and 100-year
events on Fishing Creek. The NED plan consists of 16,555 linear
feet of levee/floodwall systems with fourteen drainage
structures, limited road raisings, four closure structures,
upgrades to the existing flood warning system, and ecosystem
mitigation activities.
Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended flood
damage reduction plan is to provide Agnes (440-year) level
protection from Susquehanna River flooding and 100-year level
of protection from Fishing Creek flooding. The recommended plan
consists of approximately 17,000 linear feet of levee/floodwall
systems with fourteen drainage structures, and nine closure
structures, six of which incorporate limited road raisings. The
alignment of the line of protection was refined based on
physical, environmental, and economic criteria.
The project consists of a system of earthen levees,
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) floodwalls, concrete
floodwalls, railroad and road closure structures and roadway
relocations to provide ramps over the line of protection.
Earthen levees are proposed for the majority of the line of
protection, though MSE walls will be required along portions of
Fishing Creek in both Bloomsburg and Fernville and a concrete
floodwall (H-Pile wall) will be required along portions of
Fishing Creek in Bloomsburg. Limited riprap will be used to
protect the steep banks along the lower project reaches along
Fishing Creek.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The Town of Bloomsburg is the local sponsor. The Town Council
supports the project and will fund the local share of the
project. Also, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will fund 50%
of the Town's local share and the Governor has committed an
extra $1 million over their normal contribution due to the
economic benefits (protection of exiting jobs) the project will
provide.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Public involvement
was conducted in part through the publishing of a Notice of
Intent in the Federal Register and holding information
workshops and public meetings in Bloomsburg to discuss the
project and receive comments. Additionally, coordination with
resource agencies (to include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the PA Natural
Diversity Inventory, the PA Fish and Boat Commission, and the
PA State Historic Preservation Office) was conducted through
personal contact and coordination letters to solicit their
input and expertise to assist in the development of solutions
that are effective and responsible. Several of these agencies
worked with the study team to develop potential solutions to
improve fish passage as mitigation for the impact rendered by
riprap placement. There are no unresolved issues.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Impact
Statement in integrated within the Final Feasibility Report,
dated August 2005. The Record of Decision for this FEIS was
signed January 9, 2007.
Estimated Implementation Costs of NED (Recommended) Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $28,925,000
Town of Bloomsburg, PA.................................. 15,575,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 44,500,000

Direct Beneficiaries: The residents and businesses in and
around the Town are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
Relationship to Other Plans: The Bloomsburg project is
located downstream of the Wyoming Valley Levee Raising Federal
flood control project currently being constructed upstream of
the Danville and Sunbury Federal Flood Control projects.
Additionally, the Bloomsburg project is located downstream of a
system of Federal flood protection dams in the Upper
Susquehanna River watershed.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 25 January 2006.
(37) Pawleys Island, South Carolina.
Location of Study Area: The study area is located within
the corporate limits of Pawleys Island, Georgetown County,
South Carolina.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Prior storm
events have resulted in breaches of the main access road and
damages to electric, water, and sewage lines. The structural
integrity of many beachfront homes is threatened. The
opportunity exists to provide a protective berm and restored
dune system, improve sea turtle nesting habitat, and increase
the recreation opportunities at the only beach in Georgetown
County with free public access.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in
detail included the no-action plan, the National Economic
Development (NED) Plan as described below, and other
alternatives. The relocation of structures, the placement of
new groins, and the use of hardened structures such as seawalls
were among the alternatives considered that were not
recommended.
Description of Recommended Plan: The proposed Federal
project consists of construction of a 50-foot-wide protective
berm over a 6,800-foot-long reach, with two 350-foot tapers
(7,500 feet total) at elevation +7 feet National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) along the southern reach of the island.
Additionally the project includes a 20-foot-wide dune at
elevation +10 feet NGVD with side slopes of 1 Vertical to 5
Horizontal. The project calls for periodic nourishment over a
50-year period. Periodic nourishment, accomplished via four 9-
year renourishment intervals and one 5-year renourishment
interval, would optimize net benefits over the 50-year period
of analysis. The estimated volume of fill for initial
construction is 666,400 cubic yards, which includes 305,300
cubic yards for the first nourishment. The source of fill
material is an 832-acre borrow area located between 11,000 feet
and 17,000 feet offshore of Pawleys Island. The project is
designed to avoid and minimize adverse environmental effects
such that no mitigation is required, and is expected to enhance
sea turtle nesting habitat.
The Recommended Plan is the National Economic Development
plan and the Locally Preferred Plan. The Benefit-Cost Ratio is
1.7:1 at a Discount Rate of 5\5/8\%.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The Town of Pawley's Island is the local sponsor. The sponsor
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 South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control agree that the recommended plan would
not have a significant impact.
Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment
has been included as part of the Final Feasibility Report,
dated May 2004. The District Commander signed the Finding of No
Significant Impact on March 15, 2004.
Estimated Implementation Costs of the Recommend Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $5,840,000
Town of Pawley's Island................................. 3,140,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 8,980,000

Estimated Annual O&M Costs: The periodic renourishment
costs of an estimated $21,200,000 in October 2005 prices over
50 years have an equivalent annual cost of $390,000. The local
sponsor, the Town of Pawleys Island, will be responsible for an
estimated $50,000 in annual O&M costs.
Direct Beneficiaries: The residents and property owners of
the homes to be protected are the direct beneficiaries of the
project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 19 December 2006. An Addendum to
the Feasibility Report was completed for the ASA(CW) in April
2005.
(38) 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 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 its 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 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...................................... $87,810,000
Non-Federal interest.................................... 100,300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 188,110,000

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:

[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Annual
Account Equivalent Average Annual
Beneficial Adverse Effects
Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED:
CCSC................................ $32,501 $15,562
Barge Shelves....................... 135 81
La Quinta........................... 9,234 5,330
Ecosystem Restoration............... * 267
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
* 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.

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.
(39) 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...................................... $7,225,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 14,450,000

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:

[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
(40) 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...................................... $8,640,000
Total............................................... 17,280,000

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:

[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual
Equivalent Average Annual
Account Effects 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%.

Corps of Engineers...................................... $69,640,000
Lower Colorado River Authority.......................... 41,090,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 110,730,000

Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: Non-
Federal implementation costs for the Recommended Plan consist
primarily of the cost related to the acquisition of lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposals (LERRD's).
A non-Federal cash contribution is required for 50% of the
costs that are allocated to recreation. The Wharton component
will adhere to cost sharing rules for a structural flood damage
reduction project, which stipulates a cash contribution of 5%
of the total project cost, as well as additional cash to insure
a minimum non-federal cost share of 35% for this component.
Estimated Effects (Benefits) of the Recommended Plan:

Average Annual Equivalent
[Monetary Benefits in (1,000's)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timber
Purpose Creek Onion Creek Wharton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flood Damage Reduction........... 390 2,620 4,300
Recreation....................... 480 2,650 N/A
Segment Benefit-Cost............. 1.7 1.5 2.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Overall Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.9 (Current Federal Interest Rate: 4-7/8%).

NED plan recommended? Yes.
NER plan recommended? Yes.

In addition to the monetary benefits cited above, ecosystem
restoration benefits are achieved by restoring riparian
woodlands in the Timber Creek and Onion Creek Forest/Yarrabee
Bend segments. Restoration of 16 acres in the Timber Creek
segment yields 5.9 habitat units at an average annual cost of
$3,600 per habitat unit. Restoration of 16 acres in the Onion
Creek Forest/Yarrabee Bend segment yields 56.8 habitat units at
an average annual cost of $4,900 per habitat unit.
Environmental benefits are not quantified monetarily and
therefore environment specific costs are not included in the
project benefit/cost ratio.
Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area
are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 31 December 2006.
(42) Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement,
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 do 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...................................... $37,200,000

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.
(43) Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and
Channels, Hampton Roads, Virginia.
Location of Study Area: The study area is located within
the city limits of Portsmouth, Virginia.
Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The major
water resource problems at Norfolk Harbor include dredged
material disposal capacity and container handling capacity,
both of which cannot keep pace with demand. These problems
confronting Norfolk Harbor result from the rapid growth in
international maritime trade that the Nation has experienced
over the past decade and which are expected to continue in the
future. Planned navigation improvements and maintenance of
existing channels will produce more dredged material than can
be accommodated at the Craney Island Dredged Material
Management Area (CIDMMA). The demand for container handling
capacity at Norfolk Harbor will exceed future capabilities by
2011, and the shortfall in container handling capacity will
grow in the future. Projected shortages in dredged material
disposal capacity and container handling capacity at Norfolk
Harbor create the need for increased capacity for dredged
material disposal and for expanded container handling
facilities. The opportunity posed by existing and expected
future conditions is to meet expected future dredged material
disposal and container handling needs in a way that generates
the greatest benefit to the Nation.
Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in
detail included two plans: an eastward expansion, the locally
preferred plan (LPP), and an eastward expansion with dike
strengthening.
Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan is
the LPP, and it consists of constructing a 580-acre eastward
expansion to an elevation of +18 mean lower low water (MLLW) to
provide additional dredged material capacity and a suitable
platform to construct a container handling terminal.
Physical Data on Project Features: The Recommended Plan
consists of constructing a 580-acre eastward expansion to an
elevation of +18 MLLW to provide additional dredged material
capacity and a suitable platform to construct a container
handling terminal. Perimeter dikes for the Recommended Plan
would be constructed around the area of the new cell to contain
dredged material. The western limit of the proposed cell would
tie into the existing east dike of the CIDMMA. In addition, the
plan includes construction of an access channel to a depth of
50 feet (MLLW) to serve the VPA's container port. In
preparation for future port development, the 580-acre area
would be divided by a dike into two dredged material receiving
areas consisting of 220 and 360 acres. The 220-acre area would
be filled with dredged material first, and it would be the area
where the VPA would begin port construction. The 360-acre area
would begin to receive dredged material after the 220-acre area
has been filled. Once the 360-acre area is filled, it would
also be turned over to the VPA for port construction. The
entire eastward expansion provides an additional 3 years of
dredged material capacity. The initial phase of the port
terminal on the 220-acre area is projected to be operational by
2017. To expedite construction and minimize problems associated
with settlement of the dikes, the dikes would generally be
constructed in the following way: (1) pre-dredge to a depth of
-60 feet (MLLW) on the dike alignment; (2) dredge suitable sand
from the Atlantic and Thimble Shoal channels for construction
of the dike; (3) place the dike material in the pre-dredged
hole to elevation +18 MLLW; (4) install a cross dike to
subdivide the interior into a southern cell of approximately
220 acres and a northern cell of approximately 360 acres; (5)
install wick drains to expedite the remaining settlement of the
dikes; and (6) install spill boxes in the newly created
eastward cell.
Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries:
The non-Federal sponsor, the Commonwealth of Virginia, acting
through the Secretary of Transportation, represented by the
Virginia Port Authority (VPA) is very supportive of the
project. In addition, 22 local interest groups and maritime
industry representatives were contacted. Seven stakeholder
meetings were held and 27 committee and agency meetings or
workshops were held. Extensive dialogue and coordination with
these interested parties contributed to the development of the
recommended plan.
Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: During the
Feasibility Study, 29 Federal, state, and local agencies were
coordinated with and a consensus mitigation plan was agreed
upon. In addition, 22 local interest groups and maritime
industry representatives were contacted. Seven stakeholder
meetings were held and 27 committee and agency meetings or
workshops were held. Extensive dialogue and coordination with
these interested parties contributed to the scoping and
preparation of the NEPA document, negotiating the consensus
mitigation plan, and the development of the recommended plan.
Status of NEPA Document: On March 2, 2001, the USACE
published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) in the Federal Register. A notice of
availability of the Draft EIS was published in the Federal
Register on September 23, 2005. The Final EIS was published in
the Federal Register on June 2, 2006 and has been included as
part of the Final Feasibility Report, dated January 2006. These
NEPA documents were released as drafts for public review and
comment on September 16, 2005 and as final documents for state
and agency review on May 18, 2006. There are no unresolved
issues in response to comments to the Final EIS.
Estimated Implementation Costs of the Recommended LPP Plan:

Corps of Engineers...................................... $31,229,000
Commonwealth of Virginia................................ 680,874,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 712,103,000

Estimated Effects of the Recommended Plan:

Average Annual

[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Annual
Account Purposes Equivalent
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic................ Transportation Cost $338,819,000
Savings.
Development...................... Dredged Material 2,530,000
Disposal.
----------------
Total...................... .................... 341,349,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 4.5 (Current Discount Rate: 4\7/8\%).
NED plan recommended? No.
NER plan recommended? No.

The Recommended Plan will provide a 580 acre expansion for
additional dredged material capacity and construction of a
future port terminal. The project will produce $265 million in
net benefits from savings in transportation costs and dredged
material disposal. Regionally, there will be increases in jobs
and wages as well as increases in state and local taxes.
Direct Beneficiaries: The surrounding cities, the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Nation are the direct
beneficiaries of the project.
Relationship to Other Projects: The western limit of the
proposed cell would tie into the existing east dike of the
CIDMMA. The CIDMMA was originally authorized in 1946 and
construction was completed in 1958. Additionally, twenty-five
significant navigation projects have been constructed within
the Norfolk Harbor, ranging in depth from 6 feet to 50 feet
when measured at mean low water (MLW). Construction and
maintenance dredging materials from all of these projects are
deposited at CIDMMA.
Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of
Engineers Report was signed on 24 October 2006.

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) Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.
(4) Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
(5) Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, California.
(6) Borrego Springs, California.
(7) Colton, California.
(8) Dunlap Stream, San Bernardino, California.
(9) Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, California.
(10) Ontario and Chino, California.
(11) Santa Venetia, California.
(12) Whittier, California.
(13) Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
(14) St. Francisville, Louisiana.
(15) Salem, Massachusetts.
(16) Cass River, Michigan.
(17) Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.
(18) Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
(19) South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
(20) Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.
(21) Acid Brook, New Jersey.
(22) Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.
(23) Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.
(24) Dry and Otter Creeks, 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) Ontario and Chino, California.--The Secretary is
directed to carry out the project for flood damage reduction,
Ontario and China, California, if feasible, notwithstanding any
policy regarding volume of flows.
(3) Santa Venetia, California.--The Secretary is directed
to carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Santa
Venetia, California, if feasible, notwithstanding any policy
regarding volume of flows and is directed to allow the non-
Federal interest to increase its participation in the project,
if necessary to implement the project.
(4) Whittier, California.--The Secretary is directed to
carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Whittier,
California, if feasible, notwithstanding any policy regarding
volume of flows.
(5) South Branch of the Wild Rice River, 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.
(6) Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.--The Secretary
is directed to carry out the project for flood damage
reduction, Acid Brook, New Jersey, if feasible, notwithstanding
any policy regarding volume of flows.
(7) 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

This section 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) St. John's Bluff Training Wall, Duval County, Florida.
(2) Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.
(3) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Iberville Parish,
Louisiana.
(4) Piney Point Lighthouse, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
(5) Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.
(6) Middle Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri.
(7) Platte River, Platte City, Missouri.
(8) Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri.
(9) Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland County, New York.
(10) Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, New York.
(11) Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor,
New York.
(12) Owega Creek, Tioga County, New York.
(13) Howard Road Outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee.
(14) Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County,
Tennessee.
(15) Wolf River Tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee.
(16) Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
(17) 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) Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
(2) East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich, Massachusetts.
(3) Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.
(4) Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.
(5) Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
(6) Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, Massachusetts.
(7) Au Sable River, Michigan.
(8) Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan.
(9) Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota.
(10) Olcott Harbor, Olcott, New York.
Subsection (b) establishes special rules for the following
projects--
(1) 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.
(2) Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota.--Directs the Secretary
to carry out the project for navigation if feasible.

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

This section 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) Ft. George Inlet, Duval County, Florida.
(4) Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
(5) Smithville Lake, Missouri.
(6) Delaware Bay, New Jersey and Delaware.
(7) Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.

Section 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration

This section 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) Black Lake, Alaska.
(3) Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz, California.
(4) Dockweiler Bluffs, Los Angeles County, California.
(5) Salt River, California.
(6) Santa Rosa Creek, Santa Rosa, California.
(7) Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and Lower San Joaquin
River, California.
(8) Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California.
(9) Bayou Texar, Pensacola, Florida.
(10) Biscayne Bay, Florida.
(11) Clam Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida.
(12) Destin Harbor, Florida.
(13) Chattahoochee Fall Line, Georgia and Alabama.
(14) Longwood Cove, Gainesville, Georgia.
(15) City Park, University Lakes, Louisiana.
(16) Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts.
(17) Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts.
(18) Kalamazoo River Watershed, Battle Creek, Michigan.
(19) Rush Lake, Minnesota.
(20) South Fork of the Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota.
(21) St. Louis County, Missouri.
(22) Truckee River, Reno, Nevada.
(23) Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.
(24) Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.
(25) Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
(26) Beaver Creek, Beaver and Salem, Pennsylvania.
(27) Cementon Dam, Lehigh River, Pennsylvania.
(28) Delaware River, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard,
Pennsylvania.
(29) Saucon Creek, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
(30) Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
(31) Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South Carolina.
(32) White River, Bethel, Vermont.

Section 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection

This section 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

This section 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

This section amends section 103 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to prohibit 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

This section 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

This section amends section 214 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000, as amended, to extend the
authorization of the program to 2010.

Section 2004. National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and
Demonstration Program

This section 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 $25,000,000 to $31,000,000.

Section 2005. Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects

This section 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. Aquatic ecosystem restoration

This section amends section 206 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 to increase the annual authorization of
appropriations for Federal participation in aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects from $25,000,000 to $40,000,000.

Section 2007. Small flood damage reduction projects

This section amends section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
1948 to increase the annual authorization of appropriations for
Federal participation in small flood damage reduction projects
from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000.

Section 2008. Modification of projects for improvement of the quality
of the environment

This section amends section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to increase the annual authorization of
appropriations for Federal participation in modification of
Corps of Engineers' projects for improvement of the quality of
the environment from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000.

Section 2009. Written agreement for water resources projects

This section amends section 221 of the Flood Control Act of
1970 and section 912 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 to incorporate several changes into the statutory
requirements for non-Federal interests to enter into written
agreements with the Federal government for carrying out
projects.

Credit for in-kind contributions and work performed before a
partnership agreement

Subsection 2009(a) amends section 221(a) of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 to explicitly authorize the Secretary to
enter into a written agreement with the non-Federal interest to
credit certain costs and in-kind contributions against the non-
Federal share of cost of the project.
The Committee has received numerous requests for project-
specific credit during the development of this Act. While
requests for credit typically have received favorable
consideration in this legislation and prior water resources
legislation, the Committee has 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.
First, new paragraph 221(a)(4) directs the Secretary to
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project,
including a project implemented without specific authorization
in law, such as Corps' continuing authority programs, the value
of in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal interest,
provided the Secretary determines that the property or service
is integral to the project. Under this paragraph, the Secretary
is authorized to provide credit for contributions towards: the
cost of planning, design, management, mitigation, construction,
and construction services provided by the non-Federal interest
for implementation of the project; the value of materials or
services provided before the execution of the project
cooperation agreement (later renamed ``partnership
agreement''); and the value of materials and services provided
after execution of the agreement.
Second, new subparagraph 221(a)(4)(C) authorizes the
Secretary to enter into a separate written agreement the non-
Federal interest to credit the cost of work, including the
value of materials and services, carried out by the non-Federal
interest before the date of enactment of this Act, and before
the execution of the ``partnership agreement'', provided that
such work is specifically referenced in the separate agreement.
Finally, new subparagraph 221(a)(4)(D) limits the scope of
credit authorized by this paragraph. First, the credit amount
cannot exceed the non-Federal share of project costs. Second,
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. Finally, 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.

Nonprofit entities as non-Federal interest

Subsection 2009(b) amends section 221(b) of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 to make nonprofit entities eligible to
serve as the non-Federal interest on projects with the consent
of the local government provided that the nonprofit entity
meets the remaining requirements of section 221(b).

Delegation of authority

Subsection 2009(c) amends section 221 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 to require the Secretary to delegate authority to
District Engineers to enter into certain partnership
agreements. The purpose of the amendments made by this
subsection is to encourage increased efficiency of Corps
project implementation.
Under new subsection 221(e), the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works) is directed to develop policies and
guidelines to govern the content of partnership agreements to
comply with law and policy, and to delegate to District
Engineers, the authority: to approve certain policies contained
in partnership agreements; to approve partnership agreements
that comply with the policies and guidelines of the Secretary;
and to sign partnership agreements for water resources projects
unless notified by the Secretary (within 30 days) that the
Secretary intends to retain the prerogative to sign the
agreement.
Under this new subsection, not all partnership agreements
would require Washington level reviews, and Divisions and
Districts are encouraged to accomplish as much review and
approval, as possible. However, agreements that address novel
or particularly complicated issues should continue to be
reviewed by Corps Headquarters.
New subsection 221(f) requires the Secretary to 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.
New subsection 221(g) requires the Chief of Engineers to
ensure that partnership agreements are made publicly available,
including on the Internet.

Local cooperation and partnership agreements

Subsection 2009(d) amends section 912(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 to eliminate the authority of
the Secretary to collect civil penalties, and, instead, allow
the Secretary to recover simple damages, for costs incurred by
the Secretary from the failure of a non-Federal interest to
comply with the terms of a partnership agreement.
Subsection 2009(f) renames existing ``project cooperation
agreements'' as ``partnership agreements'' to encourage
partnership between the Corps of Engineers and non-Federal
project sponsors.

Section 2010. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse

This section 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 of projects carries out under this authority
is 50 percent. This section authorizes appropriations of
$30,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2008-2012.
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 2011. Compilation of laws

This section directs the Secretary to produce a compilation
of water resources development laws enacted after November 8,
1966, and before January 1, 2008, to reprint compilation
volumes containing laws prior to November 8, 1966, and to make
all compilations available through electronic means, including
the Internet. 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 2012. Dredged material disposal

This section 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 address dredged material disposal.

Section 2013. Wetlands mitigation

This section directs the Secretary, to the maximum extent
practicable and where appropriate, to first consider the use of
wetlands mitigation banks, when carrying out wetlands
mitigation for a water resources project, provided that the
mitigation bank is within the same watershed as the water
resource project requiring mitigation, and that the mitigation
bank meets certain criteria. The Committee has amended the
language in this section from an earlier version of this
language in the prior Congress to express the intent of the
Committee that mitigation projects be carried out in the same
watershed as the proposed activity that necessitates a
mitigation project.
Nothing in this section affects the responsibility of the
Corps of Engineers to apply the regulatory guidelines developed
under section 404(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (40 CFR Part 230) related to mitigation sequencing.

Section 2014. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses

Section 2014 amends section 906(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 to specify the elements that must be
identified in a mitigation plan 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 2015. Remote and subsistence harbors

This section 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 is located in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin 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 2016. Beneficial uses of dredged material

This section 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.
New subsection 204(e) 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;
however under new subsection 204(i), such projects may not to
exceed a total of $3,000,000 in any fiscal year.
Section 2016(c) 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 2017. Cost sharing provisions for certain areas

This section 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: (1) in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, United States Virgin Islands; (2) on Indian country
(as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1156); and (3) on land in the State of
Alaska conveyed to an Alaska Native Village Corporation under
the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act.

Section 2018. Use of other Federal funds

This section authorizes a non-Federal interest to use, and
the Secretary to accept, funds provided by another Federal
agency under any other Federal program, to satisfy any portion
of the non-Federal share of the cost of a water resources study
or project if such funds are authorized to be used to carry out
the study or project.

Section 2019. Revision of project partnership agreement

This section directs the Secretary to revise a partnership
agreement for a water resources project to take into account
the change in Federal participation in the project, when
Congress increases the authorization ceiling for such project.

Section 2020. Cost sharing

This section 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 2021. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction

This section 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 2022. Watershed and river basin assessments

This section amends section 729(f)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 to provide a 75 percent
Federal share for watershed and river basin assessments carried
out under that section to encourage States and local
governments to engage in regional planning.
Paragraph 2022(a)(1) adds the following projects to the
list of priority watershed and river basin assessments under
section 729(d): Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio; Sauk River Basin,
Snohomish and Skagit Counties, Washington; Niagara River Basin,
New York; Genesee River Basin, New York; and White River Basin,
Arkansas and Missouri.

Section 2023. Tribal partnership program

This section 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 2012.

Section 2024. Wildfire firefighting

This section 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 pre-suppression,
detection, and suppression of fires on any units within their
jurisdiction.

Section 2025. Technical assistance

Section 2025 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 up to
$5 million in technical assistance for managing water
resources, at Federal expense. This assistance may include the
provision or integration of hydrologic, economic and
environmental data and analyses. This authority will allow the
Corps of Engineers to participate with State and local
governments in watershed planning. Of the amount authorized, $2
million may be used by the Secretary to enter into cooperative
agreements with nonprofit entities to provide assistance to
rural and small communities.
Section 2025 also increases the amount of State planning
assistance that may be provided annually, under section 22, to
a single State from $500,000 to $1 million, and requires the
Secretary to provide the Committee with an annual report
describing the activities proposed to be funded in each State
under the existing section 22 authority.

Section 2026. Lakes program

This section 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. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local
actions

Section 2027 authorizes the Secretary to assist in the
coordination and scheduling of all agency environmental
assessments, project review, and issuance of permits for the
construction of non-Federal water supply, wastewater
infrastructure, flood damage and storm damage reduction,
ecosystem restoration, and navigation projects that require the
approval of the Secretary, if requested by the non-Federal
interest. Under subsection (g), any costs incurred by the
Secretary for establishing or carrying out a coordination
schedule under section 2027 shall be paid by the non-Federal
interest.
Under section 2027, if the Secretary is responsible for
reviewing and issuing an approval for a non-Federal project,
the Secretary may provide a coordinating role to facilitate
other necessary reviews and approvals. This provision is based
on the Corps' existing authority under section 205 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 to coordinate Federal, State,
and local reviews for non-Federal navigation projects.

Section 2028. Project streamlining

Section 2028 authorizes the Secretary to develop and
implement a coordinated review process for the development of
water resources projects. The coordinate review process
established by the Secretary is intended to ensure that all
reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals
are, to the maximum extent practicable, conducted concurrently
and 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 about the
failure to meet the deadline established by the Secretary. This
section also requires that a participating agency, Indian
tribe, or non-Federal interest that misses the deadline
established by the Secretary prepare a report explaining the
reasons for the missing the deadline and what actions will be
taken to complete or issue the required review, analysis, or
opinion, or determination for issuing a permit, license, or
approval. 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, and to resolve issues and disputes in a timely
fashion. The authority under section 2028 to develop a
coordinated review process for water resources projects is to
be carried out consistent with these NEPA authorities. Section
2028(j) specifically states that 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 statutory requirement or
practice for seeking public comment, or any other power,
jurisdiction, or authority with respect to carrying out a water
resources project.

Section 2029. Cooperative agreements

Section 2029 authorizes the Secretary to enter into
cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations with
expertise in wetlands restoration to carry out such activities
at authorized projects, limited to $1 million per project and
$5 million per fiscal year.

Section 2030. Training funds

Section 2030 authorizes the Secretary to allow persons not
employed by the Department of the Army to participate in
training courses offered by the Corps of Engineers on a
reimbursable basis.

Section 2031. Access to water resource data

Section 2031 directs the Secretary to improve public access
to water resources and related water quality data in the
custody of the Corps and authorizes $5 million a year to carry
out the program.

Section 2032. Shore protection projects

Section 2032 establishes a policy of the United States to
promote beach nourishment for the purposes of flood damage
reduction and hurricane and storm damage reduction and directs
the Secretary to give preference for shore protection projects
where there has already been Federal investment in flood damage
and hurricane and storm damage reduction projects or a need for
prevention or mitigation of impacts to shores and beaches from
Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities.

Section 2033. Ability to pay

Section 2033(a) amends section 103(m)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 to direct the Secretary to
issue, by September 30, 2007, 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 percent to 35
percent. Section 202 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 also directed the Secretary to revise, within one year,
the criteria for reducing a non-Federal cost share based on an
inability to pay in order to address the potential adverse
effects on disadvantaged communities. 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.'' In the
ten years that have passed, and the Secretary still has not met
this obligation. The Committee is now providing until September
20, 2007, to issue new criteria.
Section 2033(b) 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 2034. Leasing authority

Section 2034 amends Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of
1944 to add federally recognized Indian tribes to the list of
entities afforded priority by the Corps of Engineers when
leasing Corps property.

Section 2035. Cost estimates

Section 2035 clarifies that estimates of 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 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 2036. Project planning

Paragraph 2036(a)(1) states the sense of Congress that,
consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and
Guidelines for Water Related Land Resources Implementation
Studies (1983), and subsequent Executive regulations and
communications, the Secretary may select a water resources
project alternative that does not maximize net national
economic development benefits or, for ecosystem restoration
projects, does not maximize national ecosystem restoration
benefits, if there is an overriding reason for selecting
another plan based on other Federal, State, local, and
international concerns.
Consistent with the sense of Congress, paragraph 2036(a)(2)
codifies an example of an ``overriding reason'' for selecting
an alternative other than the national economic development
plan for economic projects (flood control, navigation, and
hurricane and storm damage reduction). This objective is
consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and
Guidelines for Water Related Land Resources Implementation
Studies (1983).
Consistent with the sense of Congress, paragraph 2036(a)(3)
codifies an example of an ``overriding reason'' for selecting
an alternative other than which maximizes ecosystem restoration
benefits for ecosystem restoration projects, provided that such
alternative is shown to be cost-effective and justified
incrementally. This objective is consistent with existing Corps
policy for identifying a National Ecosystem Restoration (NER)
plan. (Planning Guidance Notebook, ER 1105-0-100). This
paragraph does not change existing law under which the costs of
ecosystem restoration projects are deemed to be equal to the
benefits.
Subsection 2036(b) authorizes the Secretary to study and
identify additional benefits when formulating a water resources
project beyond the primary project purpose, provided that the
scope of the study is consistent with the study authorization.
In addition, the Secretary is authorized to pursue such
additional benefits only after obtaining the participation of a
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 2036(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 in the evaluation of structural and
nonstructural alternatives.

Section 2037. Independent peer review

Over the last three Congresses, the Committee has received
testimony and additional 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 current scientific knowledge and economic
principles. 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 and the Corps of
Engineers, itself, have 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, and representatives of interested
stakeholders, waterways users, environmental advocacy
organizations, and 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.
As a result, the Committee has considered and recommends
codifying a process for peer review of Corps studies 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
implications of peer review based on actual information and
experience and to make a 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
peer review if the project has an estimated total cost of more
than $50 million, at the time of the completion of the
reconnaissance study, or if the Governor of a State that would
be affected by a project requests a peer review for the
project. If a $50 million cost threshold had been enacted
during the study process for the projects authorized in this
Act, 26 of the 51 Reports of the Chief of Engineers authorized
in this bill would have been subject to independent review.
Section 2037 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. In
addition, all studies for projects pursued under the Corps'
continuing authorities may be excluded from peer review.
However, under this section, the Chief of Engineers retains
the discretion to subject any study to independent peer review
that the Chief determines is controversial. In addition, if the
head of a Federal or State agency determines that 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, he or she 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.
Section 2037 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. The Committee encourages that a peer
review under this section 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 early stage of the study, they should be corrected before
significant time and resources are expended using flawed models
or methods to analyze project alternatives.
Generally, a review should take no longer than 180 days and
not exceed $500,000; however, the Chief of Engineers 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. 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.
Section 2037 provides that a peer review panel 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 for any recommendations of the
panel, adopted or not adopted, 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 2038. Studies and reports for water resources projects

Section 2038 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 2039. Offshore oil and gas fabrication port

Section 2039 directs the Secretary, when determining the
feasibility of the project for navigation at Atchafalaya River,
Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, 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 Corps is currently
utilizing the standard set forth in section 6009 of Public Law
109-13 in the formulation of the project study for the
Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana,
and has utilized the same standard in recommending the project
for navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana, authorized by
section 1001 of this Act.
The Committee does not intend section 2039 to apply a
different standard for the Atchafalaya River project study.
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 an ongoing
study that utilizes the standard established by section 6009.
The Committee notes that under section 6009 of Public Law 109-
13, the same energy contracts that were considered in the study
for the Port of Iberia could be used to justify a Federal
interest in competing oil and gas fabrication ports, because
under section 6009, merely shifting economic benefits from one
port to another is defined as national economic development
benefits.

Section 2040. Use of firms employing local residents

Section 2040 authorizes the Secretary to enter into a
contract or agreement with a private entity to carry out the
construction of a water resources project only if the entity
provides sufficient assurances to the Secretary that, to the
maximum extent practicable, local residents in the area of the
project will comprise not less than 50 percent of the workforce
employed to perform the contract or agreement, and local
residents in the area of the project will comprise not less
than 50 percent of the workforce employed by each subcontractor
in connection with the contract or agreement. This section
provides limited exceptions where the Secretary may waive this
requirement, and provides that this section will become
effective 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Section 3001. Cook Inlet, Alaska

This section modifies the authorization for transitional
dredging at the Anchorage Harbor project, Cook Inlet, Alaska,
to provide that such dredging shall be included as part of
operation and maintenance of the project.

Section 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska

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

Section 3003. Sitka, Alaska

This section 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

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

Section 3005. Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona

This section modifies the project for flood damage
reduction, Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, to authorize the
Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of
$54,100,000.

Section 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas

This section 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

This section 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(k) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986.

Section 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California

This section modifies the project for flood control,
American and Sacramento Rivers, California (Folsom Dam), to
authorize the Secretary to construct the auxiliary spillway
generally in accordance with the Post Authorization Change
Report, American River Watershed Project (Folsom Dam
Modification and Folsom Dam Raise Projects), dated December
2006, at a total cost of $683,000,000. This section provides
that nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the
authority of the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Bureau of Reclamations, to carry out dam safety activities in
connection with the auxiliary spillway. This section authorizes
the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior to transfer
funds between the Corps and the Bureau for the purpose of
planning, design, and construction of the auxiliary spillway.

Section 3009. Compton Creek, California

This section modifies the project for flood control, Los
Angeles Drainage Areas, California, to add environmental
restoration and recreation as project purposes.

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

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

Section 3011. Hamilton Airfield, California

This section 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 $228,100,000. 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 3012. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel,
California

This section 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 3013. Kaweah River, California

This section 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 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California

This section modifies the project for navigation, Larkspur
Ferry Channel, California, directing the Secretary to prepare a
reevaluation report to determine whether maintenance of the
project is justified, and carry out such maintenance, if
justified.

Section 3015. Llagas Creek, California

This section modifies the project for flood damage
reduction, Llagas Creek, California, to authorize the Secretary
to carry out a project at a total cost of $105,000.00, and
authorizes the non-Federal interest to participate in financing
of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, to the extent necessary to
implement the project.

Section 3016. Magpie Creek, California

This section 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 3017. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California

This section 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 3018. Pinole Creek, California

This section 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 3019. Prado Dam, California

This section 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 3020. Sacramento and American Rivers Flood Control, California

This section 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 3021. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California

This section 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 3022. Santa Cruz Harbor, California

This section 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 3023. Seven Oaks Dam, California

This section 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 3024. Upper Guadalupe River, California

This section modifies the project for flood damage
reduction and recreation, Upper Guadalupe River, California, to
authorize the Secretary to carry out the project in accordance
with the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Damage Reduction, San
Jose, California, Limited Reevaluation Report, dated March,
2004, at a total cost of $244,500,000.

Section 3025. Walnut Creek Channel, California

This section 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 3026. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California

This section 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 3027. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California

This section 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 3028. Yuba River Basin Project, California

This section 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 3029. South Platte River Basin, Colorado

This section modifies the project for flood control and
other purposes on the South Platte River Basin in Colorado to
authorize the Secretary to add environmental restoration as an
authorized purpose for reallocation of water storage in
Chatfield Reservoir.

Section 3030. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware and Maryland

This section modifies the project for navigation,
Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware and Maryland, to include recreation as a project
purpose.

Section 3031. Brevard County, Florida

This section 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 3032. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida

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

Section 3033. Canaveral Harbor, Florida

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

Section 3034. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida

This section modifies the project for shore protection,
Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida, to authorize credit for
the cost of work performed by the non-Federal interest, if
integral to the project.

Section 3035. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida

This section modifies the project for navigation,
Jacksonville Harbor, Florida to authorize the Secretary to
expand the size of the project, in accordance with the Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, and at a total
cost of $14,658,000. 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. Unless otherwise authorized by
Congress, all Corps' studies are cost shared at 50 percent
Federal and 50 percent non-Federal. 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 Corps' District offices to apply correct
cost-sharing to project studies.

Section 3036. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida

This section modifies the project for shore protection,
Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida, to authorize the Secretary
to carry out the project at a total cost of $15,190,000. 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 3037. Miami Harbor, Florida

This section 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 conducted outside the
authorized channel prior to July 18, 2003. The Secretary is
directed to provide credit for the cost of work performed by
the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project.

Section 3038. Peanut Island, Florida

This section 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 3039. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida

This section 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 3040. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida

This section 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. Unless otherwise authorized by Congress, all
Corps' studies are cost shared at 50 percent Federal and 50
percent non-Federal. 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 Corps' District
offices to apply correct cost-sharing to project studies.

Section 3041. Allatoona Lake, Georgia

This section 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 3042. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia

This section 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 3043. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir Improvements, Idaho

This section 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 3044. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois

This section modifies the project for navigation, Muscooten
Bay, Illinois River, Beardstown, Illinois, directing 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 3045. Cache River Levee, Illinois

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

Section 3046. Chicago River, Illinois

This section 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 3047. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois

This section authorizes the Secretary to upgrade and make
permanent an existing dispersal barrier (Barrier I), construct
a second dispersal barrier (Barrier II), and operate and
maintain both barriers as a single project to prevent the
migration of Asian Carp from the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal to Lake Michigan, at Federal expense. This section
provides that operation and maintenance of both Barrier I and
Barrier II, currently under construction, be a Federal
responsibility. This section 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 3048. Emiquon, Illinois

This section 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. This section ensures
that nothing affects the eligibility of the project for
emergency repairs.

Section 3049. LaSalle, Illinois

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

Section 3050. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois

This section 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 3051. Fort Wayne and Vicinity, Indiana

This section 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. This section allows the non-Federal interest to
increase its 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 3052. Koontz Lake, Indiana

This section 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 3053. White River, Indiana

This section 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 3054. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa

This section 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 3055. Prestonsburg, Kentucky

This section 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 3056. Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge
Parish Watershed

This section 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 3057. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana

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

Section 3058. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana

This section 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 3059. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana

This section 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 3060. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to
Shreveport, Louisiana

This section 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 that have been cleared or converted to
agricultural uses, and to incorporate current wildlife and
forestry management measures for the purpose of improving
species diversity.

Section 3061. Melville, Louisiana

This section modifies section 315(a)(2) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 to authorize the City of
Melville as an alternative site for a recreational feature of
the project for flood control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway
System, Louisiana.

Section 3062. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana

This section 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 3063. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out work on
the St. Jude to City Price, Upper Reach A back levee at Federal
cost share of 70 percent.

Section 3064. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey
Canal), Louisiana

This section modifies section 328 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 to direct the Secretary to carry out
rehabilitation, repair, and replacement of the project to
prevent flood damage-hurricane damage reduction, West Bank of
the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana.

Section 3065. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine

This section increases the authorization of Federal funds
for the project being carried out under section 111 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1968 to $26,900,000.

Section 3066. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan

This section 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 3067. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan

This section modifies section 426 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 to authorize the Secretary to carry out
a project to develop and implement projects for the
restoration, conservation, and management, including a review
of lake levels, of the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair,
Michigan. This section authorizes $10 million annually to carry
out this section.

Section 3068. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan

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

Section 3069. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan

This section 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. The Secretary is directed to carry out
the project to maximize the benefit of costs avoided from a
potential terrorist disruption, to enhance overall national
security by avoiding the effects of a shutdown or terrorist
attack, and irrespective of normal policy considerations.

Section 3070. Ada, Minnesota

This section modifies the project for flood damage
reduction, Wild Rice River, Minnesota, to authorize the
Secretary to consider all 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 3071. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota

This section 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 $9,000,000. This
section 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 3072. Grand Marais, Minnesota

This section modifies the project for navigation, Grand
Marais, Minnesota, to direct the Secretary to provide credit
for design work performed by the non-Federal interest before
the date of the partnership agreement for the project, if
integral to the project.

Section 3073. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota

This section 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 3074. Granite Falls, Minnesota

This section 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 in accordance with section 903(c) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; 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 3075. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota

This section modifies the project for navigation, Knife
River Harbor, Minnesota, authorized by section 2 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945, to direct the Secretary to
develop a final design and prepare a plan to correct conditions
at the Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.

Section 3076. Red Lake River, Minnesota

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

Section 3077. Silver Bay, Minnesota

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

Section 3078. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota

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

Section 3079. Two Harbors, Minnesota

This section 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 3080. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi

This section 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 3081. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi

This section 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 the national economic development benefits.

Section 3082. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri

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

Section 3083. L-15 Levee, Missouri

This section directs the Secretary to consider the portion
of the L-15 levee system that is under the jurisdiction of the
Consolidated North County Levee District and situated along the
right descending bank of the Mississippi River and running
upstream approximately 14 miles as a Federal levee for the
purposes of cost sharing under section 5 of the Act of August
18, 1941.

Section 3084. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri

This section 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 partnership agreement, if an
integral part of the project.

Section 3085. River Des Peres, Missouri

This section 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
partnership agreement, if an integral part of the project.

Section 3086. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska

This section 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 3087. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska

This section 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 direct
the Secretary to accept advance funds from the non-Federal
interest as needed to maintain the project schedule.

Section 3088. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey

This section 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
shoreline erosion control, Cape May Point, New Jersey, if the
Secretary determines the incorporation is feasible.

Section 3089. Passaic River Basin Flood Management, New Jersey

This section 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 3090. Buffalo Harbor, New York

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

Section 3091. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York

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

Section 3092. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey

This section 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 percent 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 3093. New York State Canal System

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

Section 3094. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio

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

Section 3095. Mahoning River, Ohio

This section 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 partnership agreement, if an integral part of the
project.

Section 3096. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware

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

Section 3097. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania

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

Section 3098. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania

This section 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 if the Secretary determines the work to be an
integral part of the project.

Section 3099. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

This section 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 3100. South Central Pennsylvania

This section 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 3101. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania

This section 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 3102. Cedar Bayou, Texas

This section 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 3103. Freeport Harbor, Texas

This section 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
partnership agreement, if the Secretary determines the work to
be an integral part of the project, and to remove the sunken
Corps of Engineers vessel ``COMSTOCK'' at Federal expense.

Section 3104. Lake Kemp, Texas

This section 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 3105. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas

This section modifies the project for flood control, Lower
Rio Grande Basin, Texas, to include as part of the project
flood protection works to reroute drainage to Raymondville
Drain constructed by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary
determines that such work meets feasibility requirements; 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 3106. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas

This section 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 3107. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas

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

Section 3108. Proctor Lake, Texas

This section authorizes the Secretary to purchase fee
simple title to all properties located within the operational
boundaries of the flood control project at Proctor Lake, Texas.

Section 3109. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas

This section 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 3110. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties,
Virginia

This section 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 3111. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia

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

Section 3112. Duwamish/Green, Washington

This section 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 3113. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington

This section 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 3114. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia

This section 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 3115. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia

This section modifies section 30(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988, as modified, to ensure the
preservation and restoration of structures associated with
``Jenkins House'' located within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp,
West Virginia.

Section 3116. Northern West Virginia

This section 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, at a total cost of $12 million.

Section 3117. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin

This section 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 $405,000.

Section 3118. Mississippi River Headwaters reservoirs

This section 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 3119. Continuation of project authorizations

This section continues the authorization for an additional
5 years for the following projects: (1) the project for
navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California; (2)
the project for flood control, Agana River, Guam; and (3) the
project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts.

Section 3120. Project reauthorizations

This section renews the authorizations for: (1) the project
for navigation in Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan and
Wisconsin; (2) the project for the south part of the outer
harbor, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin; and (3) the project for
dredging, Hearding Inland Inlet, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.

Section 3121. Project deauthorizations

This section deauthorizes a portion of the following
projects for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut; Mystic
River, Connecticut; New London Harbor, Connecticut; Falmouth
Harbor, Massachusetts; Island End River, Massachusetts; City
Waterway, Tacoma, Washington; Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts;
Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut; Saco River, Maine;
Union River, Maine; and Mystic River, Massachusetts.
This section 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 3122. Land conveyances

This section conveys Federal properties at the following
locations: (1) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri; (2)
Milford, Kansas; (3) Pike County, Missouri; (4) Boardman,
Oregon; (5) Lowell, Oregon; (6) Lowell, Oregon; (7) Richard B.
Russell Lake, South Carolina, and (8) Denison, Texas.

Section 3123. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use
restrictions

This section extinguishes reversionary interests and use
restrictions in deeds conveying properties in: (1) Nez Perce
County, Idaho; (2) Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River,
Tennessee; and (3) Port of Pasco, Washington.

TITLE IV--STUDIES

Section 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes basin program

This section 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

This section 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

This section 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. Delaware River

This section directs the Secretary, in consultation with
the Delaware River Basin Commission and the States of Delaware,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, to review the report of
the Chief of Engineers on the Delaware River, as well as other
pertinent reports, to determine whether any modifications of
recommendations contained in the first report are advisable at
the present time, in the interest of flood damage reduction,
ecosystem restoration, and other related problems.

Section 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska

This section 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

This section 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

This section 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

This section 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

This section 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

This section 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. Elkhorn Slough Estuary, California

This section 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 4012. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California

This section 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 4013. Los Angeles River, California

This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration, flood control, and recreation 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. This section
authorizes appropriations of $20 million to carry out
demonstration projects.

Section 4014. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California

This section 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 4015. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California

This section 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 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 4016. Napa River, St. Helena, California

This section 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 4017. Orick, California

This section 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 4018. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California

This section 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 4019. Sacramento River, California

This section 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 4020. San Diego County, California

This section 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 four existing reservoirs to increase
usable storage capacity.

Section 4021. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
California

This section 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 4022. South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, California

This section 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 4023. Twentynine Palms, California

This section 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 4024. Yucca Valley, California

This section 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 4025. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado

This section 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 4026. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek,
Wilmington, Delaware

This section 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 4027. Collier County Beaches, Florida

This section 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 4028. Lower St. Johns River, Florida

This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental protection and restoration, including improved
water quality, at Lower St. Johns River, Florida.

Section 4029. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida

This section 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 4030. Meriwether County, Georgia

This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility carrying out a project for water
supply, Meriwether County, Georgia.

Section 4031. Tybee Island, Georgia

This section 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 4032. Boise River, Idaho

This section 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 4033. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois

This section 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 4034. Salem, Indiana

This section 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 4035. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky

This section 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 4036. Dewey Lake, Kentucky

This section 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 4037. Louisville, Kentucky

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

Section 4038. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island

This section 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 4039. Clinton River, Michigan

This section directs the Secretary to carry out a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
environmental restoration on the Clinton River, Michigan.

Section 4040. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan

This section 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 4041. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin

This section 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 4042. Northeast Mississippi

This section 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 4043. St. Louis, Missouri

This section 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 4044. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey

This section 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 4045. Bayonne, New Jersey

This section 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 4046. Carteret, New Jersey

Section 4047. Gloucester County, New Jersey

This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood
damage reduction, Gloucester County, 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 4048. Perth Amboy, New Jersey

This section 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 4049. Batavia, New York

This section 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 4050. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York

This section 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 4051. Finger Lakes, New York

This section 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 4052. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York

This section 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 4053. Newtown Creek, New York

This section 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 4054. Niagara River, New York

This section 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 4055. Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York

This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
shoreline protection in the vicinity of the confluence of the
Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York Bay, Shore Parkway
Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.

Section 4056. Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York

This section 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 4057. Lincoln County, North Carolina

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

Section 4058. Wilkes County, North Carolina

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

Section 4059. Yadkinville, North Carolina

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

Section 4060. Lake Erie, Ohio

This section 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 4061. Ohio River, Ohio

This section 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 4062. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements,
Oregon

This section 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 4063. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon

This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for
ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon. This
section 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 4064. Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania

This section 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 4065. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania

This section 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 4066. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction

This section 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 4067. Williamsport, Pennsylvania

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

Section 4068. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania

This section 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 4069. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico

This section 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. This section
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 4070. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina

This section 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 4071. Broad River, York County, South Carolina

This section 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 4072. Chattanooga, Tennessee

This section 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 4073. Cleveland, Tennessee

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

Section 4074. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee

This section 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 4075. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee

This section 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 4076. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis, Tennessee

This section 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 at:
Cypress Creek, Nonconnah Creek, Ensley, Marble Bayou, and Bayou
Gayoso.

Section 4077. Abilene, Texas

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

Section 4078. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas

This section 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 4079. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas

This section directs the Secretary to reevaluate the
project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration,
and recreation to develop alternatives to the separable
environmental restoration element of the project, and to
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of additional
flood damage reduction and erosion control measures within the
boundaries of the project.

Section 4080. Port of Galveston, Texas

This section 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 4081. Grand County and Moab, Utah

This section 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 4082. Southwestern Utah

This section 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 4083. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina

This section 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 4084. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington

This section 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 4085. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia

This section 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 4086. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin

This section 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 4087. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin

This section 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.

Section 4088. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin

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

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels

This section 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

This section 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) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.
(2) 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.
(3) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
(4) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
(5) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and
Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
(6) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
(7) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
(8) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.
(9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.
(10) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
(11) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene,
Sullivan, and Ulster counties, New York.
(12) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey.
(13) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.
(14) Ramapo River watershed, New York.
(15) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.
(16) 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.
(17) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
(18) Unami Creek, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
(19) Sauk River basin, Washington.

Section 5003. Dam safety

This section 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, Flint River, Flint, Michigan.
(3) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
(4) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
(5) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.
(6) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
(7) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
(8) 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.

Section 5004. Structural integrity evaluations

This section 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

This section 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

This section 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 Webb, Zapata, Starr, and Hidalgo Counties, Texas.

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

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

Section 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects

This section 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 navigation, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas
and Louisiana.
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.

Section 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment

This section 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

This section 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

This section amends the Missouri and Middle Mississippi
River Enhancement Project to extend the authorization period
through 2015.

Section 5012. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration

This section amends Section 506 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 to allow 100 percent 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

This section 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 2012.

Section 5014. Great Lakes tributary model

This section 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 2012.

Section 5015. Great Lakes navigation

The Great Lakes contain 134 deep-draft harbors and six
connecting channels within the Corps of Engineers' dredging
responsibility, including 25 of the nation's largest ports. The
total waterborne commerce on the Great Lakes equals nearly 7
percent of the nation's maritime commerce. Recent shortfalls in
the Corps' dredging appropriation have delayed dredging at many
Great Lakes ports and waterways. The low water levels that have
plagued the Lakes since the late 1990s have only exacerbated
the problem. As a result, the largest vessels in the Great
Lakes fleet must forfeit nearly 270 tons of cargo for each 1-
inch reduction in loaded draft. Ocean-going vessels in the
international trade lose roughly 100 tons of cargo for each 1-
inch loss of draft.
Section 5015 directs the Secretary, using available
appropriated funds, to expedite the operation and maintenance,
including dredging, of the navigation features of the Great
Lakes and Connecting Channels for the purpose of supporting
commercial navigation to authorized project depths.

Section 5016. Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project

This section authorizes appropriations of $4 million for
the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and
State agencies, to study, design, and carry out a project for
preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance
species, including the Asian carp, through the Upper
Mississippi River system. Section 5016 directs the Secretary to
complete the study, design, and construction of the project not
later than six months after the date of enactment of this Act.
Subsection 5016(b) requires the Secretary, at Federal expense,
to investigate and identify environmentally sound methods for
preventing and reducing the movement of nuisance species;
study, design, and carry out the project at Lock and Dam 11,
north of Dubuque, Iowa, using available technologies; monitor
the project in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; and to operate and maintain the project.

Section 5017. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins,
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

This section authorizes the Division Engineer, North
Atlantic Division, to serve as 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. Section 5017 also authorizes the Secretary
to enter into separate agreements with the Delaware River Basin
Commission, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the
Potomac Basin Commission to provide temporary water supply and
storage at Corps dam facilities 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 5018. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection
program

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

Section 5019. Hypoxia assessment

This section authorizes the Secretary to participate with
Federal, State, and local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit
entities, regional researchers, and other interested parties to
assess the causes of and efforts to reduce or eliminate hypoxia
in the Gulf of Mexico. A consortium exists between Ohio State
University and Louisiana State University to address these
issues, which includes 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 5020. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy
evaluation and monitoring program

This section 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 5021. Lock and dam security

This section 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 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 5022. Rehabilitation

This section directs the Secretary to rehabilitate and
improve the water-related and transportation infrastructure for
the historic property in the Anacostia River Watershed, located
in the District of Columbia, including measures to address wet
weather conditions. This section authorizes the Secretary to
accept funds provided for such project under any other Federal
program.

Section 5023. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake
River Salmon survival

This section modifies section 511 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 to authorize appropriations of $25
million for research and development activities to promote the
survival of salmon, especially salmon in the Columbia and Snake
River Basin, and $10 million for the Secretary shall carry out
activities to reduce nesting populations of avian predators on
dredge spoil islands in the Columbia River under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.

Section 5024. Auburn, Alabama

This section authorizes $5,000,000 for the Secretary to
provide technical assistance relating to water supply for
Auburn, Alabama.

Section 5025. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama

This section directs the Secretary to design and construct
the locally preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook
Creek, Huntsville, Alabama, and to utilize, to the extent
practicable, the existing detailed project report for the
project prepared under the authority of section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948. Section 5025 also allows the non-
Federal interest to increase its participation in the project
to the extent necessary to implement the project, and directs
the Secretary to credit towards the non-Federal share the cost
of work carried out before the partnership agreement, if the
Secretary determines the work is integral to the project.

Section 5026. Alaska

This section 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 percent 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 drainage abatement of
abandoned mines.

Section 5027. Barrow, Alaska

This section 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 eroding roadway.

Section 5028. Coffman Cove, Alaska

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

Section 5029. Fire Island, Alaska

This section authorizes appropriations of $5 million for
the Secretary to provide planning, design, and construction
assistance to a non-Federal interest for the construction of a
causeway between Port Campbell and Fire Island, Alaska.

Section 5030. Fort Yukon, Alaska

This section authorizes the Secretary to make repairs to
the dike at Fort Yukon, Alaska, in accordance with the Corps of
Engineers' standards.

Section 5031. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska

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

Section 5032. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska

This section 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 5033. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska

This section authorizes $2,000,000 to fund the removal of
rubble, sediment, and rock impeding the entrance to the St.
Herman and St. Paul harbors at Kodiak, Alaska.

Section 5034. Tanana River, Alaska

This section 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 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.

Section 5035. Valdez, Alaska

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

Section 5036. Whittier, Alaska

This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study, at
Federal expense, 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. 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 5037. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska

This section defines the general navigation features of the
project for navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.

Section 5038. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas

This section authorizes the Secretary to perform operation,
maintenance and rehabilitation of authorized and completed
levees on the White River between Augusta and Clarendon,
Arkansas. This section 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 benefit a Federal wildlife refuge.

Section 5039. Des Arc Levee Protection, Arkansas

This section 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.
This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out measures to
eliminate the deficiency if the Secretary determines both
conditions exist.

Section 5040. Loomis Landing, Arkansas

This section 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 5041. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri

This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine if increased siltation and streambank erosion in the
St. Francis River basin, Arkansas and Missouri, are the result
of a Federal flood control project, and to mitigate such
siltation or erosion to the extent that the Secretary
determines that the siltation or erosion are the result of a
Federal flood control project.

Section 5042. Cambria, California

This section 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 the work is an integral part of the project.

Section 5043. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California;
Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California

This section 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 office of the district engineer in San
Francisco, California.

Section 5044. Dana Point Harbor, California

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

Section 5045. East San Joaquin County, California

This section 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 5046. Eastern Santa Clara Basin, California

This section 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 5047. Los Osos, California

This section amends section 219(c)(27) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 to modify the non-Federal
interest that will participate in the project.

Section 5048. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California

This section directs the Secretary to review the Kings
River Fisheries Management Program Framework Agreement and
authorizes appropriations of $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. This section 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 5049. Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel
Basin, California

This section authorizes appropriations of $5 million for
the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State,
and local entities, to develop a comprehensive plan for the
management of water resources in the Raymond Basin, Six Basins,
Chino Basin, and the San Gabriel Basin, California, and to
carry our demonstration projects identified in the plan.

Section 5050. San Francisco, California

This section authorizes appropriations of $25,000,000 for
the Secretary to participate in efforts related to navigation-
related facilities.

Section 5051. San Francisco, California, waterfront area

This section declares a portion of the San Francisco,
California, waterfront to be nonnavigable.

Section 5052. San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and suisun march
ecosystem restoration

This section directs the Secretary to complete work, as
expeditiously as practicable, on the ongoing San Pablo Bay
watershed study to determine the feasibility of carrying out
projects to restore, preserve, and protect the San Pablo Bay
watershed. This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a
separate study for similar activities in the Suisun Marsh,
California. Upon completion of the reports, the Secretary is
authorized to participate in the planning, design, or
construction of critical restoration projects to protect the
San Pablo and Suisun Bay Marsh watersheds. This section
authorizes nonprofit organizations to serve as the non-Federal
interest for projects carried out under this section, with the
consent of the local government, authorizes credit for the
project, and authorizes appropriations of $40 million for the
Secretary to carry out this section.

Section 5053. Stockton, California

This section 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. This section 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 5054. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor,
Connecticut

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

Section 5055. Florida Keys water quality improvements

This section 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 5056. Lake Worth, Florida

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out
necessary repairs for the Lake Worth bulkhead replacement
project, West Palm Beach, Florida, at a total cost of
$9,000,000.

Section 5057. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho

This section 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 5058. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects

This section authorizes $30,000,000 for the Secretary to
participate in the reconstruction of certain levees on the
Mississippi River if the Secretary determines that the levees
were properly operated and maintained.

Section 5059. Illinois River Basin restoration

This section 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 5060. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration

This section authorizes the Secretary to develop a
comprehensive plan for the purpose of restoring the Kaskaskia
River Basin.

Section 5061. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago,
Illinois

This section directs the Secretary to provide assistance
for a project to develop maps identifying flood inundation
areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.

Section 5062. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois

This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a third-
party review of the Promontory Point section of the project
authorized by Section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 to determine whether the existing
project meets the standard for an historic property designation
based original limestone step design.

Section 5063. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana

This section 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 5064. Calumet Region, Indiana

This section amends section 219(f)(12) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization
of appropriations and to authorize credit for work carried out
by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the project.

Section 5065. Paducah, Kentucky

This section 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 5066. Southern and Eastern Kentucky

This section authorizes the Secretary to use 10 percent of
appropriated amounts for administrative expenses.

Section 5067. Winchester, Kentucky

This section authorizes technical, planning, and design
assistance for a wastewater infrastructure project, Winchester,
Kentucky.

Section 5068. Baton Rouge, Louisiana

This section amends section 219(f)(21) of the Water
Resources and Development Act of 1992 to increase the
authorization of appropriations to $35,000,000.

Section 5069. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana

This section directs the Secretary to expedite completion
of the dredged material management plan for the Calcasieu Ship
Channel, Louisiana.

Section 5070. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana

This section 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 nearby Air Force facility.

Section 5071. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana

This section modifies an ongoing study for waterfront and
riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement,
Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, to
modify the scope of the study and authorize credit for work
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the
partnership agreement, if integral to the project. Amends
section 517 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to
make a technical correction to the description of a project.

Section 5072. Charlestown, Maryland

This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
project for non-structural flood control, Charlestown,
Maryland, to include land acquisition from willing sellers, and
authorizes appropriations of $2 million to carry out this
section.

Section 5073. Anacostia River, District of Columbia, Maryland, and
Virginia

This section directs the Secretary to develop a
comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Anacostia River
and its tributaries.

Section 5074. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Maryland and Delaware

This section authorizes the Secretary to provide technical
assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture in carrying out
projects in the States of Maryland and Delaware 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 5075. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites

This section authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with the
Commonwealth of 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 5076. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan

This section 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 5077. Crookston, Minnesota

This section 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 5078. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota

This section amends section 219(f)(61) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 to specify the entities
eligible 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 5079. Itasca County, Minnesota

This section directs the Secretary to carry out the
authorized project for flood damage reduction, Trout Lake and
Canisteo Pit, Itasca County, Minnesota.

Section 5080. Minneapolis, Minnesota

This section 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 5081. Northeastern Minnesota

This section 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, to increase the authorization of
appropriations for the program to address a sanitary sewer
overflow project in Duluth, Minnesota, and to allow 10 percent
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 exceeds the non-Federal share
of project costs.

Section 5082. Wild Rice River, Minnesota

This section directs the Secretary to expedite the general
reevaluation report authorized by section 438 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000, for the project for flood
protection, Wild Rice River, Minnesota, to develop alternatives
to the Twin Valley Lake feature, and upon completion of the
report, to construct the project at a total cost of
$20,000,000.

Section 5083. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi

This section 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 5084. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois

This section 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 5085. St. Louis, Missouri

This section amends section 219(f)(32) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 to increase the authorization
of appropriations to $35,000,000, and to modify the geographic
scope of projects authorized to be carried out under this
section.

Section 5086. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey

This section 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 to
$35,000,000.

Section 5087. Atlantic Coast of New York

This section 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 appropriations of
$800,000 for the construction of a tsunami warning system.

Section 5088. College Point, New York City, New York

This section authorizes the Secretary to give priority to
environmental dredging in College Point, New York City, New
York.

Section 5089. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York

This section 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 5090. Hudson River, New York

This section authorizes appropriations of $5 million 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 5091. Mount Morris Dam, New York

This section 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 5092. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina

This section directs the Secretary to expedite a revised
permanent contract for water supply storage at John H. Kerr Dam
and Reservoir, North Carolina.

Section 5093. Stanly County, North Carolina

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

Section 5094. Cincinnati, Ohio

This section authorizes appropriations of $25 million for
the Secretary to carry out ecosystem restoration and
recreational projects consistent with the Central Riverfront
Park Master Plan, dated December 1999. This section authorizes
credit for the cost of planning, design, and construction work
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the partnership
agreement if the Secretary determines the work is integral to
the project.

Section 5095. Toussaint River, Ohio

This section 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 the
Toussaint River.

Section 5096. Eugene, Oregon

This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study of
the feasibility of restoring the millrace in Eugene, Oregon,
and, if feasible, carry out the restoration. This section
directs the Secretary to include non-economic benefits when
determining feasibility. This section authorizes appropriations
of $20 million to carry out this section.

Section 5097. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon

This section authorizes the Secretary to treat work carried
out for emergency corrective action at Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon,
as a dam safety project. This section authorizes the Secretary
to recover the cost of work carried out in accordance with
section 1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

Section 5098. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

This section 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 5099. Kehly Run Dam, Pennsylvania

This section amends section 504 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 to clarify that there are multiple dams
on Kehly Run, Pennsylvania.

Section 5100. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania

This section 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 5101. Northeast Pennsylvania

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

Section 5102. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York

This section 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. This section 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 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 5103. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico

This section 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. Because the non-Federal report was prepared by
the Corps of Engineers under its authority to perform work for
others, the review should be prompt and less expensive than a
review of a study proposed by an outside entity.

Section 5104. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration, South Dakota

This section makes changes to the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
Restoration Trust Fund, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe Trust Funds, and the State of South Dakota
Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, authorized by
section 602 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999.

Section 5105. Fritz Landing, Tennessee

This section 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 5106. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee

This section directs the Secretary to construct a trail
system at the J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Ohio River
Basin, Tennessee.

Section 5107. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee

This section 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 5108. Tennessee River partnership

This section 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 5109. Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and
Mississippi

This section authorizes appropriations of $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 5110. Bosque River Watershed, Texas

This section directs the Secretary to develop a
comprehensive plan for restoring, preserving, and protecting
the Bosque River Watershed, Texas, and authorizes
appropriations of $5,000,000 to develop the plan and implement
projects to demonstrate practicable alternatives. This section
authorizes the Secretary to work with public, non-profit
entities in carrying out this section. Under this section, the
Secretary may work with Texas A&M University to assist the
Secretary under this authority.

Section 5111. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas

This section directs the Secretary to review two locally-
prepared plans for the project for flood damage reduction,
Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas, and to carry out the plans, if
technically sound and environmentally acceptable, at a total
cost of $459,000,000. This section authorizes credit for work
performed by the non-Federal interest, if integral to the
project authorized by this section, and directs the Secretary
to accept funds provided by the non-Federal interest in advance
of the Federal share for planning, engineering, and design
work, and to credit such funds against the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project.

Section 5112. Harris County, Texas

This section 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 5113. Onion Creek, Texas

This section 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 5114. Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia

This section 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 5115. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia

This section authorizes the Secretary to accept funds from
the National Park Service to restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax
County, Virginia.

Section 5116. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington

This section 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 5117. Hamilton Island campground, Washington

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

Section 5118. Puget Island, Washington

This section 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 5119. Willapa Bay, Washington

This section 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 5120. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control

This section amends section 581 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 to expand the scope of the authority
and to increase the authorization to $90,000,000.

Section 5121. Central West Virginia

This section 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 percent of appropriated
amounts to be used for administrative expenses.

Section 5122. Southern West Virginia

This section 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 percent of appropriated
amounts to be used for administrative expenses.

Section 5138. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal
interests

This section 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) Perris, California;
(2) Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois;
(3) Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana;
(4) Buffalo Bayou, Texas; and
(5) Halls Bayou, Texas.

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 the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, except that
operation and maintenance shall remain a non-Federal
responsibility.

Section 6002. Pilot projects

This section increases the authorization for the
Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin aquifer storage and recovery
pilot project, authorized under section 601(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000.

Section 6003. Maximum cost of projects

Subsection 6003(a) amends section 601(b) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 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.
Subsection 6003(b) amends section 601(c) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 to ensure that section 902 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 applies additional
modifications to the Central and Southern Florida project
through future project implementation reports authorized under
section 601(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

Section 6004. Project authorization

This section amends section 601(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 to authorize three projects as part the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan:
(1) 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, at a total cost of
$1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $682,500,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $682,500,000. 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. The Secretary should sequence the
construction of this project in a cost-effective manner.
(2) The project for environmental restoration, Picayune
Strand, Florida, substantially in accordance with the Picayune
Strand: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated September 15,
2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $187,665,000.
(3) The project for environmental restoration, Site 1
Impoundment, Florida, substantially in accordance with the Site
1 Impoundment: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December
19, 2006, at a total cost of 80,840,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $40,420,000 and a non-Federal cost of
$40,420,000.

Section 6005. Credit

This section 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 the Secretary to enter into a
written 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 2009 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

This section 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

This section increases the authorization for critical
restoration projects for the Everglades authorized under
section 528(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996.

Section 6008. Modified water deliveries

Section 6008 authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
project to raise a portion of U.S. Highway 41 (Tamiami Trail),
substantially in accordance with the Revised General
Reevaluation Report/Second Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for the Tamiami Trail Modifications, Modified Water
Deliveries to Everglades National Park, dated August 2005, at a
total cost of $144,131,000. Paragraph 6008(c)(1) directs that
the costs to raise the Tamiami Trail be shared equally between
the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.
Substantial portions of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan depend upon an operating modified water
deliveries project to be effective; however, in order to
institute an effective modified water deliveries project, a
portion of the Tamiami Trail, located between Water
Conservation Area 3B and the Everglades National Park, must be
modified to increase the volume of water entering into the
Park.
The Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act
(Pub. L. 101-229) authorized the Secretary to undertake certain
actions to improve water deliveries to the Everglades National
Park and to take steps to restore natural hydrologic conditions
to the extent practicable. The General Design Memorandum called
for in Pub. L. 101-229 was completed in June 1992. Under the
provisions of this memorandum and Environmental Impact
Statement for Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National
Park, water would be transferred from Water Conservation Area
3B to the L-29 Canal (Tamiami Canal) and through the existing
culvert system south under the Tamiami Trail into Northeast
Shark River Slough. When the memorandum was completed in 1992,
it was believed that existing culverts under the roadway would
be adequate to convey the flow of water. Subsequent
hydrological analyses, however, revealed that the head height
in the L-29 Canal required for the culverts to convey the
increased water could adversely affect the structure of Tamiami
Trail and overtop low areas along the highway under certain
conditions.
Alternative means for water conveyance were evaluated
through the preparation of a General Reevaluation Report and
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the final version
of which was coordinated with the public in December 2003.
However, concerns regarding probable damage to Tamiami Trail
were raised during and subsequent to the public and agency
review of the final report, and the Final General Reevaluation
Report was withdrawn without a signed Record of Decision.
In August 2005, the Jacksonville District of the Corps, in
coordination with the South Florida Water Management District,
released a Revised General Reevaluation Report/Second
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Tamiami
Trail Modifications, Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades
National Park. This report recommended a tentatively selected
plan that would raise three miles of the Tamiami Trail
(Alternative 14, Two-Mile Bridge West and One-Mile Bridge East)
to allow for increased water flows from Water Conservation Area
3B to the Everglades National Park.
The Two-Mile Bridge West and One-Mile Bridge East
alternative, authorized by this section, consists of providing
a conveyance opening through the Tamiami Trail by removing
portions of the existing highway and embankment. Bridges would
be constructed over the openings to replace the removed
sections of road and maintain motor vehicle traffic across the
openings. The eastern bridge would be located approximately one
mile west of S-334 and extend to the west for approximately one
mile. The western bridge would extend from just east of the
Blue Shanty Canal to one-half mile east of the Osceola Camp.

Section 6009. Deauthorizations

This section deauthorizes the uncompleted portions of three
projects that have been superseded by the Indian River Lagoon
South, project for ecosystem restoration. The total cost of
deauthorized projects is $240,389,000.

Section 6010. Regional engineering model for environmental restoration

This section authorizes appropriations of $10 million for
the Secretary to complete the development and testing of the
regional engineering model for environmental restoration
(REMER) as expeditiously as practicable. Authorizes the
Secretary to use REMER for the development of future water
resources projects, including projects developed pursuant to
section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

Section 7001. Definitions

This section provides definitions for ``coastal Louisiana
ecosystem'', ``Governor'', ``Plan'', and ``Task Force''.

Section 7002. Comprehensive plan

Subsection 7002(a) directs the Secretary, in coordination
with the Governor of the State of Louisiana, to develop a
comprehensive plan for protecting, preserving, and restoring
the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
Subsection 7002(b) directs the Secretary to integrate the
comprehensive plan into the analysis and design of the ongoing
long-term hurricane protection study authorized by title I of
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006, and
scheduled to be completed by November 2007.
Subsection 7002(c) requires the Secretary, in developing
the comprehensive plan, to ensure the plan is consistent with
the goals, analysis, and design of the comprehensive coastal
protection master plan authorized by the State of Louisiana,
including the maximum use of water and sediment diversions for
coastal restoration purposes consistent with flood control and
navigation purposes, a schedule for the design and
implementation of large-scale water and sediment reintroduction
projects, and the assessment of alterations in the operation of
the Old River Control Structure consistent with flood control
and navigation purposes.
Subsections 7002(d) and (e) establish specific components
to be described in, and projects, programs, and existing plans
that must be considered for integration into, the comprehensive
plan. Subsection 7002(f) requires the Secretary to submit the
comprehensive plan to Congress within one year of the date of
enactment, and to provide updates and an assessment of progress
made in implementing the plan at least every five years after
the date of submission.

Section 7003. Louisiana coastal area

Subsection 7003(a) authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
program for ecosystem restoration of the Louisiana Coastal
Area, Louisiana, substantially in accordance with the Report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated January 31, 2005.
Subsection 7003(b) establishes a list of priority
considerations for the Secretary to utilize in carrying out the
program for ecosystem restoration authorized under subsection
7003(a).

Section 7004. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration
Task Force

Subsection 7004 establishes a Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem
Protection and Restoration Task Force (``Task Force''),
comprised of the Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior, the
Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary
of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Commandant of the
Coast Guard, the Coastal Advisor to the Governor of Louisiana,
the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources,
and a representative of the Governor of Louisiana's Advisory
Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation.
This section authorizes the Task Force to make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding the policies,
strategies, plans, programs, projects, and activities for
addressing conservation, protection, restoration, and
maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; the financial
participation of each agency represented; and the development
of the comprehensive plan under section 7002(a). The Task Force
is required to submit a biennial report to Congress that
summarizes the activities of the Task Force.
Subsection 7004(e) authorizes the Task Force to establish
working groups to assist the Task Force in carrying out its
responsibilities, including to advise the Task Force on
opportunities to integrate the planning, engineering, design,
implementation, and performance of Corps projects in those
areas in Louisiana for which a major disaster was declared by
the President as a result of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita.

Section 7005. Project modifications

Section 7005 directs the Secretary to review, in
cooperation with the respective non-Federal interest, each
Federally-authorized water resource project in the coastal
Louisiana ecosystem being carried out or completed as of the
date of enactment of this Act to determine whether the project
needs to be modified in light of the program for ecosystem
restoration contained in the Report of the Chief for the
Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, authorized by section 7003.
Section 7005 also directs the Secretary, after an
opportunity for public notice and comment, to submit to the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works a report
describing potential modifications. This subsection authorizes
appropriations of $10 million for the Secretary to carry out
such modifications.

Section 7006. Construction

Section 7006 authorizes appropriations of $100 million for
the Secretary to carry out a coastal Louisiana ecosystem
program substantially in accordance with the Report of the
Chief of Engineers for the Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana,
dated January 31, 2005.
Section 7006(b) authorizes appropriations of $100 million
for the Secretary to carry out demonstration projects
substantially in accordance with the Report of the Chief for
the Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana. The total maximum cost
of an individual project under this subsection shall not exceed
$25 million.
Section 7006(c) authorizes the Secretary to carry out the
following projects substantially in accordance with the Report
of the Chief of Engineers for the Louisiana Coastal Area,
Louisiana, dated January 31, 2005:
(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; and
(5) Medium diversion at Myrtle Grove with dedicated
dredging at a total cost of $278,300,000.
Paragraph 7006(c)(2) directs the Secretary to carry out
such modifications to the ecosystem restoration features
indentified in the Report of the Chief of Engineers for the
Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, as may be necessary to
address the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to
ensure that such modifications are taken into account in
carrying out the study of comprehensive hurricane protection
authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2247).
Subsection 7006(d) authorizes appropriations of $100
million for the Secretary to carry out a program, within the
coastal Louisiana ecosystem, for the beneficial reuse of
material dredged from federally maintained waterways.
Subsection 7006(e) authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
project for ecosystem restoration for the Chenier Plain,
Louisiana, and the following projects referred to in the Report
of the Chief of Engineers for the Louisiana Coastal Area,
Louisiana, if the Secretary determines that such projects are
feasible:
(1) Land Bridge between Caillou Lake and the Gulf of
Mexico at a total cost of $56,300,000;
(2) Gulf Shoreline at Point Au Fer Island at a total
cost of $43,400,000;
(3) Modification of Caernarvon Diversion at a total
cost of $20,700,000; and
(4) Modification of Davis Pond Diversion at a total
cost of $64,200,000.
Paragraph 7006(e)(2) provides that no appropriations shall
be made to construct any project under subsection 7006(e)
unless a feasibility report on the project is provided to the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and favorable
resolutions have been approved by each committee.

Section 7007. Non-Federal cost share

Section 7007 authorizes credit for the project, and directs
the Secretary to monitor the contributions of the non-Federal
interest to ensure that, for each 5-year period, that the non-
Federal interest keeps pace with the non-Federal share of the
cost of studies and projects under this title.
This section also authorizes the non-Federal interest to
use, and the Secretary to 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.

Section 7008. Project justification

Section 7008 authorizes the Secretary to determine that any
project or activity carried out under this title is justified
by the environmental benefits derived by the coastal Louisiana
ecosystem, and no further economic justification is required if
the Secretary determines the project or activity is cost-
effective.

Section 7009. Independent review

This section directs the Secretary to establish the
Louisiana Water Resources Council which shall serve as the
exclusive peer review panel for projects under this title as
required by section 2037 of this Act.

Section 7010. Expedited reports

Section 7010 directs the Secretary to expedite the
completion for the following reports, and if the Secretary
determines that a project is justified in the completed report,
proceed directly to preconstruction engineering and design:
(1) The projects identified in the study of
comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by title
I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2447);
(2) A project for ecosystem restoration for the
Chenier Plain, Louisiana;
(3) The project for Multipurpose Operation of Houma
Navigation Lock;
(4) The project for Terrebonne Basin Barrier
Shoreline Restoration;
(5) The project for Small Diversion at Convent/Blind
River;
(6) The project for Amite River Diversion Canal
Modification;
(7) The project for Medium Diversion at White's
Ditch;
(8) The project to convey Atchafalaya River water to
Northern Terrebonne Marshes;
(9) The projects identified in the Southwest Coastal
Louisiana hurricane and storm damage reduction study
authorized by the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, dated December 7, 2005.

Section 7011. Reporting

Section 7011 directs the Secretary to report, not later
than six years after the date of enactment, to the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works on the projects
authorized and undertaken under this title.

Section 7012. New Orleans and vicinity

Section 7012 authorizes the Secretary to carry out the
following projects:
(1) Raise levee heights where necessary and otherwise
enhance the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project and
the West Bank and Vicinity Project to provide the
levels of protection necessary to achieve the
certification required for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program;
(2) Modify the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and
London Avenue drainage canals and install pumps and
closure structures at or near the lakefront at Lake
Pontchartrain;
(3) Armor critical elements of the New Orleans
hurricane and storm damage reduction system;
(4) Modify the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to
increase the reliability of the flood protection system
for the City of New Orleans;
(5) Replace or modify certain non-Federal levees in
Plaquemines Parish to incorporate the levees into the
New Orleans to Venice Hurricane Protection Project;
(6) Reinforce or replace flood walls in the existing
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Project and the
existing West Bank and Vicinity Project to improve
performance of the systems;
(7) Perform one time storm-proofing of interior pump
stations to ensure the operability of the stations
during hurricanes, storms, and high water events;
(8) Repair, replace, modify and improve non-Federal
levees and associated protection measures in Terrebonne
Parish; and
(9) Reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater
New Orleans metropolitan area by restoring the
surrounding wetlands through measures to begin to
reverse wetland losses in areas affected by navigation,
oil and gas, and other channels and through
modification of the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion
structure or its operations.

Section 7013. Mississippi River Gulf outlet

Section 7013 deauthorizes the navigation channel portion of
the project, Mississippi River Gulf outlet (``MRGO''), that
extends from the southern bank of Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to
the Gulf of Mexico, and authorizes the Secretary to carry out a
study and to implement a project to physically modify and close
the deauthorized channel, subject to a favorable report of the
Chief of Engineers. Nothing in this section affects the
authority of the Corps of Engineers to carry out the Lake
Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana Hurricane Protection
Project, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Project, the Inner
Harbor Navigation Canal Lock Replacement Project, or any
hurricane protection, storm damage reduction, or ecosystem
restoration measures being carried out in the vicinity of the
deauthorized portion of the Mississippi River Gulf outlet.

TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM

Section 8001. Definitions

This section establishes definitions for the term ``Plan''
and ``Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System.''

Section 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration

This section authorizes the Secretary to undertake
navigation improvements and ecosystem restoration substantially
in accordance with the Plan.

Section 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements

This section 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

This section 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

This section requires a determination of whether projects
are being carried out at a comparable rate and, if not,
adjustment of annual funding requests.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

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 reduced use of a port or a waterway become a
self-fulfilling prophecy. This outcome 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 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 nationwide. The Committee directs the Chief
of Engineers to examine the permitting workload and consider
alternatives for better distribution of the workload. The
Committee also directs the Chief of Engineers to work with
States using current authorities to minimize the time required
for the Corps to respond to permit applications.
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.
The Committee is aware that Corps of Engineers has
developed a nonstructural alternative to the project for flood
control, Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118)
that would elevate up to 25 historic houses along North and
South Gabouri Creeks. Section 73(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 32) authorizes the Corps of
Engineers to consider nonstructural alternatives to prevent or
reduce flood damages, including but not limited to
floodproofing of structures. The Committee directs the
Secretary to review and give full consideration to including
the nonstructural alternative as a project component to
maximize flood protection in Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, in a
cost-effective, environmentally responsible matter.

Legislative History and Committee Consideration

In the 109th Congress, the House passed H.R. 2864, the
Water Resources Development Act of 2006, by a vote of 406-14 on
July 14, 2005. The Senate passed H.R. 2864, with an amendment,
by voice vote on July 19, 2006. Unfortunately, the House and
the Senate were unable to resolve their differences in
Conference before the end of the 109tth Congress.
In the 109th Congress, the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment held two days of hearings on projects,
programs, and policies of the Civil Works Programs of the
Corps, on March 10, 2005, and March 16, 2005. During these
hearings, testimony was received from Members of Congress and
the Administration.
In the 110th Congress, on February 14, 2007, the
Subcommittee held a hearing on the President's fiscal year 2008
budget request for the Corps of Engineers.
On March 13, 2007, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure Chairman James L. Oberstar and Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment Chairwoman Eddie Bernice
Johnson introduced H.R. 1495, the ``Water Resources Development
Act of 2007''.
On March 14, 2007, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment marked up H.R. 1495, and recommended the bill
favorably to the Full Committee by voice vote. On March 15,
2007, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in
open session to consider H.R. 1495. The Committee adopted three
amendments to the bill: a manager's amendment; an amendment
regarding employing local residents to construct Corps
projects; and an amendment regarding a Southwest Coastal
Louisiana hurricane and storm damage reduction study. The
Committee ordered H.R. 1495, as amended, favorably reported to
the House by voice vote.

Record Votes

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each roll call vote on a motion
to report and on any amendment offered to the measure or
matter, and the names of those members voting for and against.
There were no recorded votes taken in connection with
consideration of H.R. 1495. A motion to order H.R. 1495, as
amended, reported favorably to the House was agreed to by voice
vote with a quorum present.

Committee Oversight Findings

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

Cost of Legislation

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

Compliance With House Rule XIII

1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office
included below.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are the
improvement of navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline
protection, dam safety, water supply, recreation, and
environmental restoration and protection.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R.
1495 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2007.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
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. 1495, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Tyler
Kruzich.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
Enclosure.

H.R. 1495--Water Resources Development Act of 2007

Summary: H.R. 1495 would authorize the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to conduct water resource studies and
undertake specified projects and programs for flood control,
inland navigation, shoreline protection, and environmental
restoration. The bill would authorize the 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. 1495 would cost about $6.7
billion over the 2008-2012 period and an additional $6.5
billion over the 10 years after 2012. (Some construction costs
and operations and maintenance would continue or commence after
those first 15 years.)
H.R. 1495 would convey parcels of land to various
nonfederal entities and would allow the city of Paris, Texas,
to make a lump-sum payment for its future water supply storage
costs at Pat Mayse Lake in Texas. The bill also would allow the
Corps to collect and spend fees collected for training courses
and for processing certain permits issued by the Corps. CBO
estimates that enacting those provisions would increase
offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending) by $6
million in 2008, by $9 million over the 2008-2012 period, and
by $8 million over the 2008-2017 period. Enacting the bill
would not affect revenues.
H.R. 1495 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. 1495 is shown in the following table.
The cost of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level...................................... 1,654 1,619 1,527 1,445 1,375
Estimated Outlays.................................................. 914 1,396 1,548 1,479 1,402

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING: a

Estimated Budget Authority......................................... -6 -3 * * *
Estimated Outlays.................................................. -6 -3 * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Changes in direct spending after 2012 would sum to less than $500,000 a year.

Note: * = less than $500,000.

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
1495 will be enacted before the start of fiscal year 2008 and
that the necessary amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal
year.

Spending subject to appropriation

H.R. 1495 would authorize new projects related to
environmental restoration, shoreline protection, and
navigation. The 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 the bill
would cost $6.7 billion over the 2008-2012 period and an
additional $6.5 billion over the 10 years after 2012.
For newly authorized water projects specified in the bill,
the Corps provided CBO with estimates of the annual budget
authority needed to meet project design and construction
schedules. CBO adjusted those estimates to reflect the impact
of anticipated inflation during the time between project
authorization and the appropriation of construction costs.
Estimated outlays are based on historical spending rates for
Corps projects.
Significant New Authorizations. H.R. 1495 would authorize
the Corps 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 would authorize the
construction of enhanced navigation improvements for 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 that would be authorized by this
bill is the Indian River Lagoon project in the Florida
Everglades at an estimated federal cost of $683 million.
Construction of those projects would likely take more than 15
years.
Hurricane Damage. Several provisions in titles II and VII
would authorize coastal restoration projects and water control
infrastructure in Louisiana and Mississippi that are needed to
correct hurricane damage. For example, the Morganza to the Gulf
of Mexico Hurricane Protection Project would seek to reduce
hurricane and flood damages across 1,700 square miles of
coastal Louisiana at an estimated federal cost of $576 million.
Other projects would improve flood protection infrastructure
within New Orleans and its vicinity. The cost of those
provisions would approach $3 billion. CBO expects that most of
those projects would be built over the next five to 10 years.
Improvements resulting from the completion of those projects
could reduce the costs of damages from future storms and the
amount of federal funds needed for recovery from such events.
Federal Share of Project Costs. Two provisions of H.R. 1495
concern the federal share of ongoing and future Corps projects.
Most projects undertaken by the Corps are required to have a
specific portion of costs covered by local interests, and the
remaining costs are considered the federal share of the total
project cost.
Section 2002 would authorize an increase in the federal
share of the construction of some deepwater navigation projects
from 40 percent to 65 percent and from 50 percent to 100
percent for maintenance and operations of such projects. The
Corps is currently working on a few such projects around the
county, the largest is in the New York and New Jersey Harbor
area. Based on information from the Corps, CBO estimates that
this provision would increase federal costs by about $400
million over the 2008-2012 period. This provision could add
substantial federal costs to deepwater navigation projects that
may be authorized in future years by future legislation.
Section 2009 would allow local interests that have provided
in-kind contributions for the construction of water resources
projects to have the value of such contributions credited
toward the local share of the total construction cost of such
projects. Under the bill, the Corps would be authorized to
credit in-kind contributions of local participants on projects
that were commenced on or after November 16, 1986. Based on
information from the Corps, CBO expects that any credit toward
in-kind contributions would not necessarily affect the federal
share of total project costs.
Deauthorizations. H.R. 1495 would withdraw the authority
for the Corps to build 10 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 possibly 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 project. would provide no significant savings over
the next several years.

Direct spending

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1495 would decrease direct
spending by $6 million in 2008, by $9 million over the 2008-
2012 period, and by $8 million total over the 2008-2017 period.
Components of this estimate are described below.
Various Land Conveyances. H.R. 1495 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. The
bill also would authorize the conveyance at fair market value
of 900 acres of federal land located in Grayson County, Texas,
to the town of Denison, Texas. Based on information from the
Corps, CBO estimates that the federal government would receive
about $3 million in each of 2008 and 2009 from these sales.
The bill also would convey certain federal land in
Arkansas, Missouri, Georgia, Kansas, Oregon, and Minnesota. CBO
estimates that those conveyances would have no significant
impact on the federal budget.
Pat Mayse Lake. Under the bill, a receipt of $3 million
would result from a one-time payment to the federal government
from the city of Paris, Texas, for its future water supply
storage costs at Pat Mayse Lake in Texas. As a result of that
payment, the federal government would forgo annual water supply
storage cost payments after such payment. CBO estimates that
the loss of those annual receipts would have a negligible
impact on the federal budget over the 2008-2017 period.
Fees for Training and Processing Permits. Title II would
allow the Corps to accept and spend fees collected in
conjunction with its training courses. Title II also 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 Corp would collect and spend less than $500,000 during
each year under those provisions and that the net budgetary
impact would be negligible.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1495
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.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Tyler Kruzich and
Deborah Reis. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments:
Lisa Ramirez-Branum. Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

Compliance With House Rule XXI

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of
rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The
Committee has required Members of Congress to comply with all
requirements of clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. The
following table provides the list of such provisions included
in the bill:

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. 1495 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

Advisory Committee Statement

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

Applicability to the Legislative Branch

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

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

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

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986

* * * * * * *

TITLE I--COST SHARING

SEC. 101. HARBORS.

(a) Construction.--
(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 Secretary
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] September 30, 2007 to reflect the
requirements of such paragraph (3).

* * * * * * *

(n) Non-Federal Contributions.--
(1) Prohibition on solicitation of excess
contributions.--The Secretary may not--
(A) solicit contributions from non-Federal
interests for costs of constructing authorized
water resources projects or measures in excess
of the non-Federal share assigned to the
appropriate project purposes listed in
subsections (a), (b), and (c); or
(B) 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).

* * * * * * *

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.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VII--WATER RESOURCES STUDIES

* * * * * * *

SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting river
basins and watersheds for assessment under this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) the Susquehanna River basin; [and]
(5) the Willamette River basin[.];
(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; and
(10) White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.

* * * * * * *

(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 VIII--PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

* * * * * * *

SEC. 808. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLORADO.

The project for flood control and other purposes on the
SouthPlatte River Basin in Colorado, authorized by the Flood
Control Actof 1950 (64 Stat. 175) is modified to authorize the
Secretary, uponrequest of and in coordination with the Colorado
Department ofNatural Resources and upon the Chief of Engineers'
finding offeasibility and economic justification, to reassign a
portion of thestorage space in the Chatfield Lake project to
joint flood control conservation purposes, including storage
for municipal and industrial water supply, [agriculture,]
agriculture, environmental restoration, and recreation and
fishery habitat protection and enhancement. Appropriate non-
Federal interests shall agree to repay the cost allocated to
such storage in accordance with the provisions of the Water
Supply Act of 1958, the Federal Water Project Recreation Act,
and such other Federal laws as the Secretary determines
appropriate.

* * * * * * *

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 business, 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 of the Flood Control
Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-Federal
interest may include for any project undertaken under
this section, a nonprofit entity with the consent of
the affected local government.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1135. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
[$25,000,000] $30,000,000 annually to carry out this section.

* * * * * * *

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 a width not less than 110 feet and a length not less
than 1,200 feet, 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.

The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up
to $500,000 for all studies and projects--
(1) in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American
Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands;
(2) 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
(3) 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.

* * * * * * *

----------

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] 2012, 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) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided under this
section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000, through
December 31, [2008] 2010.

* * * * * * *

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
(2) shall construct other recreational features,
authorized as part of the project, within, and in the
vicinity of, the Lower Atchafalaya Basin protection
levees and may include the town of Melville, Louisiana,
as one of the alternative sites.
(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 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 for any project undertaken under
this section 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;

* * * * * * *

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).
(c) Additional Program Authority.--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Funding.--
(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) Maximum cost of program authority.--
Section 902 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to the
individual project funding limits in
subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits
in subparagraph (B).
(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
$1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $682,500,000.
(B) Picayune strand, florida.--The project
for environmental restoration, Picayune Strand,
Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
September 15, 2005, at a total cost of
$375,330,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$187,665,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $187,665,000.
(C) Site 1 impoundment, florida.--The project
for environmental restoration, Site 1
Impoundment, Florida: Report of the Chief of
Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total
cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $40,420,000.
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) Credit.--
(A) * * *e project.
(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
[7 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 [$25,000,000] $31,000,000
to carry out this section.

* * * * * * *

----------

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) * * *

* * * * * * *

(12) Perris, california.--The project for flood
control, Perris, California.
(13) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--An
element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland
Underflow Plan, Illinois.
(14) Larose to golden meadow, louisiana.--The project
for flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
(15) Buffalo bayou, texas.--A project for flood
control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an
alternative to the project authorized by the first
section of the River and Harbor Act of June 20, 1938
(52 Stat. 804) and modified by section 3a of the Flood
Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414).
(16) Halls bayou, texas.--A project for flood
control, Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative
to the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and
tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.
4610).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 217. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PARTNERSHIPS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Dredged Material Facility.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a
partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) with one or
more non-Federal interests with respect to a water
resources project, or group of water resources 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.
(2) Performance.--One or more of the parties to a
partnership agreement under this subsection may perform
the acquisition, design, construction, management, or
operation of a dredged material processing, treatment,
contaminant reduction, or disposal facility.
(3) Multiple projects.--If a facility to which this
subsection applies serves to manage dredged material
from multiple water resources projects located in the
geographic region of the facility, the Secretary may
combine portions of such projects with appropriate
combined costsharing between the various projects in a
partnership agreement for the facility under this
subsection.
(4) Specified federal funding sources and cost
sharing.--
(A) Specified federal funding.--A partnership
agreement with respect to a facility under this
subsection shall specify--
(i) the Federal funding sources and
combined cost-sharing when applicable
to multiple water resources projects;
and
(ii) the responsibilities and risks
of each of the parties relating to
present and future dredged material
managed by the facility.
(B) Management of sediments.--
(i) In general.--A partnership
agreement under this subsection may
include the management of sediments
from the maintenance dredging of
Federal water resources projects that
do not have partnership agreements.
(ii) Payments.--A partnership
agreement under this subsection may
allow the non-Federal interest to
receive reimbursable payments from the
Federal Government for commitments made
by the non-Federal interest for
disposal or placement capacity at
dredged material processing, treatment,
contaminant reduction, or disposal
facilities.
(C) Credit.--A partnership agreement under
this subsection may allow costs incurred by the
non-Federal interest before execution of the
partnership agreement to be credited in
accordance with section 221(a)(4) of the Flood
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)).
(5) Credit.--
(A) Effect on existing agreements.--Nothing
in this subsection supersedes or modifies an
agreement in effect on the date of enactment of
this paragraph between the Federal Government
and any non-Federal interest for the cost-
sharing, construction, and operation and
maintenance of a water resources project.
(B) Credit for funds.--Subject to the
approval of the Secretary and in accordance
with law (including regulations and policies)
in effect on the date of enactment of this
paragraph, a non-Federal interest for a water
resources project may receive credit for funds
provided for the acquisition, design,
construction, management, or operation of a
dredged material processing, treatment,
contaminant reduction, or disposal facility to
the extent the facility is used to manage
dredged material from the project.
(C) Non-federal interest responsibilities.--A
non-Federal interest entering into a
partnership agreement under this subsection for
a facility shall--
(i) be responsible for providing all
necessary lands, easements, rights-of-
way, and relocations associated with
the facility; and
(ii) receive credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the
project with respect to which the
agreement is being entered into for
those 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, contaminant
reduction, 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,
contaminant reduction, 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. 511. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE SALMON SURVIVAL.

(a) Salmon Survival Activities.--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated [$10,000,000] $25,000,000
to carry out research and development activities under
paragraph (3).

* * * * * * *

(c) Management of Predation on Columbia/Snake River System
Native Fishes.--
(1) * * *
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated [$1,000,000] $10,000,000
to carry out research and development activities under
this subsection.

* * * * * * *

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] through 2012.

* * * * * * *

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 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, Rochester, and Buffalo.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 554. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for
shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York, and, if
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, may
carry out the project, at a [maximum Federal cost of
$5,200,000] total cost of $20,000,000.

* * * * * * *

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.--
(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
$2,500,000 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.

* * * * * * *

----------

SECTION 205 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1948

Sec 205. 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, 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 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 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 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. 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.
[(b) A non-Federal interest shall be a legally constituted
public body with full authority and capability to perform the
terms of its agreement and to pay damages, if necessary, in the
event of failure to perform.]

SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
(1) In general.--After December 31, 1970, 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 any provision of
law, shall not be commenced until each non-Federal
interest has entered into a written partnership
agreement with the Secretary (or, where appropriate,
the district engineer for the district in which the
project will be carried out) under which each party
agrees to carry out its responsibilities and
requirements for implementation or construction of the
project 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.
(2) Liquidated damages.--A partnership agreement
described in paragraph (1) may include a provision for
liquidated damages in the event of a failure of one or
more parties to perform.
(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any
partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) and
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.
(4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
(A) In general.--A partnership agreement
described in paragraph (1) may provide with
respect to a project that the Secretary shall
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project, including a project implemented
without specific authorization in law, the
value of in-kind contributions made by the non-
Federal interest, including--
(i) the costs of planning (including
data collection), design, management,
mitigation, construction, and
construction services that are provided
by the non-Federal interest for
implementation of the project;
(ii) the value of materials or
services provided before execution of
the partnership agreement, including
efforts on constructed elements
incorporated into the project; and
(iii) the value of materials and
services provided after execution of
the partnership agreement.
(B) Condition.--The Secretary shall credit an
in-kind contribution under subparagraph (A) if
the Secretary determines that the material or
service provided as an in-kind contribution is
integral to the project.
(C) Work performed before partnership
agreement.--In any case in which the non-
Federal interest is to receive credit under
subparagraph (A)(ii) for the cost of work
carried out by the non-Federal interest and
such work has not been carried out as of the
date of enactment of this subparagraph, the
Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall
enter into an agreement under which the non-
Federal interest shall carry out such work, and
only work carried out following the execution
of the agreement shall be eligible for credit.
(D) Limitations.--Credit authorized under
this paragraph for a project--
(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project;
(ii) shall not alter any other
requirement that a non-Federal interest
provide lands, easements or rights-of-
way, or areas for disposal of dredged
material for the project;
(iii) shall not alter any requirement
that a non-Federal interest pay a
portion of the costs of construction of
the project under sections 101 and 103
of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211; 33 U.S.C.
2213); and
(iv) shall not exceed the actual and
reasonable costs of the materials,
services, or other things provided by
the non-Federal interest, as determined
by the Secretary.
(E) Applicability.--
(i) In general.--This paragraph shall
apply to water resources projects
authorized after November 16, 1986,
including projects initiated after
November 16, 1986, without specific
authorization in law.
(ii) Limitation.--In any case in
which a specific provision of law
provides for a non-Federal interest to
receive credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of a study for, or
construction or operation and
maintenance of, a water resources
project, the specific provision of law
shall apply instead of this paragraph.
(b) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--The term ``non-
Federal interest'' means a legally constituted public body
(including a federally recognized Indian tribe), and a
nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local
government, that has full authority and capability to perform
the terms of its agreement and to pay damages, if necessary, in
the event of failure to perform.

* * * * * * *

(e) Delegation of Authority.--Not later than September 30,
2008, 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 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 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 subsection, 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.
(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 120 days after the
date of enactment of this subsection, the Chief of Engineers
shall--
(1) ensure that each district engineer has made
available to the public, including on the Internet, all
partnership agreements entered into under this section
within the preceding 10 years and all partnership
agreements for water resources projects currently being
carried out in that district; and
(2) make each partnership agreement entered into
after such date of enactment available to the public,
including on the Internet, not later than 7 days after
the date on which such agreement is entered into.
[(e)] (h) * * *

* * * * * * *

----------

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 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.

* * * * * * *

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) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(27) Los osos community service district,
california.--Wastewater infrastructure, Los Osos
Community Service District, California.]
(27) Los osos, california.--Wastewater
infrastructure, Los Osos, California.

* * * * * * *

(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) $27,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(19);
(11) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(20);
(12) $35,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(23);
(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(25);
(14) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(26);
(15) $35,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(27);
(16) $20,000,000 for the project described in
subsection (c)(28); and
(17) $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,
Luzerne, and Monroe, Pennsylvania, including assistance
for the Mountoursville Regional Sewer Authority,
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
(12) Calumet region, indiana.--[$30,000,000]
(A) In general.--$100,000,000 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.--
(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] projects to eliminate or control
combined sewer overflows in the city of St. Louis and
St. Louis County, Missouri.

* * * * * * *

(48) Cambria, california.--
(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], crow wing
county, mille lacs county, mille lacs indian
reservation, and kathio township, minnesota.--
[$11,000,000] $17,000,000 for a wastewater
infrastructure project for the city of Garrison, Crow
Wing County, Mille Lacs County, Mille Lacs Indian
Reservation (10 Stat. 1165), and Kathio Township,
Minnesota. Such assistance shall be provided directly
to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille Lacs Lake Sanitary
District, Minnesota, except for assistance provided
directly to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe at the
discretion of the Secretary.

* * * * * * *

(64) Stanly county, north carolina.--$8,900,000 for
water and wastewater infrastructure, Stanly County,
North Carolina.

* * * * * * *

(66) Allegheny county, pennsylvania.--
(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 Federal expense.
(i) 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 for any project undertaken under
this section 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.]
----------

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) Phase-in.--The Secretary shall phase in the cost
sharing program under this subsection by recovering--
(A) approximately 10 percent of the total
cost of providing assistance in fiscal year
1991;
(B) approximately 30 percent of the total
cost in fiscal year 1992; and
(C) approximately 50 percent of the total
cost in fiscal year 1993 and each succeeding
fiscal year.
(3) 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.

* * * * * * *

(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is
authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $10,000,000
annually to carry out [the provisions of this section]
subsection (a)(1) except that not more than [$500,000]
$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, 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 4 OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1944

AN ACT Authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers
and harbors for flood control, and 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
tribe 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.
----------

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.]
----------

SECTION 118 OF THE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2005

Sec. 118. Cook Inlet, Alaska. (a) Anchorage Harbor.--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Transitional dredging.--Before completion of the
project modification described in paragraph (1), the
Secretary may conduct dredging to a depth of at least
minus 35 feet mean lower low water in such locations as
will allow maintenance of navigation and vessel access
to the Port of Anchorage intermodal marine facility
during modification of such facility. Such work shall
be carried out by the Secretary as part of the
operation and maintenance of such project modification
in accordance with section 101 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1958.

* * * * * * *

----------

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

* * * * * * *

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.

* * * * * * *

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 for shore protection the cost of nourishment and
renourishment associated with the project for shore protection
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''.

* * * * * * *

[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.]

* * * * * * *

TITLE IV--STUDIES

* * * * * * *

[SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

[(a) Plan.--The Secretary, in coordination with State and
local governments and appropriate Federal and provincial
authorities of Canada, shall develop a comprehensive management
plan for St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair.
[(b) Elements.--The plan shall include the following
elements:
[(1) Identification of the causes and sources of
environmental degradation.
[(2) Continuous monitoring of organic, biological,
metallic, and chemical contamination levels.
[(3) Timely dissemination of information of
contamination levels to public authorities, other
interested parties, and the public.
[(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report that includes the plan developed under subsection (a)
and recommendations for potential restoration measures.
[(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section $400,000.]

SEC. 426. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

(a) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Management plan.--The term ``management plan''
means the management plan for the St. Clair River and
Lake St. Clair, Michigan, that is in effect as of the
date of enactment of the Water Resources Development
Act of 2006.
(2) Partnership.--The term ``partnership'' means the
partnership established by the Secretary under
subsection (b)(1).
(b) Partnership.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and
lead a partnership of appropriate Federal agencies
(including the Environmental Protection Agency) and the
State of Michigan (including political subdivisions of
the State)--
(A) to promote cooperation among the Federal,
State, and local governments and other involved
parties in the management of the St. Clair
River and Lake St. Clair watersheds; and
(B) develop and implement projects consistent
with the management plan.
(2) Coordination with actions under other law.--
(A) In general.--Actions taken under this
section by the partnership shall be coordinated
with actions to restore and conserve the St.
Clair River and Lake St. Clair and watersheds
taken under other provisions of Federal and
State law.
(B) No effect on other law.--Nothing in this
section alters, modifies, or affects any other
provision of Federal or State law.
(c) Implementation of St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair
Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
(A) develop a St. Clair River and Lake St.
Clair strategic implementation plan in
accordance with the management plan;
(B) provide technical, planning, and
engineering assistance to non-Federal interests
for developing and implementing activities
consistent with the management plan;
(C) plan, design, and implement projects
consistent with the management plan; and
(D) provide, in coordination with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, financial and technical assistance,
including grants, to the State of Michigan
(including political subdivisions of the State)
and interested nonprofit entities for the
planning, design, and implementation of
projects to restore, conserve, manage, and
sustain the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair,
and associated watersheds.
(2) Specific measures.--Financial and technical
assistance provided under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
paragraph (1) may be used in support of non-Federal
activities consistent with the management plan.
(d) Supplements to Management Plan and Strategic
Implementation Plan.--In consultation with the partnership and
after providing an opportunity for public review and comment,
the Secretary shall develop information to supplement--
(1) the management plan; and
(2) the strategic implementation plan developed under
subsection (c)(1)(A).
(e) Cost Sharing.--
(1) In-kind services.--The non-Federal share of the
cost of technical assistance under subsection (c), the
cost of planning, design, and construction of a project
under subsection (c), and the cost of development of
supplementary information under subsection (d) may be
provided through the provision of in-kind services.
(2) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--
The Secretary shall credit the non-Federal sponsor for
the value of any land, easements, rights-of-way,
dredged material disposal areas, or relocations
required in carrying out a project under subsection
(c).
(3) Nonprofit entities.--Notwithstanding section 221
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b),
a non-Federal interest for any project carried out
under this section may include a nonprofit entity.
(4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation,
maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of
projects carried out under this section shall be non-
Federal responsibilities.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each
fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

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.

* * * * * * *

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, West
Feliciana, and East Baton Rouge Parishes, Louisiana,
project for waterfront and riverine preservation,
restoration, and enhancement modifications.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 557. 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) Parkersburg, west virginia.--Report of the Corps
of Engineers entitled ``Parkersburg/Vienna Riverfront
Park Feasibility Study'', dated June 1998, at a total
cost of [$8,400,000] $12,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of [$4,200,000] $6,000,000, and an
estimated non-Federal cost of [$4,200,000] $6,000,000.

* * * * * * *

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)), a non-
Federal interest may include for any project undertaken under
this section a nonprofit entity.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$40,000,000]
$54,000,000 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 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) * * *

* * * * * * *

(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)), a non-
Federal interest may include for any project undertaken under
this section 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 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)), a non-
Federal interest may include for any project undertaken under
this section 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 Federal expense.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI--CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, AND
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION

* * * * * * *

SEC. 602. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.

(a) Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Plans.--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Funding for carrying out plans.--
(A) State of south dakota.--
(i) Notification.--On receipt of the
plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the State of
South Dakota, each of the committees
referred to in paragraph (3) shall
notify the Secretary and the Secretary
of the Treasury of the receipt of the
plan.
[(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary shall make available
to the State of South Dakota funds from
the South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund
established under section 603, to be
used to carry out the plan for
terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the State and
only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.]
(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the State of
South Dakota funds from the State of
South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund
established under section 603, to be
used to carry out the plan for
terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the State of
South Dakota after the State certifies
to the Secretary of the Treasury that
the funds to be disbursed will be used
in accordance with section 603(d)(3)
and only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.
(B) Cheyenne river sioux tribe and lower
brule sioux tribe.--
(i) * * *
[(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial
Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust
Fund, respectively, established under
section 604, to be used to carry out
the plan for terrestrial wildlife
habitat restoration submitted by the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively,
and only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.]
(ii) Availability of funds.--On
notification in accordance with clause
(i), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall make available to the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne
River Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the
Lower Brule Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Trust Fund,
respectively, established under section
604, to be used to carry out the plans
for terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration submitted by the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe, respectively, to after the
respective tribe certifies to the
Secretary of the Treasury that the
funds to be disbursed will be used in
accordance with section 604(d)(3) and
only after the Trust Fund is fully
capitalized.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 603. SOUTH DAKOTA TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST
FUND.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(c) Investments.--
[(1) In general.--At the request of the Secretary,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts
deposited under subsection (b) only in interest-bearing
obligations of the United States or in obligations
guaranteed by the United States as to both principal
and interest.
[(2) Interest rate.--In consultation with the State
of South Dakota, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest amounts in the fund in obligations that carry
the highest rate of interest among available
obligations of the required maturity.]
(c) Investments.--
(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and
the interest earned on those amounts only in interest-
bearing obligations of the United States issued
directly to the Fund.
(2) Investment requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall invest the amounts in the Fund
in accordance with the requirements of this
paragraph.
(B) Separate investments of principal and
interest.--
(i) Principal account.--The amounts
deposited in the Fund under subsection
(b) shall be credited to an account
within the Fund (referred to in this
paragraph as the ``principal account'')
and invested as provided in
subparagraph (C).
(ii) Interest account.--The interest
earned from investing amounts in the
principal account of the Fund shall be
transferred to a separate account
within the Fund (referred to in this
paragraph as the ``interest account'')
and invested as provided in
subparagraph (D).
(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned
from investing amounts in the interest
account of the Fund shall be credited
to the interest account.
(C) Investment of principal account.--
(i) Initial investment.--Each amount
deposited in the principal account of
the Fund shall be invested initially in
eligible obligations having the
shortest maturity then available until
the date on which the amount is divided
into 3 substantially equal portions and
those portions are invested in eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations
having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year
maturity, and a 10-year maturity,
respectively.
(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each
2-year, 5-year, and 10-year eligible
obligation matures, the principal of
the maturing eligible obligation shall
also be invested initially in the
shortest-maturity eligible obligation
then available until the principal is
reinvested substantially equally in the
eligible obligations that are identical
(except for transferability) to the
next-issued publicly issued Treasury
obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and
10-year maturities.
(iii) Discontinuance of issuance of
obligations.--If the Department of the
Treasury discontinues issuing to the
public obligations having 2-year, 5-
year, or 10-year maturities, the
principal of any maturing eligible
obligation shall be reinvested
substantially equally in eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations of
the maturities longer than 1 year then
available.
(D) Investment of interest account.--
(i) Before full capitalization.--
Until the date on which the Fund is
fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for
transferability) to publicly issued
Treasury obligations that have
maturities that coincide, to the
maximum extent practicable, with the
date on which the Fund is expected to
be fully capitalized.
(ii) After full capitalization.--On
and after the date on which the Fund is
fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested and reinvested in eligible
obligations having the shortest
maturity then available until the
amounts are withdrawn and transferred
to fund the activities authorized under
subsection (d)(3).
(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid
for eligible obligations purchased as
investments of the principal account shall not
exceed the par value of the obligations so that
the amount of the principal account shall be
preserved in perpetuity.
(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible
obligations having the same maturity and
purchase price, the obligation to be purchased
shall be the obligation having the highest
yield.
(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible
obligations purchased shall generally be held
to their maturities.
(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less
frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall review with the State of South
Dakota the results of the investment activities and
financial status of the Fund during the preceding 12-
month period.
(4) Audits.--
(A) In general.--The activities of the State
of South Dakota (referred to in this subsection
as the ``State'') in carrying out the plan of
the State for terrestrial wildlife habitat
restoration under section 602(a) shall be
audited as part of the annual audit that the
State is required to prepare under the Office
of Management and Budget Circular A-133 (or a
successor circulation).
(B) Determination by auditors.--An auditor
that conducts an audit under subparagraph (A)
shall--
(i) determine whether funds received
by the State under this section during
the period covered by the audit were
used to carry out the plan of the State
in accordance with this section; and
(ii) include the determination under
clause (i) in the written findings of
the audit.
(5) Modification of investment requirements.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary of the
Treasury determines that meeting the
requirements under paragraph (2) with respect
to the investment of a Fund is not practicable,
or would result in adverse consequences for the
Fund, the Secretary shall modify the
requirements, as the Secretary determines to be
necessary.
(B) Consultation.--Before modifying a
requirement under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with
the State regarding the proposed modification.
(d) Payments.--
(1) * * *
(2) Withdrawal and transfer of funds.--Subject to
section 602(a)(4)(A), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall withdraw amounts credited as interest under
paragraph (1) and transfer the amounts to the State of
South Dakota for use as State funds in accordance with
paragraph (3) after the Fund has been fully
capitalized.

* * * * * * *

[(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are
necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.]
(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses
associated with investing the Fund and auditing the uses of
amounts withdrawn from the Fund--
(1) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007;
and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year.

SEC. 604. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST
FUNDS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(c) Investments.--
[(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) only
in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or
in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and
interest by the United States.
[(2) Interest rate.--In consultation with the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest amounts in
the Funds in obligations that carry the highest rate of
interest among available obligations of the required
maturity.]
(c) Investments.--
(1) Eligible obligations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and
the interest earned on those amounts only in interest-
bearing obligations of the United States issued
directly to the Funds.
(2) Investment requirements.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall invest the amounts in each of
the Funds in accordance with the requirements
of this paragraph.
(B) Separate investments of principal and
interest.--
(i) Principal account.--The amounts
deposited in each Fund under subsection
(b) shall be credited to an account
within the Fund (referred to in this
paragraph as the ``principal account'')
and invested as provided in
subparagraph (C).
(ii) Interest account.--The interest
earned from investing amounts in the
principal account of each Fund shall be
transferred to a separate account
within the Fund (referred to in this
paragraph as the ``interest account'')
and invested as provided in
subparagraph (D).
(iii) Crediting.--The interest earned
from investing amounts in the interest
account of each Fund shall be credited
to the interest account.
(C) Investment of principal account.--
(i) Initial investment.--Each amount
deposited in the principal account of
each Fund shall be invested initially
in eligible obligations having the
shortest maturity then available until
the date on which the amount is divided
into 3 substantially equal portions and
those portions are invested in eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations
having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year
maturity, and a 10-year maturity,
respectively.
(ii) Subsequent investment.--As each
2-year, 5-year, and 10-year eligible
obligation matures, the principal of
the maturing eligible obligation shall
also be invested initially in the
shortest-maturity eligible obligation
then available until the principal is
reinvested substantially equally in the
eligible obligations that are identical
(except for transferability) to the
next-issued publicly issued Treasury
obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and
10-year maturities.
(iii) Discontinuation of issuance of
obligations.--If the Department of the
Treasury discontinues issuing to the
public obligations having 2-year, 5-
year, or 10-year maturities, the
principal of any maturing eligible
obligation shall be reinvested
substantially equally in eligible
obligations that are identical (except
for transferability) to the next-issued
publicly issued Treasury obligations of
the maturities longer than 1 year then
available.
(D) Investment of the interest account.--
(i) Before full capitalization.--
Until the date on which each Fund is
fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested in eligible obligations that
are identical (except for
transferability) to publicly issued
Treasury obligations that have
maturities that coincide, to the
maximum extent practicable, with the
date on which the Fund is expected to
be fully capitalized.
(ii) After full capitalization.--On
and after the date on which each Fund
is fully capitalized, amounts in the
interest account of the Fund shall be
invested and reinvested in eligible
obligations having the shortest
maturity then available until the
amounts are withdrawn and transferred
to fund the activities authorized under
subsection (d)(3).
(E) Par purchase price.--The price to be paid
for eligible obligations purchased as
investments of the principal account shall not
exceed the par value of the obligations so that
the amount of the principal account shall be
preserved in perpetuity.
(F) Highest yield.--Among eligible
obligations having the same maturity and
purchase price, the obligation to be purchased
shall be the obligation having the highest
yield.
(G) Holding to maturity.--Eligible
obligations purchased shall generally be held
to their maturities.
(3) Annual review of investment activities.--Not less
frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall review with the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (referred
to in this subsection as the ``Tribes'') the results of
the investment activities and financial status of the
Funds during the preceding 12-month period.
(4) Audits.--
(A) In general.--The activities of the Tribes
in carrying out the plans of the Tribes for
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration under
section 602(a) shall be audited as part of the
annual audit that the Tribes are required to
prepare under the Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-133 (or a successor
circulation).
(B) Determination by auditors.--An auditor
that conducts an audit under subparagraph (A)
shall--
(i) determine whether funds received
by the Tribes under this section during
the period covered by the audit were
used to carry out the plan of the
appropriate Tribe in accordance with
this section; and
(ii) include the determination under
clause (i) in the written findings of
the audit.
(5) Modification of investment requirements.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary of the
Treasury determines that meeting the
requirements under paragraph (2) with respect
to the investment of a Fund is not practicable,
or would result in adverse consequences for the
Fund, the Secretary shall modify the
requirements, as the Secretary determines to be
necessary.
(B) Consultation.--Before modifying a
requirement under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with
the Tribes regarding the proposed modification.

* * * * * * *

[(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury such sums as are
necessary to pay the administrative expenses of the Fund.]
(f) Administrative Expenses.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses
associated with investing the Funds and auditing the uses of
amounts withdrawn from the Funds--
(1) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007;
and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

----------

SECTION 345 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

[Sec. 345. The project for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, initiated under section 1135
of Public Law 99-662, is authorized at a total cost of
$9,100,000 with a Federal cost of $6,825,000 and a non-Federal
cost of $2,275,000.]

SEC. 345. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, ILLINOIS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the Barrier II project of the project
for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier,
Illinois, initiated pursuant to section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2294 note; 100
Stat. 4251).

* * * * * * *

----------

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] 2012.

* * * * * * *

----------

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 if 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.

* * * * * * *

----------

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.

* * * * * * *

(f ) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section [$100,000,000]
$100,000,000, of which not more than $15,000,000 may be used to
provide planning, design, and construction assistance to the
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for a water treatment plant,
Florida City, Florida. Such sums shall remain available until
expended.

* * * * * * *

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).

* * * * * * *