[Senate Report 110-58]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 126
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     110-58

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



 
                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

                 April 30, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mrs. Boxer, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1248]

    The Committee on Environment and Public Works, which 
considered the original bill (S. 1248) 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, reports favorably thereon and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                    General Statement and Background

    In 1986, a House-Senate Conference Committee produced a 
Conference Report (H. Rpt. 99-1013), passed by the House and 
Senate and signed into law on November 17, 1986, that was the 
largest and most comprehensive authorization of projects and 
programs for the Army Corps' Civil Works Program since the 
Senate Public Works Committee was created in 1947. The Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 marked the end of a 16-year 
deadlock between the Congress and executive branch regarding 
authorization of the civil works program. In addition to 
authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved 
longstanding disputes relating to cost sharing, user fees, and 
environmental requirements.
    Some of the major reforms included in the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 and subsequent legislation are listed 
below:
    Cost-sharing formulas were established for harbor dredging 
(section 101), inland navigation (section 102), flood control, 
hydroelectric power, water supply, recreation, hurricane and 
storm damage reduction, and aquatic plant control (section 
103). Ecosystem Restoration was added to section 103 in 1996. 
Project Cooperation Agreements were required for all such 
projects. Projects for mitigation of fish and wildlife 
resources were allowed to be carried out at up to 100 percent 
Federal expense under section 906 and modifications of Army 
Corps of Engineers projects in the interest of environmental 
quality were authorized to be carried out at 75 percent Federal 
expense under section 1135. The Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 extended harbor cost sharing formulas to dredged 
material disposal facilities, increased the non-Federal cost 
share for flood control, and established cost sharing for 
environmental protection and restoration.
    The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, capitalized by a new 
Harbor Maintenance Tax, was established in the 1986 Act to pay 
40 percent of the Federal cost of maintaining authorized deep 
draft navigation channels (sections 210, 1402, and 1403). The 
tax that supports the trust fund was subsequently increased and 
authorized to provide for 100 percent of the cost under the 
Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 and the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990.
    These policy changes applied to all projects contained in 
the Water Resources Development Acts of 1988 (Public Law 100-
676); 1990 (Public Law 101-640); 1992 (Public Law 102-580); 
1996 (Public Law 104-303); 1999 (Public Law 106-53); and 2000 
(Public Law 106-541); and will continue to apply to all 
projects contained in the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007.
    In reporting the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, 
the committee is adhering to the policies established in the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) and 
continued in the civil works program of the Army Corps of 
Engineers. This bill includes authorization for new projects 
for navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, 
ecosystem restoration and environmental remediation, and water 
storage and water quality. This bill limits contingent 
authorization of water resources projects to those projects 
that will have final reports of the Chief of Engineers in the 
same calendar year as the Water Resources Development Act under 
consideration.

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

    The Water Resources Development Act of 2007, ordered 
reported by the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
resulted from consideration of a draft bill on March 29, 2007.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title; table of contents

    This section designates the title of the bill as ``The 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007'' and lists the table 
of contents.

Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary

    This section defines the term ``Secretary'' for the 
purposes of the Act as the Secretary of the Army.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations

    This section provides authority for the Secretary to carry 
out 40 projects for water resources development, conservation, 
and other purposes substantially in accordance with the plans 
recommended in the reports referenced in the bill language. 
Descriptions of the projects are as follows:
    (a) Projects with Chief's Report.
    Subsection (a) of section 1001 authorizes 39 projects to be 
carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with 
the plan and subject to the conditions recommended in a final 
report of the Chief of Engineers.
    (1) Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska.
    Location. Haines, Alaska.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. The existing harbor is inadequate in terms of size 
and design to accommodate the needs of the existing demands of 
resident and transient users.
    Recommended Plan. 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.
    Project Costs. Total Cost $13,700,000. Federal cost 
$10,960,000; non-Federal cost $2,740,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.2 to 1.
    (2) Tanque Verde Creek Project, Pima County, Arizona.
    Location. Pima County, Arizona.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. There is erosion along an approximately two-mile 
reach of Tanque Verde Creek immediately upstream of Rillito 
River at its confluence with Pantano Wash, east of Tucson, 
Arizona. This segment of Tanque Verde Creek (a tributary of the 
Rillito River) has an average annual rate of bank erosion of 13 
feet. About 9,500 linear feet, located along four separate 
channel segments have previously been stabilized with soil 
cement to prevent streambank erosion. Annual erosion damage 
caused by floodflows is estimated as $714,100.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes: (1) 
completing 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, (2) 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 (3) the 
establishment of a 48-acre riparian habitat area for 
mitigation.
    Project Costs. Total cost $5,706,000. Federal cost 
$3,706,000; non-Federal cost $2,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.
    (3) Salt River (Va Shlyay Akimel), Maricopa County, 
Arizona.
    Location. Salt River between Granite Reef Dam and Price 
Freeway Bridge within the jurisdiction of the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community and the city of Mesa.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. 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 groundwater 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. The riparian areas of this reach of 
the Salt River have become severely degraded.
    Recommended Plan. The recommenced plan includes: (1) 
reshaping of abandoned quarry pits and the river channel to 
provide a low-flow channel and terraces, (2) construction of 
new drainage channels, irrigation diversions and pipelines, 
and/or spillways, (3) installation of a groundwater well to 
nourish vegetation planted on the terraces along the river, (4) 
construction of a grade control structure across the channel at 
the abandoned Gilbert Road quarry, and (5) a passive recreation 
plan consisting of approximately 5.1 miles of multi-use 
decomposed-granite trails, parking lots with trailheads, rest 
stops spaced approximately at one per mile, and interpretive 
signs.
    Project Costs. Total cost is $156,700,000. Federal cost 
$101,600,000; non-Federal cost $55,100,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the plan is justified by 
the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (4) Hamilton City, California.
    Location. Hamilton City, Glenn County, California.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. The Hamilton City community has long been at risk 
of flooding from the Sacramento River. Portions of Hamilton 
City and the surrounding area were flooded in 1974, and 
extensive flood fighting was necessary in 1983, 1986, 1995, 
1997, and 1998 to avoid failure of the existing private levee. 
Residents of the town were evacuated six times in the past 20 
years: 1983, 1986, twice in 1995, 1997, and 1998. The existing 
levee does not meet U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or any other 
levee construction standards and could fail at river levels 
well below the top of the levee. In addition to the existing 
flood risk, native habitat and natural functions of the 
Sacramento River have been altered by construction of the 
private levee and conversion of the floodplain to agricultural 
and rural development.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan, as described in the 
Chief's report signed December 22, 2004, consists of 
construction of a levee, which would be set back from the 
Sacramento River, and for the restoration of lands waterside of 
the setback levee. The recommended multi-purpose plan focuses 
on reconnecting the Sacramento River with a portion of its 
historic floodplain by removing the existing levee. This would 
restore hydrologic functions of the floodplain while providing 
flood damage reduction to the community and area landside of 
the setback levee. The project area encompasses about 1,480 
acres with a 6.8-mile setback levee that would begin about 2 
miles north of the community. Implementation of this plan would 
reduce potential flood damages and restore ecosystem functions 
and values in the area by restoring fish and wildlife habitats. 
The setback levee would provide 3 distinct levels of flood 
protection associated with three different average levee 
heights. The recommended plan includes removal of existing 
orchards in the project area, and planting of native vegetation 
to restore native habitat types that have become degraded along 
much of the Sacramento River.
    Project Costs. Total cost is $50,600,000. Federal cost 
$33,000,000; non-Federal cost $17,600,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.8 to 1. The cost of the ecosystem 
restoration plan is justified by the restoration of valuable 
habitat.
    (5) Imperial Beach, California.
    Location. Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California.
    Purpose. Storm Damage Reduction.
    Problem. There is a lack of adequate protection from winter 
coastal storms for the Silver Shoreline, Imperial Beach, 
California. The shoreline is eroding at a rate of 6 feet per 
year. Many private and commercial properties along the 
shoreline are susceptible to wave attack, inundation, and 
failure due to erosion during coastal storm events.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of an 
initial beach fill of approximately 1.6 million cubic yards of 
sand. The placement will be 7,100 feet long and 105 feet wide 
along the developed shorefront. Periodic nourishment of 
approximately 1 million cubic yards of sand will occur on 
average every 10 years over a 50-year period of Federal 
participation for a total of four additional nourishments.
    Project Costs. Total Cost $13,300,000. Federal cost 
$8,500,000; non-Federal cost $4,800,000. Estimated total costs 
of $41,100,000 for periodic nourishment over a period of 50 
years, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,550,000 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $20,550,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.7 to 1.
    (6) Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California.
    Location. Ventura River, Ventura County, California.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. Matilija Dam was constructed in 1948 as a water 
supply facility. The resulting reservoir has filled with 
sediment and provides very little water storage; approximately 
500 acre-feet, 7 percent of capacity, and decreasing. The 
Matilija Dam is an impediment for fish passage, no longer 
provides adequate water supply, and negatively affects 
downstream and coastal sediment transport. Arundo Donax, a non-
native invasive plant, is prevalent throughout the river system 
reducing the quality of habitat for a number of endangered, 
listed and other species.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes dam removal 
to restore fish passage and sediment transport processes to the 
river and beach. It also includes levees and floodwalls, bridge 
modification, radial gates, a detention basin, land 
acquisition, sediment slurry lines and sediment placement, 
channel excavation upstream of current dam site, recreation 
features and removal of invasive plant species.
    Project Costs. Total cost $139,600,000. Federal cost 
$86,700,000; non-Federal cost $52,900,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (7) Middle Creek, Lake County, California.
    Location. Middle Creek, Lake County, California.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. Considerable ecosystem degradation has taken place 
in the area. Historically, the area was part of Clear Lake and 
consisted of tule marsh and open water. These wetlands were 
converted to agricultural fields during the last century. This 
has caused loss of natural habitat, loss of ecosystem function, 
and degraded water quality. The area is subject to damages to 
structures and agricultural lands from overflows from Rodman 
Slough. Although surrounded by levees, the area remains at risk 
from flooding from both Clear Lake and Rodman Slough because of 
levee settlement.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan is to reconnect 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 area and providing flood 
damage reduction by relocating residents from the flood plain. 
Implementation of this plan would result in 765 acres of 
wetlands, 230 acres of riparian, 405 acres of open water, and 
250 acres of upland habitat.
    Committee Recommendation: As part of the authorization of 
this project and upon request of the governing body of the 
Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
accept the transfer from the tribe to the Secretary of the 
tribe's interest in three parcels of land located adjacent to 
Clear Lake in Lake County, California, and hold such lands in 
trust for the benefit of the tribe. Such lands shall be deemed 
restored lands for the tribe.
    Project Costs. Total cost $43,630,000. Federal Cost 
$28,460,000; non-Federal Cost $15,170,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the ecosystem restoration 
plan is justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (8) Napa River Salt Marsh, California.
    Location. Napa, Sonoma, and Solano Counties, California.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. The San Francisco Bay Region is an extensive, 
complex and diverse estuary that has lost approximately 90 
percent of its original tidal wetlands due to development over 
the past 150 years. The degradation of fish and wildlife 
resources associated with the loss of the Bay's historic 
wetlands has resulted in several species being listed as 
threatened or endangered. The project site, historically 
dominated by tidal salt marsh, was diked and converted to 
hayfields approximately 150 years ago. In the early 1950's, the 
diked areas were converted to solar salt evaporation ponds. 
This project will restore a portion of diked baylands to tidal 
action to support endangered and special status species 
recovery, improve water quality, and restore greater ecological 
balance to the San Francisco Bay.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan will use a system of 
water control structures and levee breaches to reduce the 
salinity of 11 former salt production ponds by using a 
combination of water sources, including a recycled water 
pipeline, seasonal rainfall and adjacent sloughs that will flow 
through the ponds and then be discharged to the Napa River and 
an adjacent slough. The recommended plan then relies on natural 
sediment processes and colonization by marsh vegetation to 
restore nearly 9,500 acres of tidal ponds and managed ponds. 
Because the recycled water pipeline can provide non-saline 
water at all times during the year, it will enable pond 
desalinization to continue during the `dry season'. Once the 
ponds are desalinated, the pipeline will continue to provide 
water to maintain the salinity levels in the managed ponds.
    Project Costs. Total cost $103,012,000. Federal cost 
$65,600,000; non-Federal cost $37,412,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (9) South Platte River, Denver, Colorado.
    Location. Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, 
Colorado.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. The City and County of Denver has accomplished 
much toward 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.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of removal 
of a low head Fabridam; construction of a 250 cubic-feet-per-
second, low-flow channel; stripping vegetation; modification of 
overall channel banks; construction of a series of pool/riffle 
structures and diversion jetties; relocation of existing 
trails; relocation of utilities; and complete revegetation of 
the project area with native species. To allow continued 
operation of the existing Zuni Power Plant, construction of an 
infiltration gallery and purchase of water rights as necessary 
are included as just compensation for removal of the Fabridam.
    Project Costs. Total cost $21,050,000. Federal cost 
$13,680,000; non-Federal cost $7,370,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (10) Indian River Lagoon, South Florida.
    Location. Martin, St Lucie and Okeechobee Counties, 
Florida.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration, Water Supply, Flood 
Control, and Protection of Water Quality.
    Problem. The southern Indian River Lagoon estuary system 
has been degraded by large and frequently occurring discharges 
of freshwater, and by an excessive accumulation of muck in 
estuary and lagoon bottoms. Together these stressors have 
reduced water clarity and exceeded the salinity tolerances of 
submerged vegetation and benthic animals.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 12,600 
acres of new reservoirs for surface water storage, 8,700 acres 
of storm-water treatment areas for water quality improvement, 
7,900,000 cubic yards of muck removal, 92,000 acres of natural 
water storage areas and 3,100 acres of floodplain wetlands. 
This section also deauthorizes the C-44 storage reservoir 
identified in the Comprehensive Review Study authorized for 
construction in section 601 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680), the Martin County irrigation, 
flood control and backflow projects authorized by section 203 
of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740) and the East 
Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie-Martin County, Spillway Structure 
S-311, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 
1968 (82 Stat. 740).
    Project Costs. Total Cost $1,365,000,000. Federal cost 
$682,500,000; non-Federal cost $682,500,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (11) Miami Harbor, Miami, Florida.
    Location. Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. Entrance channel and inner harbor widths and 
depths are not adequate for safe, cost-efficient vessel 
transit.
    Recommended Plan. 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. 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. Component 3B: 
Increase the Fisher Island Turning Basin from 1200 to 1500 
feet, truncate the 28 northeast section of the turning basin, 
deepen from a project depth of 42 feet to 50 feet. Component 4: 
Realign the western end of the existing 36-foot main channel 
about 250 feet to the south--no dredging require for Component 
4. 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. Mitigation including restoration of seagrass beds and 
construction of artificial reefs.
    Project Costs. Total cost $125,270,000. Federal cost 
$75,140,000; non-Federal cost $50,130,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.
    (12) Picayune Strand Ecosystem Restoration, Collier County, 
Florida.
    Location. Collier County, Florida.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. Canals and roads cause excessive drainage and the 
reduction of many wetland communities and associated plants and 
wildlife of over 59,000 acres of Picayune Strand. The drainage 
also creates large discharges of freshwater to some downstream 
estuaries and greatly reduces discharges to other nearby 
estuaries, stressing a total of nearly 50,000 acres of estuary 
habitat.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of plugging 
the main canals, degrading roads, filling ditches, and 
constructing spreader channels and pump stations to restore the 
flows of water across the landscape and reduce damaging high 
and low discharges of freshwater to the estuaries.
    Project Costs. Total cost $362,260,000. Federal cost 
$181,130,000; non-Federal cost $181,130,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (13) East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.
    Location. East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration and Recreation.
    Problem. The study area consisted of approximately 166 
square miles (about 105,000 acres). The area has historically 
experienced the loss or serious degradation of the floodplain 
ecosystems and widespread interior flooding. Many aquatic 
resources of national and regional significance are found in 
the study area. Urban growth in the study area has led to the 
increasing scarcity of aquatic habitat.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan is an extensive 
restoration of the ecosystem in the vicinity of East St. Louis, 
Illinois, on the Mississippi River. 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). 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.
    Project Cost. Total cost $201,600,000. Federal cost 
$130,600,000; non-Federal cost $71,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (14) Peoria Riverfront, Illinois.
    Location. Illinois River, Tazewell and Peoria Counties, 
Illinois.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. Peoria Lake, the largest bottomland lake in the 
Illinois River valley, reflects changes similar to other lakes. 
Since 1903, the volume of Peoria Lake has decreased by 
approximately 61 percent. This sedimentation has reduced many 
of the deeper, off-channel parts of the lake from an estimated 
maximum of 8 feet to 1-2 feet in recent years. These changes 
have transformed Peoria Lake into a narrow navigation channel 
with bordering shallow water. The loss of aquatic habitat due 
to sedimentation is viewed as the greatest threat to the 
Illinois River. The loss of lake depth and volume has severely 
impacted off-channel over-wintering, 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.
    Recommended Plan. The selected aquatic restoration plan in 
Lower Peoria Lake includes off-channel dredging with island 
creation. It would result in the greatest restoration of depth 
diversity of any of the plans proposed. Overall, lake habitat 
diversity would increase through the addition of shoreline and 
terrestrial habitats associated with the islands and aquatic 
structures. The dredged area would provide critical backwater 
habitat and flowing side channel habitat for fish and other 
aquatic species. The islands would provide resting, nesting, 
and feeding areas for waterfowl and shorebirds. In addition, 
the islands would reduce wind-and wake-generated waves in the 
study area, helping to improve water quality by lowering 
turbidity levels.
    Project Cost. Total cost $17,760,000. Federal cost 
$11,540,000; non-Federal cost $6,220,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (15) Wood River Levee System, Illinois.
    Location. Wood River, Madison County in southwestern 
Illinois.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The existing project was constructed in the 1950s 
and 1960s. The condition of the original project has worsened 
due to project deficiencies and the long term degradation of 
materials. Many components of the existing project have 
exceeded their expected service life.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 
construction of certain measures to address design deficiencies 
and reconstruction measures to address the long-term 
degradation of material, systems and components of the existing 
projects. The design deficiency measures include replacement of 
163 existing relief wells and installation of 60 new relief 
wells which can be implemented under existing project 
authority. Congressional authorization is required to implement 
the reconstruction measures which include construction or 
replacement work at 38 gravity drains, 26 closure structures 
(including abandonment of 3 railroad closure structures that 
are no longer used), and 7 pump stations.
    Project Cost. Total cost $16,730,000. Federal cost 
$10,900,000; non-Federal cost $5,830,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 3.1 to 1.
    (16) Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa.
    Location. Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines, Polk 
County, Iowa.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. During the Great Flood of 1993, Polk County 
suffered more than $152 million in flood damages, mostly in the 
Des Moines metropolitan area. Major portions of the city of Des 
Moines' downtown and several large neighborhoods were flooded 
and the city was without water service for over a week. More 
than 3,000 properties were inundated.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes 
reconstructing 13,300 feet of levees, improving 19 closure 
structures, and constructing a recreation trail on a segment of 
the Birdland Park levee.
    Project Costs. Total cost $10,500,000. Federal cost 
$6,800,000; non-Federal cost $3,700,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.7 to 1.
    (17) Licking River, Cynthiana, Kentucky
    Location. Licking River Basin in the communities of 
Cynthiana, Millersburg and Paris, Kentucky.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The flooding of the South Fork of the Licking 
River has resulted in severe damages to the City of Cynthiana, 
Kentucky. The flood of record in 1997 resulted in damages of 
$60 million to Cynthiana and Paris, Kentucky. Average annual 
damages for the study area were estimated to be $3,639,000. 
Without the proposed project, the study area is at high risk to 
human health and safety, and flood damages from which may 
result from additional flood events.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes 
constructing two dry bed detention basins on tributaries of the 
South Fork of the Licking River. Mitigation for unavoidable 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project 
would consist of 90 acres of hardwood planting on project lands 
to offset the impacts of the detention structures on the 
existing riparian hardwood corridors in the vicinity of the 
proposed project.
    Project Costs. Total cost $17,800,000. Federal cost 
$11,570,000; non-Federal cost $6,230,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 3.1 to 1.
    (18) Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana.
    Location. Located in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, about 
half way up the Morgan City to Port Allen Alternate Route near 
Bayou Sorrel, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. Bayou Sorrel Lock is structurally sound; however, 
the lock must be replaced for flood control purposes and is 
congested due to increasing traffic and its restrictive 
dimensions. The improvements allocated to navigation need to be 
authorized subject to applicable requirements of section 102 of 
WRDA 1986, as amended. The modification of Bayou Sorrel Lock to 
safely pass the project flood in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway 
is a feature of the authorized MR&T project, and as such, no 
additional implementing authority is required.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan is a new 75-ft wide 
by 1,200-ft long replacement lock.
    Project Costs. Total cost $9,500,000. Federal cost 
$4,750,000; non-Federal cost (from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund) $4,750,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 19.2 to 1.
    (19) Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico.
    Location. Houma City, Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes, 
Louisiana.
    Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The area is significantly affected by tides 
emanating from the Gulf of Mexico. Deterioration of coastal 
marshes, as a result of saltwater intrusion, land subsidence, 
and the lack of interchanges from the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries (MR&T) system has increased storm surge inundation.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended hurricane protection plan 
consists of approximately 72 miles of earthen levee with 12 
water control structures to allow ebb and flow through the 
levee, 12 floodgate structures (proposed for the navigable 
waterways), and a lock complex in the Houma Navigation Canal. 
The structural features are integrated into the levee alignment 
to provide flood protection, drainage, environmental benefit, 
and navigational passage. The operation, maintenance, repair, 
rehabilitation, and replacement of the Houma Navigation Canal 
lock complex and the GIWW floodgate features that provide for 
inland waterway transportation shall be a Federal 
responsibility.
    Project Costs. Total cost $841,100,000. Federal cost 
$546,300,000; non-Federal cost $294,800,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.7 to 1.
    (20) Port of Iberia, Louisiana.
    Location. Iberia and Vermilion Parishes, Louisiana.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. The primary problem is the depth restriction of 
-12 feet of the existing access channels, Freshwater Bayou, 
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Commercial Canal, to the Port of 
Iberia. The predominant economic engines located in the study 
area are large offshore rig fabricators and offshore petroleum 
services firms. The primary purpose of this deepening project 
is to allow for deeper draft vessels that are needed to meet 
the burgeoning demands of the deepwater offshore petroleum 
industry. At present the relative shallow depth does not allow 
for the size vessels needed to transport the fabricated 
structures used in the exploration and production in the deep 
waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Recommended Plan. The reporting officers identified a plan 
for navigation at the Port of Iberia, Louisiana, to improve 
access for ocean going vessels transporting prefabricated 
deepwater topsides to the Gulf of Mexico. That plan includes 
modifications of about 57.5 miles of existing navigation 
channel which consist of two segments of the existing inland 
waterway system: Freshwater Bayou and a portion of the Gulf 
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), and the non-Federally constructed 
Commercial Canal. It provides for an enlargement of the 
Commercial Canal, a 14-mile-long segment of the GIWW and 
Freshwater Bayou navigation channels to a depth of -16 feet 
mean lower low water (MLLW) and a bottom width of 150 feet. To 
address the uncertainties associated with future deepwater 
topside fabrication by Gulf of Mexico (GOM) businesses and Port 
of Iberia's potential future share of the GOM deepwater topside 
market, a number of scenarios were projected to encompass a 
reasonable range of future conditions. Deepwater topside 
contract benefits for each scenario were measured in accordance 
with Section 6009 of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
Act of 2005 and used to identify a recommended plan. Port of 
Iberia firms would likely compete with fabricators located at 
other U.S. ports for the topside contracts. The 24 scenarios 
encompassed 3 distinct GOM topside forecasts and differing 
assumptions of foreign or other domestic competition, contract 
types, topside and hull integrations, and order staging. The 
outcome was that 17 of 24 scenarios indicate maximum net 
benefits for channel deepening to 16 feet at Port of Iberia, 
representing more than 70 percent of the scenarios 
(corresponding benefit-to-cost ratios range from 2.2 to 0.8). 
Based on the scenario analysis results, the 16-foot channel is 
the plan that most reasonably maximizes net benefits and 
represents the minimum Federal investment that accommodates 
barge transport of all topsides forecast for fabrication by 
Port of Iberia firms. The local sponsor, the Louisiana 
Department of Transportation and Development, prefers the 20-
foot channel-deepening plan and considers it critical to Port 
of Iberia's future competitiveness. It is difficult to project 
with some degree of certainty the future deepwater topside 
fabrications by Gulf of Mexico businesses and the Port of 
Iberia's future share of that market. As a result, there may be 
a need to reevaluate the feasibility of a deeper navigation 
channel at some point in the future. Additional authorization 
will be required to construct the 20-foot channel plan.
    Project Costs. Total cost: $204,600,000. Federal Cost 
$129,700,000; non-Federal Cost $74,900,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.03 to 1.
    (21) Poplar Island Expansion, Maryland.
    Location. Poplar Island, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.
    Purpose. Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.
    Problem. Land subsidence, rising sea level, and wave action 
are causing valuable remote island habitats to be lost 
throughout the Chesapeake Bay.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan would expand the 
current Poplar Island project by 575 acres. The plan would 
expand the existing project into the shallow bay waters to the 
north and northeast of the existing Poplar Island project and 
increasing the elevation of the upland habitats associated with 
the currently authorized project by about 5 feet. These project 
modifications would use an additional 28 million cubic yard of 
dredged material from the Federal navigation channels. The 
additional island acreage created would be comprised of 29 
percent wetland habitat (165 acres), 47 percent upland habitat 
(270 acres), and 24 percent open water habitat (130 acres of 
open-water embayment habitat plus 10 acres of tidal gut 
habitat).
    Project Costs. Total cost $256,100,000. Federal cost 
$192,100,000; non-Federal cost $64,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (22) Smith Island, Maryland.
    Location. Smith Island, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. Valuable wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation 
(SAV) habitat is being destroyed and degraded by erosion. As 
the landmasses that make up Smith Island erode, there is 
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.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 
constructing over 2 miles of off-shore segmented breakwaters to 
provide protection to over 2100 acres of wetlands and SAV 
habitats, and reduction of sediment to the Chesapeake Bay.
    Project Costs. Total cost $14,500,000. Federal cost 
$9,425,000; non-Federal cost $5,075,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (23) Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri.
    Location. Blue River at the Swope Park Industrial Area, 
Kansas City, Missouri.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The Blue River flooded in 1961, 1977, 1984, and 
1990. The most severe floods occurred in 1961 and 1990. The May 
1990 flood caused an estimated $1,000,000 in damages. If left 
without protection in the current condition, the Swope Park 
Industrial Area will be subjected to continuing damaging 
floods. Eventually, the area will fall into decline as a viable 
industrial park and source of employment.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 
construction of reinforced concrete floodwall and compacted 
earthen levee; construction of an interior drainage system 
consisting of reinforced concrete pipe and an interior storm 
water retention pond; construction of a rolling-gate closure at 
the existing 75th Street entrance to the industrial park; 
construction of a small park and trailhead; planting of 
hardwood trees along the Blue River Parkway; and excavation for 
a small wetland riverward of the levee at a location just 
upstream of the Swope Park Industrial Area.
    Project Costs. Total cost $16,900,000. Federal cost 
$10,990,000; non-Federal cost $5,910,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.5 to 1.
    (24) Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New 
Jersey.
    Location. Liberty State Park, New Jersey.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. 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 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/or 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.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 
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; 
construction of two drainage pipes; construction of a drainage 
swale to connect interior freshwater wetlands; construction of 
buffer areas surrounding the tidal marsh and existing 
freshwater wetlands.
    Project Costs. Total cost $33,050,000. Federal cost 
$21,480,000; non-Federal cost $11,570,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The restoration plan is justified by 
the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (25) Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets, New Jersey.
    Location. Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Island Beach, Ocean 
County, New Jersey.
    Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
    Problem. Severe storms in recent years have caused a 
reduction in the overall beach height and width along the study 
area. The narrowing and lowering of the beaches and dunes along 
the study area have reduced the storm protection that would 
have otherwise been available. As a result, public and private 
property is subject to damage from erosion, wave attack and 
tidal inundation. Some storms have caused extensive damage and 
even loss of life, and when evacuation was considered 
necessary, families have suffered hardships and inconvenience.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of berm and 
dune restoration using sand obtained from offshore borrow 
sources. Periodic nourishment is expected to occur at 4-year 
intervals subsequent to completion of initial construction.
    Project Costs. Total cost $70,340,000. Federal cost 
$45,720,000; non-Federal cost $24,620,000. Estimated total 
costs of $117,100,000 for periodic nourishment over a period of 
50 years, with an estimated Federal cost of $58,550,000 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $58,550,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.
    (26) Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New 
Jersey.
    Location. Union Beach, New Jersey.
    Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The identified problem is coastal storm inundation 
along the Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays, Chingarora Creek, Flat 
Creek, and East Creek, which results in inundation of 
approximately 1,000 structures from a 100-yr storm event. The 
problem is caused by a combination of rainfall and coastal 
storm surges, erosion, and wave attack, combined with 
restrictions to channel flow in the tidal creeks.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of a 
combination of levees, floodwalls, 2 storm gates, 3 pump 
stations, 2 terminal groins, beach and dune, periodic 
renourishment, interior drainage structures and mitigation.
    Project Costs. Total cost $112,640,000. Federal cost 
$73,220,000; non-Federal cost $39,420,000. Estimated total cost 
of $6,400,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of 
the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,300,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,100,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.8 to 1.
    (27) South River, New Jersey.
    Location. South River, Boroughs of South River and 
Sayreville, New Jersey.
    Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem 
Restoration.
    Problem. The main problem affecting the area is flooding 
caused by periodic hurricanes and other storms. Damages are 
primarily due to storm surges and associated basin runoff, 
which subject these areas to significant flooding. Significant 
degradation of wetlands and the surrounding ecosystem has 
occurred due to urbanization resulting in tidal flow 
restrictions and increased storm surge inputs of excess water 
and sediments.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of a storm 
surge barrier, two combined levees/floodwalls, and interior 
drainage facilities including pump stations and outlets. In 
addition, the project will provide for the restoration of the 
structure and function of 380 acres of degraded ecosystems, 
including wetlands and forest habitats.
    Project Costs. Total cost $120,810,000. Federal cost 
$78,530,000; non-Federal cost $42,280,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.2 to 1.
    (28) Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
    Location. Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, 
New Mexico.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. 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 Albuquerque 
Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control, 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.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan, as described in the 
Chief's report signed November 29, 2004, involves reduction of 
flood damages by modifying existing features of the Middle Rio 
Grande Conservancy District's surface drain facilities. The 
recommended plan includes utilizing existing easements, 
widening existing drains, and providing a gravity outfall to 
the Rio Grande with the opportunity for wetland enhancement. 
Approximately 7.5 miles of existing 30- to 40-foot-wide drains 
would be enlarged to a width of 68 feet to store and convey 
flood flows on the Isleta, Armijo, and Los Padillas drains. New 
access roads and trails would be installed on each side of 
these drains. Existing road crossings would be rehabilitated 
and/or enlarged to facilitate the proposed improvements and 
additions to the drainage system. A 25-acre detention pond 
would be constructed in an existing agricultural field situated 
east of the Isleta Drain to detain a portion of flood flow 
during large storm events. Two flood flow channels totaling 
approximately 1.5 miles would be constructed to connect the 
Isleta drain to the Los Padillas drain and then to the Rio 
Grande levee. New access roads 15 feet wide would be placed on 
each side of these drains. Floodgates 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.
    Project Costs. Total cost is $24,000,000. Federal cost 
$15,600,000; non-Federal cost $8,400,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.4 to 1.
    (29) Montauk Point, New York.
    Location. Montauk Point, New York.
    Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The Montauk Point study area, including the 
historic lighthouse, is located on a bluff at the eastern end 
of the southern fork of Long Island, approximately 125 miles 
east of New York City. The area surrounding the lighthouse is 
operated as a State park. The Montauk Point Lighthouse was 
commissioned by President Washington and completed in 1796. It 
is included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 
Continued shoreline erosion threatens the loss of the 
lighthouse complex and surrounding State park property.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of an 840-
foot long revetment with a crest width of 40 feet at an 
elevation of +25 feet NGVD and 2 vertical and 1 horizontal side 
slopes.
    Project Costs. Total cost $14,070,000. Federal cost 
$7,035,000; non-Federal cost $7,035,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.9 to 1.
    (30) Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio.
    Location. Hocking River, Monday Creek, OH.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. The Monday Creek Basin ecosystem and environment 
is, and continues to be, significantly impacted by abandoned 
mines resulting in acid mine drainage contaminating water 
system. The resultant is a near sterile aquatic ecosystem.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan would mitigate acid 
mine drainage within the Monday Creek watershed and reestablish 
connectivity of aquatic resources between the Hocking River and 
the Monday Creek headwaters. The recommended plan would restore 
230 acres and 59 miles of aquatic ecosystem and stream habitat 
by ameliorating the conditions of severe acid loading and toxic 
metal concentrations. The plan consists of 180 restoration 
measures, including 45 open limestone channels, three low head 
dams, 39 limestone leach beds, 17 slag leach beds, 3 aerobic 
wetlands and 2 dosers, or limestone dispensers. Measures to 
restore surface flows and unblock natural drainage patterns 
include 25 subsidence closures, rerouting of 11 dissipating 
streams, and breaching or removing mine spoil piles at 35 
sites. These components are located on both private (124.6 
acres to be acquired) and Federal-owned lands in the Wayne 
National Forest.
    The sponsor of the project is the Ohio Department of 
Natural Resources (ODNR). However, part of the project is 
located on the Federal lands of the Wayne National Forest, Ohio 
and managed by the US Forest Service. In designing and 
constructing the project described, ODNR and the Secretary will 
work, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to 
construct the project features on land located in the Wayne 
National Forest.
    The Federal (COE) share of the project will be 65 percent. 
However, it is anticipated that the Federal share of the costs 
of the features of the project located in the Wayne National 
Forest, would be 100 percent. The Corps will be responsible for 
implementation costs, while the Forest Service would provide 
the lands, easements and rights of way necessary for the 
project at no cost to the Department of the Army. The 
operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement 
of the project under subsection would be a non-Federal (ODNR) 
responsibility. The operation, maintenance, repair, 
rehabilitation, and replacement of the project features, 
located in the Wayne National Forest, will be a U.S. Forest 
Service responsibility.
    Project Costs. Total cost $18,730,000. Federal cost 
$12,170,000; non-Federal cost $6,560,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The plan is justified by the 
restoration of valuable habitat.
    (31) Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania.
    Location. Vicinity of Bloomsburg and Fernville, 
Pennsylvania.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. 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 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 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. There is an opportunity to reduce average 
annual urban flood damages estimated at $4,601,000.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan, as described in the 
Chief's report signed January 25, 2005, involves reduction of 
flood damages by constructing earthen levee, mechanically 
stabilized earth floodwalls, concrete floodwalls, drainage 
structures, road raises, and closure structures to protect 
Bloomsburg and Fernville. Unavoidable environmental impacts 
would be fully compensated for by the creation of about 0.7 
acre of emergent wetland and about 1.5 acres of forested 
wetland habitats, and the removal of a timber crib dam on 
Fishing Creek to enable fish passage.
    Project Costs. Total cost is $43,300,000. Federal cost 
$28,150,000; non-Federal cost $15,150,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.4 to 1.
    (32) Pawleys Island, South Carolina.
    Location. Pawleys Island is a barrier island located on the 
Atlantic Ocean in Georgetown County, South Carolina, 
approximately 25 miles southwest of Myrtle Beach, South 
Carolina and approximately 12 miles northeast of Georgetown, 
South Carolina.
    Purpose. Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction.
    Problem. Seasonal storm events, particularly hurricanes and 
northeasters, cause damage to the structures (all of which are 
residential) located on Pawleys Island. South Carolina is 
indirectly affected by a tropical storm or hurricane on the 
average every 2.5 years and directly affected every 5.5 years. 
Hurricanes have in the past caused breaches across the southern 
portion of the island and resultant damage to properties, 
structures, roadways, utilities, and public access. Based on 
without-project conditions, the potential total damages to the 
structures in the project area at Pawleys Island are estimated 
to be approximately $9,000,000. Without the proposed project, 
the structural integrity of many of the beachfront structures 
will continue to be threatened. The ancillary environmental 
benefit of improved loggerhead sea turtle nesting area will 
also not be realized without the project in place.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of berm and 
dune restoration using sand obtained from offshore borrow 
sources. Periodic nourishment is expected to occur at 9-year 
intervals subsequent to completion of initial construction.
    Project Costs. Total cost $8,980,000. Federal cost 
$4,040,000; non-Federal cost $4,940,000. Estimated total costs 
of $21,200,000 for periodic nourishment over a period of 50 
years, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,632,000 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $13,568,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.6 to 1.
    (33) Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.
    Location. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, 
Texas.
    Purpose. Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. The depth and width of the existing Federal 
navigation channel system has become restrictive due to the 
increasing size of vessels in operation in the world fleet. 
Beam width restrictions also cause delays for larger ships 
wishing to enter Corpus Christi's port facilities.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 
deepening the navigation channel 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); deepening of the 
remainder of the channel into the Gulf of Mexico (approximately 
2 miles) to--54 feet MLT; and widening of the Upper Bay and 
Lower Bay reaches (approximately 20 miles) to 530 feet. The 
project would include deepening in all channel reaches, 
including the Entrance Channel, Upper and Lower Bay reaches, 
and the Inner Harbor, construction of 200-foot wide, 12-foot 
deep MLT barge shelves on both sides of the CCSC (approximately 
10 miles), and construction of an extension to the La Quinta 
Channel to--39 feet MLT. The channel would be extended 
approximately 1.4 miles beyond its current limit. The channel 
would measure 400 feet wide, and a second turning basin with a 
1,200-foot radius would be constructed. The existing limits of 
the La Quinta Channel would remain at their existing 45-foot 
depth. The project includes construction of two ecosystem 
restoration features, including construction of rock 
breakwaters and geo-tubes to protect 1,200 acres of high 
quality marsh and 40 acres of seagrass. Both components are 
adjacent to the CCSC in the Lower Bay reach of the channel.
    Project Costs. Total cost $188,110,000. Federal cost 
$87,810,000; non-Federal cost $100,300,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.6 to 1.
    (34) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port 
O'Connor, Texas.
    Location. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway through Matagorda Bay, 
Texas.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) through 
Matagorda Bay is experiencing strong cross currents from the 
interplay with the natural bay opening at Pass Cavallo and the 
deep-draft Matagorda Ship Channel and its jettied entrance 
channel resulting in significant vessel delays, property 
damages, and high waterway maintenance costs for the existing 
Matagorda Bay reach of the GIWW.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 
rerouting the existing GIWW from mile markers 460 to 472 
approximately 6,000 feet north of and parallel to the existing 
channel. The channel will have a depth of 12 feet and a bottom 
width of 125 feet, which is the same as the existing channel. 
The project will make beneficial use of dredged material to 
provide for the construction of approximately 135 acres of 
marsh at Palacios Point and 160 acres of marsh near Port 
O'Connor, and to nourish beaches at Sundown Island, a National 
Audubon Society site, and the beach at Port O'Connor.
    Project Costs. Total cost $17,280,000. Federal cost 
$8,640,000; non-Federal cost (from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund) $8,640,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.1 to 1.
    (35) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos 
River, Texas.
    Location. The project is located along the Gulf 
Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) from mile 318 to 400, between High 
Island and the Brazos River in Texas.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. Navigation users have experienced problems along 
the GIWW at Rollover Pass, Sievers Cove, the Texas City Wye, 
and Greens Lake due to channel width and alignment 
restrictions, lack of mooring facilities, high maintenance 
costs due to frequent dredging requirements and limitation on 
placement areas for dredged material, and strong tidal current 
affects.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of widening 
and realigning reaches of the existing GIWW channel to allow 
maneuvering room to alleviate navigation restrictions.
    Project Costs. Total cost $14,450,000. Federal cost 
$7,225,000; non-Federal cost (from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund) $7,225,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 2.4 to 1.
    (36) Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas.
    Location. Riverside Oxbow Trinity River, Fort Worth, Texas.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. The Riverside Oxbow and surrounding area have 
experienced both direct and indirect environmental degradation 
as a result of the construction and implementation of Benbrook 
Lake, Eagle Mountain Lake, Lake Worth, the Fort Worth Floodway 
project, and subsequent flood control projects and development 
activities.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 
restoration of 512.2 acres of floodplain lands, approximately 2 
miles of Oxbow river channel, 56.5 acres of wetlands, and 112 
acres of uplands. It also provides 25,700 feet of mixed surface 
linear recreation trails.
    Project Costs. Total cost $27,330,000. Federal cost 
$11,320,000; non-Federal cost $16,010,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.
    (37) Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Virginia.
    Location. Chesapeake, Virginia.
    Purpose. Navigation.
    Problem. The Norfolk Harbor and Channels project requires 
periodic dredging and the disposal of the material at the 
confined disposal facility at Craney Island. The expansion of 
Craney Island could extend the useful life of the facility and 
provide space needed for landside port facilities.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan is for the eastward 
expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Material Management Area 
(CIDMMA) would consist of a 580 acre dredged material 
containment facility adjacent to the east side of the existing 
facility. The expansion would be designed and constructed to 
accommodate a marine terminal. The project would receive 
priority for the receipt of any dredged material after the date 
of completion of the construction.
    Project Costs. Total cost $671,340,000. Federal cost 
$26,220,000; non-Federal cost $645,120,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 4.4 to 1.
    (38) Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia.
    Location. Chesapeake, Virginia.
    Purpose. Navigation (Bridge Replacement).
    Problem. The bridge, constructed in 1934, which is a 
Federally owned and operated facility and assists in 
navigation. The bridge passes over the Dismal Swamp Canal where 
U.S. Route 17 crosses. The bridge is a two-lane low level swing 
bridge with several intersecting side streets, none of which 
meet today's highway/bridge standards. The bridge is considered 
obsolete.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan is for a low-level, 
5-lane, split leaf, pit bascule bridge, with separate 2-lane 
and 3-lane leafs. The new bridge will relieve heavy traffic 
congestion, correct poor alignments with connecting roads, and 
insure the required safety features are brought up to standard. 
Upon completion, the city of Chesapeake will assume ownership 
of the bridge.
    Project Costs. Total cost $37,200,000. Federal cost 
$37,200,000; non-Federal cost $0.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 8.3 to 1.
    (39) Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington.
    Location. Chehalis River valley at the cities of Centralia 
and Chehalis in Lewis County, Washington.
    Purpose. Flood Damage Reduction.
    Problem. The river valley has a broad meandering channel 
and a mile-wide floodplain. The average annual rainfall is 
about 42 inches. Major floods occur during the October to March 
period from heavy rainfall augmented by snowmelt runoff. The 
cities of Centralia and Chehalis have been subject to repeated 
flooding for many years. This flooding has caused extensive 
damage to private and public property and periodic closure of 
critical transportation routes resulting in significant 
economic losses.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan consists of 
construction of a levee system along the Chehalis River from 
approximately river mile (RM) 75 to RM 64 and along most of the 
lower 2 miles of both 46 Dillenbaugh Creek and Salzer Creek; 
construction of a levee along the lower approximately 2 miles 
of Skookumchuck River to the confluence with Coffee Creek; 
modification to the existing Skookumchuck Dam to add a short 
gated outlet tunnel to create flood control storage; and 
raising in elevation approximately eight structures that would 
incur induced damages from increased inundation as a result of 
the project. Unavoidable environmental impacts will include 
wetland and riparian habitat degradation and destruction 
resulting in the loss of approximately 105 habitat units.
    Mitigation for these losses will be accomplished through a 
combination of wetland creation, revegetation of riparian 
habitat, and reconnection of an isolated oxbow with the 
mainstem Chehalis River.
    Project Costs. Total cost $121,100,000. Federal cost 
$73,220,000; non-Federal cost $47,880,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. 1.3 to 1.
    (b) Projects Subject to Final Report.
    The Secretary is authorized to carry out the following 
project substantially in accordance with the plan and subject 
to the conditions recommended in a final report of the Chief of 
Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is completed not 
later than December 31, 2006.
    Jamaica Bay, Queens and Brooklyn, New York.
    Location. Jamaica Bay, New York.
    Purpose. Ecosystem Restoration.
    Problem. Over the past century, the Bay's fragile ecosystem 
has been degraded through human encroachment and increased 
urbanization.
    Recommended Plan. The recommended plan includes restoration 
measures at nine sites, including measures to regrade 
shorelines, revegetate grasslands, create and/or restore 
additional estuarine, wetland, and upland habitats, and improve 
circulation and flushing in the bay.
    Project Costs. Total cost $180,000,000. Federal cost 
$117,000,000; non-Federal cost $63,000,000.
    Benefit/Cost Ratio. The cost of the recommended plan is 
justified by the restoration of valuable habitat.

Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem 
        restoration plan for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 
        Waterway System

    This section authorizes navigation improvements and 
ecosystem restoration for the Upper Mississippi River and 
Illinois Waterway System. These improvements and the ecosystem 
restoration for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 
Waterway System are in general conformance with the recommended 
plan contained in the Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
December 15, 2004. The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 
Waterway System consists of the projects for navigation and 
ecosystem restoration authorized by Congress for 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 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.
    In section 1103(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4225), Congress recognized the Upper 
Mississippi River System as `a nationally significant ecosystem 
and a nationally significant commercial navigation system' and 
declared that the system `shall be administered and regulated 
in recognition of its several purposes'.
    The inland waterway transportation system moves 16 percent 
of the freight in the United States for 2 percent of the cost, 
including more than 100,000,000 tons on the Upper Mississippi 
River System. The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 
is a major thoroughfare for goods in the United States. The 
river provides transportation for 60 percent of the corn 
exports of the United States and 45 percent of the soybean 
exports of the United States. The current 600-foot lock system 
was designed for steamboats, at a time when only 4,000,000 tons 
moved on the Mississippi River. The Waterway supports 400,000 
full- and part-time jobs in the United States, generating over 
$4,000,000,000 in income and $12,000,000,000 to $15,000,000,000 
in economic activity. The Upper Mississippi River System also 
provides important economic benefits from recreational and 
tourist uses, resulting in the basin receiving more visitors 
annually than most National Parks, with the ecosystems and 
wildlife being the main attractions.
    United States farm and trade policies work to open world 
markets and promote United States exports. Keeping the cost of 
transportation lower through competition between transportation 
modes is the United States farmer's competitive advantage in 
capturing future global growth in agricultural exports. Foreign 
competitors have worked over the last 15 years to improve 
transportation infrastructure to compete more effectively with 
United States production. The movement of 100,000,000 tons on 
the river system in 4,400 15-barge tows would require an 
equivalent of 4,000,000 trucks or 1,000,000 rail cars moving 
directly through our communities. The Department of 
Transportation projects that freight congestion on the roads 
and rails in the United States will double in the next 25 
years.
    The Army Corps of Engineers has been studying the needs for 
national investments on the Upper Mississippi River System for 
the last 15 years and completed its feasibility report dated 
September 24, 2004. The construction of new 1,200-foot locks 
and lock extensions will provide more than 48,000,000 man-hours 
of employment over 10 to 15 years. Based on the current 
construction schedule of new locks and dams on the inland 
system, lock modernization will need to take place over 30 
years, starting immediately.
    The Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers ecosystem 
consists of hundreds of thousands of acres of bottomland 
forests, islands, backwaters, side channels, and wetlands, 
including 284,688 acres of National Wildlife Refuge land that 
provides habitat and recreational opportunities. It is home to 
270 species of birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of 
amphibians and reptiles, 113 species of fish, and nearly 50 
species of mussels. More than 40 percent of migratory waterfowl 
and shorebirds in North America depend on the river for food, 
shelter, and habitat during migration. Development since the 
1930's has altered and reduced the biological diversity of the 
large flood plain river systems of the Upper Mississippi and 
Illinois Rivers. The annual operation of the Upper Mississippi 
River Basin needs to take into consideration opportunities for 
ecosystem restoration, and Congress recognizes the need for 
significant Federal investment in the restoration of the Upper 
Mississippi and Illinois River ecosystems.
    The navigation improvements that would be authorized for 
construction by the Secretary of the Army include small scale 
and nonstructural measures and new locks.
    The small scale and nonstructural measures consist of the 
construction of mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 
24, and La Grange Lock, switch boats at Locks 20 through 25 and 
the development and testing of an appointment scheduling 
system. The cost of these measures is $246,000,000, one-half in 
funds from the general fund of the Treasury, and one-half from 
the Inland Waterways Trust Fund that is paid by private users.
    New 1,200-foot locks are authorized for construction at 
Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River and 
at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois Waterway. The 
cost of the new locks is $1,870,000,000, one-half in funds from 
the general fund of the Treasury, and one-half from the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund that is paid by private users.
    This section also authorizes ecosystem restoration on the 
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System. First, to 
ensure the environmental sustainability of the existing Upper 
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, the Secretary 
shall, consistent with requirements to avoid any adverse 
effects on navigation, modify 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. Second, the Secretary shall, consistent 
with requirements to avoid any adverse effects on navigation, 
carry out 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 Chief of Engineers Report dated 
December 15, 2004. This section lists specific types of 
ecosystem restoration projects that may be conducted under this 
authority.
    The Federal share of the cost of carrying out an ecosystem 
restoration project under this section shall be 100 percent if 
the project is located below the ordinary high water mark or in 
a connected backwater; modifies the operation or structures for 
navigation; or is located on Federally owned land. The Federal 
share of ecosystem restoration projects not meeting these 
criteria shall be 65 percent. Nongovernmental organizations 
shall be eligible to contribute the non-Federal cost-sharing 
requirements applicable to ecosystem restoration projects. The 
Secretary of the Army may acquire land or an interest in land 
for an ecosystem restoration project from a willing owner 
through conveyance of fee title to the land, or a flood plain 
conservation easement. Ecosystem restoration projects shall be 
carried out at a total construction cost of $1,650,000,000. 
Before initiating the construction of any individual ecosystem 
restoration project, the Secretary of the Army shall: (i) 
Establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify specific 
performance measures designed to demonstrate ecosystem 
restoration; (ii) establish the without-project condition or 
baseline for each performance indicator; and (iii) for each 
separable element of the ecosystem restoration identify 
specific target goals for each performance indicator. 
Performance measures should comprise 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. Restoration design shall include a 
monitoring plan for the performance measures including a 
timeline to achieve the identified target goals and a timeline 
for the demonstration of project completion.
    Not later than June 30, 2008 and every 5 years thereafter, 
the Secretary of the Army 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 includes 
baselines, benchmarks, goals, and priorities for ecosystem 
restoration projects and measures the progress in meeting the 
goals.
    The Secretary shall appoint and convene an advisory panel 
to provide independent guidance in the development of each 
implementation report. The panelists shall include 1 
representative of each of the State resource agencies or a 
designee of the Governor of the State from each of the States 
of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin; 1 
representative of the Department of Agriculture; 1 
representative of the Department of Transportation; 1 
representative of the United States Geological Survey; 1 
representative of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; 
1 representative of the Environmental Protection Agency; 1 
representative of affected landowners; 2 representatives of 
conservation and environmental advocacy groups; and 2 
representatives of agriculture and industry advocacy groups. 
The Secretary of the Army shall serve as chair of the advisory 
panel. The advisory panel shall not be considered an advisory 
committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
App.)
    The Secretary, in consultation with the advisory panel, 
shall develop a system to rank proposed projects. The ranking 
system shall give greater weight to projects that restore 
natural river processes including floodplain restoration and 
water level management including dam point control. If the 
Secretary determines that projects for navigation improvement 
and ecosystem restoration are not moving toward completion at a 
comparable rate, annual funding for the projects will be 
adjusted to ensure that projects move toward completion at a 
comparable rate in the future.

Sec. 1003. Louisiana coastal area ecosystem restoration, Louisiana

    This section authorizes a program for ecosystem restoration 
in the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA). The LCA contains one of 
the largest expanses of coastal wetlands in the contiguous 
United States and accounts for 90 percent of the total coastal 
marsh loss in the nation. Coastal Louisiana has lost more than 
1.2 million acres (1,875 sq. mi.) since 1930, and it is 
estimated to continue to lose land at a rate of approximately 
14 square miles per year over the next 50 years.
    Louisiana's coastal wetlands and barrier island system 
enhances protection of an internationally significant 
commercial-industrial complex from the destructive forces of 
storm driven waves and tides. The system, taken as a whole with 
migratory birds, fish and other species, places the coastal 
wetlands of Louisiana among the nation's most productive and 
important natural assets. Louisiana's coastal area is home to 
more than two million people, representing 46 percent of 
Louisiana's population. The State provides more than 20 percent 
of the seafood consumed in the United States. An estimated 20 
percent of our nation's energy is dependent upon the coastal 
area of Louisiana. In 2001, offshore oil and gas production off 
the coast of Louisiana provided approximately $5.1 billion to 
the Federal Government, making it one of the largest revenue 
sources to the U.S. Treasury. Without implementation of a 
comprehensive restoration program, these resources, including 
the extensive energy infrastructure network, are at risk.
    In response to the degradation of the coastal area, the 
State of Louisiana, in cooperation with the Corps and other 
Federal agencies, developed a comprehensive plan for the 
restoration of coastal Louisiana. The plan, which served as the 
Corps reconnaissance report for the LCA, is known as the Coast 
2050 plan. As a result of this plan, the Louisiana Coastal Area 
Ecosystem Restoration program report (report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated January 31, 2005) has identified an initial 
phase of near-term work. The framework established in this bill 
advances the initial component.
    Subsection (a) authorizes the Louisiana Coastal Area 
program substantially in accordance with the report of the 
Chief of Engineers dated January 31, 2005. The report 
identifies five major categories as follows.
    (1) Five Near-Term Critical Ecosystem Restoration 
Features--subsection (c) includes additional language on these 
five projects.
    (2) Ten Additional Near-Term Restoration Features--
subsection (f) directs the Secretary to submit a feasibility 
report on these features by December 31, 2008.
    (3) Science and Technology Program--subsection (j) provides 
additional direction on implementation of this component of the 
program, including authority to use the expertise of estuary 
assessment groups and consortia with significant experience 
directly related to the Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem. 
Various agencies and experts have conducted investigations into 
the coastal Louisiana ecosystem over the past four decades. 
Utilization of the materials and researchers may prove to be an 
efficient use of funds.
    (4) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material--the Corps spends 
millions of dollars annually to dredge navigation channels in 
the program area. This program component is designed to ensure 
the efficient use of tax dollars by coordinating dredging for 
navigation purposes with the restoration goals of the program.
    (5) Demonstration Program--Standard practice for 
demonstration projects involves local entities at or near the 
site of the project to be the non-Federal partner. Therefore, 
each demonstration project under this program should occur 
within the State of Louisiana.
    Subsection (b) establishes the priorities of the program; 
critical restoration features, any Mississippi River diversion 
project that protects a major population area and produces an 
environmental benefit to the Louisiana coastal area, and any 
barrier island, or barrier shoreline project that is carried 
out in conjunction with a Mississippi River diversion project 
and protects a major population area.
    Subsection (c) authorizes the Corps to make modification as 
necessary to the 5 near-term critical ecosystem restoration 
features identified in the Chief's Report due to the impact of 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the project areas. This 
subsection also authorizes the construction of the projects, 
but prior to construction the Corps shall submit a report 
documenting any modifications to the Louisiana Water Resources 
Council established by subsection (n). The council shall submit 
the report to both the Senate and House authorization 
committees.
    Subsection (d) authorizes the Corps to conduct a 
demonstration program to evaluate new technologies and the 
applicability of the technologies to the program.
    Subsection (e) authorizes the Corps to conduct a program 
for beneficial use of dredged material. The Corps shall 
consider the beneficial use dredged material from the Illinois 
River System for wetlands restoration.
    Under subsection (f) not later than December 31, 2008, the 
Corps shall submit to Congress feasibility reports on the 
features included in table 3 of the Chief of Engineers Report. 
The Corps shall submit the feasibility report to the 
authorization committees of the Senate and House.
    Subsection (g) provides for the financial participation of 
non-governmental entities as contributors toward the non-
Federal share.
    Subsection (h) requires that within one year the Secretary 
in coordination with the Governor of Louisiana is to develop 
and submit a comprehensive plan with updates every 5 years. 
This plan is for protecting, preserving, and restoring the 
coastal Louisiana. The plan should be fully integrated with the 
analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection 
authorized by the Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2006.
    Subsection (i) establishes a task force comprised of eight 
members of the President's cabinet and three representatives of 
the State. Federal participation in the task force shall be at 
the level of assistant secretary or equivalent. In the case of 
agencies where the participation of more than one assistant 
secretary (or equivalent) may be appropriate, two or more 
assistant secretaries (or equivalent) may participate in the 
task force meeting, but the agency will have only one vote for 
matters considered before the task force.
    The task force is directed to make recommendations to the 
Secretary regarding the policies, strategies, plans, programs, 
projects, activities and financial participation (including 
identifying funds from current agency missions and budgets and 
coordination of individual agency budget requests) for 
addressing conservation, protection, restoration and 
maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
    The task force is also authorized to establish working 
groups. This program could cause potential conflicts pertaining 
to maritime and surface transportation, oil and gas activities, 
recreational and commercial fishing impacts. The working groups 
in each of these areas established by the task force will 
provide an opportunity to identify and address potential 
conflicts between the implementation of this program and 
activities in the coastal area and the OCS. The Governor's 
Advisory Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation may 
be one such appropriate working group. The task force and any 
working groups are exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act.
    Subsection (j) establishes a Science and Technology program 
with three purposes--(1) to identify any uncertainty relating 
to the physical, chemical, geological, biological and cultural 
baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana; (2) to improve the 
knowledge of these baseline conditions; and (3) to identify and 
develop technologies, models and methods to carry out the LCA 
program.
    Subsection (k) authorizes the Secretary to determine that 
the environmental benefits provided by the program outweigh the 
disadvantage of an activity, and no further economic 
justification is required if the Secretary determines that the 
activity is cost-effective.
    Subsection (l) requires the Secretary, in consultation with 
the non-Federal sponsor, to enter into a contract with the 
National Academy of Sciences for a study to evaluate the impact 
on ecosystem degradation in south Louisiana of activities 
authorized by the Secretary. Upon completion of this study, the 
Secretary is directed to review the findings as well as the 
potential reduction in emergency expenditures as a result of 
ecosystem restoration in the LCA in order to identify financing 
alternatives for the LCA program.
    Subsection (m) authorizes the Secretary to review existing 
water resources projects in the program area to determine if 
the projects are consistent with the goals of the LCA program 
and if modifications to the projects could result in additional 
contributions to achieving the goals of the LCA program. The 
Secretary is authorized to implement such modifications after 
providing opportunity for public notice and comment and 
submitting a report to the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee. The bill authorizes $10 million to implement this 
subsection.
    Subsection (n) establishes within the Mississippi River 
Commission, a subgroup--The Louisiana Water Resources Council. 
The purposes of the Council are to manage and oversee every 
aspect of the implementation of a system-wide, comprehensive 
plan for projects of the Corps, and to demonstrate and evaluate 
a streamline approach to authorization of water resources 
projects by the Corps. The president of the Mississippi River 
Commission shall appoint members of the Council, after 
considering recommendations of the Governor of Louisiana. The 
duties of the Council include the review of reports completed 
by the Corps and on approval, submitting the reports to both 
the House and Senate authorization committees. The Council will 
terminate 6 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
    In subsection (o), with respect to the projects identified 
in the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane 
protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act 2006, the Corps shall submit a 
report describing the projects to the authorization committees.

Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out the 
following project under the Small Projects for Flood Damage 
Reduction continuing authority program:
          (1) Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas

Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out the 
following projects under the Small Projects for Navigation 
continuing authority program:
          (1) Little Rock Port, Arkansas
          (2) Au Sable River, Michigan
          (3) Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor, 
        Michigan and Wisconsin
          (4) Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass 
        Island, Ohio

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out the 
following projects under the Small Projects for Aquatic 
Ecosystem Restoration continuing authority program:
          (1) San Diego River, California
          (2) Suison Marsh, San Pablo Bay, California
          (3) Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon
          (4) Blackstone River, Rhode Island
          (5) College Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                         SUBTITLE A--PROVISIONS

Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions

    This section provides general authority for the Secretary 
to provide credit for in-kind services made by the non-Federal 
sponsor toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project. 
This authority applies to all authorized projects, including 
projects implemented under general continuing authority. In-
kind services include: (1) The costs of planning (including 
data collection), design, management, mitigation, construction, 
and construction services; (2) the value of materials or 
services provided before the execution of an agreement for the 
project, including efforts on constructed elements incorporated 
into the project and materials; and (3) services provided after 
an agreement is executed.
    In all cases, credit is subject to a determination by the 
Secretary that the property or service provided is integral to 
the project. Credit may be provided as long as it does not 
exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, it 
does not alter any other requirement that the non-Federal 
interest provide land, easements or rights-of-way, or an area 
for disposal of dredged material for the project, or it does 
not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the materials, 
services, or other items provided by the non-Federal sponsor.
    This section was incorporated in the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007 to ensure that a consistent crediting 
policy is applied throughout the Army Corps of Engineers for 
all projects undertaken. The committee recognizes that many 
non-Federal sponsors have significant capability to carry out 
elements of projects and studies, as described in the testimony 
offered by Mr. Gregory A. Zlotnik, Director of the Santa Clara 
Valley Water District in California, on March 31, 2004, at a 
hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
regarding the Water Resources Development Act of 2004, which 
this credit policy is designed to encourage.
    It is the intent of the committee to allow credit for in-
kind contributions for all on-going, but not completed, 
projects in accordance with this section. Ongoing projects that 
this crediting policy applies to include:
          (1) White River Basin Comprehensive Study, Arkansas 
        and Missouri
          (2) San Francisco Bay to Port of Stockton Channel 
        Deepening Project, California
          (3) Pinole Creek, California
          (4) Walnut Creek Channel Aquatic Restoration, 
        California
          (5) Garyson's Creek/Murderer's Creek, California
          (6) Wildcat Creek, Phase I, California
          (7) Wildcat Creek, Phase II, California
          (8) South Platte River Urban Watershed, Colorado
          (9) Port of Miami, Florida
          (10) Port of Tampa, Florida
          (11) Ft. Pierce Shoreline Protection Study, Florida
          (12) Gasparilla and Estero Islands Shore Protection 
        Project, Florida
          (13) Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet Shore 
        Protection Project, Florida
          (14) South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Minnesota
          (15) Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri
          (16) Monarch Chesterfield, Missouri
          (17) Sand Creek Watershed, Nebraska
          (18) Watershed Management and Development, Nevada
          (19) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration 
        Program
          (20) John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program
          (21) Alsop/Brownwood Wetlands Restoration Project, 
        Oregon
          (22) San Antonio Channel, Texas

Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authority

    This section modifies the existing authority to provide 
support for other Federal agencies and international 
organizations. Under current law, the Secretary is authorized 
to receive funds to support Federal agencies or international 
organizations (after consultation with the Department of State) 
to address problems of national significance to the United 
States. This section allows the Secretary to also provide 
support to foreign governments and it adds contracting as one 
of the activities the Army Corps of Engineers may undertake 
under this authority. It authorizes $1,000,000 for this purpose 
for fiscal year 2007, and years thereafter.
    By changing the consultation requirement to the Department 
of State, the Secretary is able to streamline the consultation 
process to more quickly and effectively work directly with the 
offices within the State Department that oversee the particular 
support requests.

Sec. 2003. Training funds

    This section authorizes the Secretary to allow non-Federal 
interests, including the private sector, to enroll in training 
classes or courses offered by the Army Corps of Engineers and 
to recoup expenses incurred by the Corps in providing training 
for those participants. It also authorizes the Secretary to 
retain the funds paid by private sector individuals who enroll 
in these courses. Funds retained by the Secretary must be 
credited to an appropriation or account used to pay for 
training costs and will be available without further 
appropriations for use by the Secretary for training purposes. 
Amounts received in excess of costs of training are required to 
be credited to the U.S. Treasury. Under the current system, the 
more successful the Army Corps of Engineers is in training the 
private sector, the greater the financial burden on the agency. 
Currently, any reimbursements collected by the Army Corps of 
Engineers for training provided to private sector individuals 
are sent to the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

Sec. 2004. Fiscal transparency report

    This section directs the Secretary to prepare and submit to 
Congress on the third Tuesday of January, beginning in 2008, 
and each year thereafter, a report on the expenditures for the 
preceding fiscal year and estimated expenditures for the 
current fiscal year for:
          (1) Construction;
          (2) Operation and Maintenance of inland and 
        intracoastal waterways;
          (3) General Investigations, reconnaissance, and 
        feasibility studies;
          (4) Interagency and International Support Activities;
          (5) Recreation Fees and Lease Payments;
          (6) Hydropower and Water Supply Fees;
          (7) Inland Waterway Trust Fund and Harbor Maintenance 
        Trust Fund;
          (8) Other revenues, fees and payments;
          (9) Permit Application and notification processing 
        information; and
          (10) Project backlog.
    This section provides details on what is required to be 
reported for each item. This information will allow Congress to 
evaluate funding priorities to support the projects and 
programs of the Army Corps of Engineers.

Sec. 2005. Planning

    This section amends section 904 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 related to planning water resources 
projects to require the Secretary to assess each water resource 
project and project increment for cost-effectiveness and 
compliance with local, State, and national laws, regulations, 
and public policies. While the committee expects that all Army 
Corps of Engineers projects will be fully compliant with local, 
State and national laws, regulations, and public policy, it is 
aware of instances where a project may come into conflict with 
particular laws, regulations, or public policies. This section 
ensures that such conflicts, including the degree and severity, 
will be identified and assessed by the Army Corps of Engineers 
and documented in the feasibility report.
    Second, the Chief of Engineers generally is required to 
complete feasibility reports within 2 years of execution of a 
cost-sharing agreement. Complex reports may be extended to up 
to 4 years. The Chief is to adopt a risk analysis approach to 
project cost estimates, and issue procedures for risk analysis 
for cost estimation and recommend to Congress any changes to 
section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 that 
might be necessary to effectuate this requirement.
    Under this section, feasibility reports are required to 
include a calculation of the residual risk of flooding 
following completion of the proposed project, a calculation of 
the residual risk of loss of human life and residual risk to 
human safety following completion of the proposed project, and 
a calculation of upstream and downstream impacts of the 
proposed project.
    The committee supports the efforts of the Chief of 
Engineers to strengthen the planning competency within the 
Corps and therefore provides authority to establish centers of 
expertise to provide specialized planning expertise for studies 
and to provide internal peer review support for external peer 
review panels.
    The committee supports the concept that planning studies of 
the Corps should follow principles of integrated water 
management. If non-Federal study sponsors request and provide 
the cost-share, studies should incorporate and evaluate project 
alternatives without regard for whether such alternatives are 
within budgetary priorities for implementation. As these 
reports are primarily to provide Congress with the information 
and assurances necessary to justify congressional 
authorization, the Corps should not predetermine the outcome or 
eliminate viable alternatives for any reasons beyond the 
statutory requirements for feasibility studies.
    This section also gives full responsibility to the Chief of 
Engineers for the technical aspects of project development by 
directing that the Chief of Engineers shall not be subject to 
direction as to the contents, findings or recommendation of 
reports and shall be solely responsible for the reports and any 
related recommendations, including any evaluation and 
recommendation for changes in law or policy that may be 
appropriate and representative of the best technical solutions 
to water resource needs and problems. This section directs that 
the reports of the Chief of Engineers be based solely on the 
best technical solutions to water resources needs and problems.
    Finally this section provides for timely review and 
submission of reports to Congress. The completion of the Chief 
of Engineers reports shall not be delayed while consideration 
is being given to potential changes in policy or priority for 
project consideration and, after completion, shall be submitted 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
and to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the House of Representatives. The Secretary shall, within 90 
days after the date of completion of a report of the Chief of 
Engineers that recommends to Congress a water resource project, 
review the report and provide any recommendation regarding the 
project to Congress. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary shall complete review of, and provide 
recommendation to Congress for any report recommending to 
Congress a water resource project that the Chief of Engineers 
completed before the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 2006. Water Resources Planning Coordinating Committee

    This section requires the President to establish a Water 
Resources Planning Coordinating Committee. The Coordinating 
Committee is composed of the Secretary of the Interior, the 
Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the 
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce, the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
Chairperson of the Council on Environmental Quality.
    The President appoints one member of the Coordinating 
Committee to serve as Chairperson of the Coordinating Committee 
for a term of two years. The President also appoints an 
Executive Director to supervise the activities of the 
Coordinating Committee.
    The function of the Coordinating Committee is to carry out 
the duties and responsibilities set forth in the National Water 
Resources Planning and Modernization Policy. This policy states 
that all water resources projects carried out by the Corp of 
Engineers will reflect national priorities; seek to avoid the 
unwise use of floodplains; minimize vulnerabilities in any case 
in which a floodplain must be used; protect and restore the 
functions of natural systems; and mitigate any unavoidable 
damage to natural systems.
    The Water Resources Planning Coordinating Committee will no 
later than two years after it is established submit to the 
President and Congress a report describing the vulnerability of 
the United Stets to damage from flooding and related storm 
damage.
    This section directs the Secretary and Coordinating 
Committee, within 2 years of enactment and every 5 years 
thereafter, to review and propose updates and revisions to the 
planning principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars 
by which the Corps of Engineers analyzes and evaluates water 
projects.

Sec. 2007. Independent peer review

    Section 2007 establishes new requirements for independent 
peer review of certain proposed Corps of Engineers projects. 
Subject to the requirements of the section, any feasibility 
report, reevaluation report, or environmental impact statement 
prepared by the Corps would be subject to review.
    The independent reviews would be conducted under the 
responsibility of the Director of Independent Review. The 
director will be appointed by the Secretary, must be free of 
any conflicts of interest, and must have suitable 
qualifications to carry out the director's responsibilities.
    The independent review requirements of this section apply 
to any project that will have an estimated total cost of more 
than $40,000,000, including mitigation costs, any project where 
the governor of an affected State requests a review, any 
project where the head of a Federal agency that is charged with 
reviewing a project determines that the project will have a 
significant adverse impact, and any project where the Secretary 
determines the project is controversial. The public can request 
a determination of whether a project is controversial.
    Independent review panels will consist of between 5 and 9 
members, including at least 1 engineer, 1 hydrologist, 1 
biologist, and 1 economist. The panelists may be compensated 
for their service. The panel is charged with reviewing the 
project study, including receiving public comments, and 
submitting a report on the panel's conclusion and 
recommendation regarding issues identified as significant by 
the panel.
    Issues that can be considered by the independent review 
panel include economic and environmental assumptions and 
projections, project evaluation data, economic or 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 related biological opinions.
    Upon completion of the review, the panel is to provide the 
recommendations to the Secretary, who shall take into 
consideration any recommendations and make the recommendations 
publicly available. If the Secretary does not adopt a 
recommendation of the panel, the Secretary is required to 
explain such a decision in writing. The section is not intended 
to create any rights of judicial action. However, in the event 
that a proposal is subject to judicial review, if the 
recommendations of the review panel are rejected without good 
cause shown, they are to be afforded the same level of 
deference by a court as decisions made by the Corps or 
Secretary.
    Independent reviews are to be completed prior to the 
completion of any Chief of Engineers report for a water 
resources project. The panel must submit its report no later 
than 180 days after the date of establishment of the panel, or 
not later than 90 days after the close of the public comment 
period on the preferred alternative, whichever is later. The 
Secretary may extend these deadlines. The Chief of Engineers 
may continue project planning if the panel fails to meet its 
deadlines.
    The section also establishes requirements for safety 
assurance reviews. Such reviews will accompany the construction 
of any flood damage reduction project if the Director of 
Independent Review determines that the review is necessary to 
ensure public health, safety, and welfare on a project.
    The safety assurance review panels will consist of at least 
5 and not more than 9 reviewers with adequate credentials. The 
panels are to report periodically on the construction 
activities of the Corps, and the Secretary is to take into 
consideration the recommendations of the report.
    Nothing in this section affects any authority of the 
Secretary to cause or conduct a peer review of the engineering, 
scientific, or technical basis of any water resources project 
in existence on the date of enactment of this section.

Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses

    This section amends section 906 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986. Subsection (a) amends 906(a) to 
require completion of mitigation no later than the last day of 
the first fiscal year beginning after completion of the project 
or separable element where such mitigation is not technically 
practicable to complete by the last day of construction. The 
section also amends section 906(b) by authorizing the use of 
consolidated mitigation where other forms of mitigation are not 
practicable or are less environmentally desirable, including 
mitigation banks and conservation banks. This subsection also 
relieves the Secretary and non-Federal interest from 
responsibility for monitoring or demonstrating mitigation 
success, where a mitigation bank is used.
    This section also amends section 906(d) to require 
mitigation to not less than in-kind conditions. The Secretary 
is to ensure that the mitigation plan for each water resources 
project complies fully with the mitigation standards and 
policies established pursuant to section 404 of the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act. This section also requires the 
Corps to identify elements to be included in a specific 
mitigation plan required under section 906. The plan is to 
include a plan for monitoring the implementation and ecological 
success of each mitigation measure, the criteria for ecological 
success; land and interests in land to be acquired for the 
mitigation plan and the basis for a determination that lands 
and interest will be available at the time required; a 
description of the types and amount of restoration activities 
to be conducted, and the resource functions and values that 
will result from the mitigation plan; and a contingency plan 
for taking corrective actions in cases in which monitoring 
demonstrates that mitigation measures are not achieving 
ecological success in accordance with the criteria. In the case 
where it is not practicable to identify the entity responsible 
for monitoring at the time of the final report of the Chief of 
Engineers or other final decision document, then the entity 
shall be identified in the partnership agreement entered into 
with the non-Federal interest.
    This subsection also requires submission of a status report 
describing the construction of projects that require mitigation 
under section 906. This report shall be submitted to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works in the Senate and the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives concurrently with the President's submission of 
the Civil Works appropriations request to Congress. Projects to 
be included in the status report are: all projects under 
construction as of the date of the report; all projects for 
which the President requests funding for the next fiscal year; 
and all projects that have completed construction but have not 
completed mitigation.
    The section requires the development of a mitigation 
tracking system to aid in determining the success of the 
mitigation program.

Sec. 2009. State technical assistance

    This section amends section 22 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1974. It authorizes the Secretary, upon 
request of a governmental agency or non-Federal interests, to 
provide technical assistance at Federal expense. This 
assistance may include hydrologic, economic and environmental 
data and analyses and may not exceed $10,000,000 a year. Of the 
amount authorized, $2,000,000 may be used for cooperative 
agreements with nonprofit entities to provide assistance to 
rural and small communities. This authority will allow the Army 
Corps of Engineers to participate with State and local 
governments in watershed planning. The committee does not 
intend the receipt of funds by non-profit organizations and 
State agencies under other Federal programs to preclude 
technical assistance under this section.
    In addition, this section eliminates the $500,000 per State 
limitations under current section 22 and directs the Secretary 
to submit, as part of the President's annual budget request, a 
list of the individual activities proposed for funding under 
this program.
    The committee believes this section will better support 
State, tribal, and local government for integrated water 
resources management.

Sec. 2010. Access to water resources data

    Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to carry out a program 
to provide public access to water resources and related water 
quality data.
    Subsection (b) requires that the program include access to 
data generated in water resources project development and 
regulation under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act and employ geographic information system technology 
and linkages to water resources models and analytical 
techniques.
    Subsection (c) requires the Secretary to develop 
partnerships with States, tribal, and local governments and 
other Federal agencies in carrying out this program.
    Subsection (d) authorizes $5,000,000 annually to carry out 
the section.
    The committee is aware that the Army Corps of Engineers 
collects significant amounts of water resources and related 
data in the development of water resources projects and the 
regulation of wetlands. This data, including models and 
analytical techniques developed and maintained by Army Corps of 
Engineers laboratories, are valuable to States, tribal, and 
local governments and the general public, yet, in this age of 
modern information technology, are not accessible. The 
committee believes the program established by this section will 
improve water management and save money at all levels of 
government.

Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
        interests

    Subsection (a) establishes that for projects being 
developed and carried out under the authority of section 211 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b), 
the budget priority of those projects shall be proportionate to 
the percentage of project completion or if the project is 
complete, shall have the same priority as a project with a 
contractor onsite.
    Subsection (b) adds the following projects to the list of 
demonstration projects established in section 211(f) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13):
          Thornton Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois--This 
        section amends section 211(f) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1996 to include an element of the 
        project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, 
        Illinois.
          Buffalo Bayou, Texas--This section amends section 
        211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
        to include the Buffalo Bayou, Texas project. The 
        Buffalo Bayou Texas project was authorized by the River 
        and Harbors Act of 20 June 1938, and modified by the 
        1939 and 1954 Flood Control Acts.
          Halls Bayou, Texas--This section amends section 
        211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
        to include the Halls Bayou project, and subject to 
        approval by the Secretary as provided by this section, 
        the non-Federal interests may design and construct an 
        alternative to the authorized project. The Halls Bayou 
        project was authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the 
        Water Resources Development Act of 1990, in accordance 
        with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
        February 12, 1990.

Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management

    This section amends section 204 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) to authorize the Corps 
of Engineers to engage in the regional planning and 
implementation of water resources and environmental restoration 
projects. The committee recognizes the need for Regional 
Sediment Management Plans to address in a programmatic fashion 
those water resource and environmental restoration needs in 
which there is, under current law, a Federal interest. The 
ongoing regional planning and management of these projects will 
improve the Corps' civil works program, conserve sediment, and 
decrease the long-term costs of projects.
    Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary, in connection with 
the construction, operation, or maintenance of a Federal water 
resource project, to carry out projects for the protection, 
restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related 
habitats, and the transport and placement of dredged material.
    Subsection (b) requires that projects carried out under 
subsection (a) are justified in terms of their environmental, 
economic, and social costs.
    Subsection (c) outlines the determination of planning and 
construction costs for projects carried out under subsection 
(a). Studies conducted under this section are to be at full 
Federal cost to assure that no governmental entity within a 
region can, by its refusal to pay its share of the cost, impede 
the other non-Federal interests from partnering with the 
Federal Government to prepare a plan. The non-Federal share of 
the construction cost of any project with a willing and 
fiscally committed non-Federal partner will be based on the 
type of Federal water resource project (i.e., navigation, shore 
protection, environmental restoration, etc.) to which the 
regional sediment management plan is related. Total Federal 
costs associated with the construction of a project may not 
exceed $5,000,000 without congressional approval.
    Subsection (d) authorizes the Secretary, with the consent 
of the non-Federal interest, to select a placement of sediment 
that is not the least-cost option if the Secretary determines 
that the incremental costs of the placement are reasonable in 
relation to the derived environmental benefits. The Federal 
share of the incremental costs would be determined in 
accordance with subsection (c).
    Subsection (e) authorizes the Secretary, acting through the 
Chief of Engineers, to work with State, regional and local 
governments to develop plans for the regional management of 
sand that may or may not result in Federal water resource 
projects. In some cases, for example, the Federal Government 
may be able to assist other levels of government in the 
development of regional sediment management plans that the non-
Federal entity chooses to implement without Federal 
construction assistance.
    Subsection (f) establishes priority areas for the 
development of plans identified in subsection (e).
    Subsection (g) authorizes $30,000,000 annually for section 
204 and reserves up to $5,000,000 of this amount for the 
development of plans as provided in subsection (e).
    This section repeals section 145 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j), but does not affect 
the authority to complete any on-going project under that 
section.

Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development program

    This section amends section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 
(33 U.S.C. 426g) by permanently reauthorizing the National 
Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration 
program. This authorization for this innovative program to test 
new technology to combat shoreline erosion expired on September 
30, 2005. This section expands this program in the hope that it 
can continue to develop and test technologies that will reduce 
the costs of periodic renourishment of beach projects.
    This section places the shoreline demonstration program 
within the general authority for small shoreline projects. Both 
are intended to provide expedited means to deal with erosion 
problems along limited areas of shoreline. Although the bill 
places authority for both programs within the same section of 
law, it does not change current management of either program.
    This section makes several amendments to the current 
erosion control demonstration program. In order to assist in 
effective congressional oversight of this program, an annual 
reporting procedure is established. This section emphasizes 
that the technology or methods to be tested under this program 
shall be chosen with the goal of improving the performance of 
beach nourishment projects (i.e., lessen the frequency of 
required periodic renourishments), therefore lowering project 
costs. It also emphasizes the use of natural designs, including 
the use of native and naturalized vegetation, to minimize 
permanent structural alterations of shorelines.
    In addition, this section authorizes the Secretary, acting 
through the Chief of Engineers and at the request of a non-
Federal sponsor, to incorporate a demonstration project as a 
feature of an existing, authorized Federal shore protection 
project. The section authorizes the Federal Government to enter 
into cost share agreements for the construction of the 
demonstration project. Current law makes the construction cost 
solely a Federal responsibility. The committee believes that 
this will save significant time and cost involved with studying 
and modifying the original authorization to incorporate the new 
technology or methods.
    The section also improves existing authority for this 
program by permitting the Federal Government to cost share the 
removal of a project that has failed to the extent that it 
endangers property, infrastructure or lives. Current law places 
this fiscal responsibility solely on the non-Federal sponsor of 
the project.

Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects

    Subsection (a) states that it is the policy of the United 
States to promote shore protection projects, including beach 
restoration and periodic beach renourishment for a period of 50 
years. Subsection (b) states that preference shall be given to 
areas where Federal funds have been invested and areas where 
Federal navigation projects or activities have caused the need 
for prevention or mitigation to shores and beaches.
    This section emphasizes the committee's support for the 
protection, restoration and enhancement of sand beaches that 
provide hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits through 
financial support of periodic beach nourishment for a period of 
50 years. The committee recognizes that periodic beach 
nourishment is an effective measure to prevent or mitigate 
damage to shore from storms and hurricanes. Preference shall be 
given to areas in which there has been a Federal investment of 
funds. The committee emphasizes that through previous Water 
Resources Development Acts, Congress has established the length 
and Federal cost share for period beach nourishment and 
renourishment.

Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring

    This section authorizes the Secretary to cost share in the 
monitoring of ecosystem restoration projects identical to the 
cost sharing for construction, including projects designed and 
constructed under a continuing authority program for a maximum 
of 10 years and not to exceed 5 percent of the construction 
cost of the original project. After 10 years, the costs of 
monitoring shall be 100 percent non-Federal.

Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits

    This section directs the Secretary to include ecosystem 
restoration benefits as part of developing a recommended plan 
for the following projects:
          (1) Grayson's Creek, California
          (2) Seven Oaks, California
          (3) Oxford, California
          (4) Walnut Creek, California
          (5) Wildcat Phase II, California

Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of permits

    This section amends section 214(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594) 
to make the program permanent.

Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applications

    This section directs the Secretary to establish procedures 
to allow the electronic submission of permit applications for 
permits under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.

Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers 
        reservoirs

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out measures 
in cooperation and coordination with States, tribal 
governments, and local governments to more effectively and 
efficiently meet the water resource needs in watersheds 
containing reservoirs operated and maintained by the Army Corps 
of Engineers.
    Water supply storage fees at reservoirs should reflect the 
opportunity cost to the project for providing that water. For 
the permanent first costs of water storage, such fees shall be 
the lesser of the estimated cost of purposes foregone (benefits 
foregone), replacement costs, or the updated cost of storage. 
The committee recognizes that this is a departure from the 
current agency developed policy. In all cases the Corps should 
calculate the joint use costs for the annual operation and 
maintenance of each reservoir based on the allocated benefits 
of water storage. In the case of a water supply that is 
reallocated from another project purpose to municipal or 
industrial water supply, the joint use costs for the reservoir 
shall be adjusted to reflect the reallocation of project 
purposes. In addition, in the case of a reallocation that 
adversely affects hydropower generation, the Secretary shall 
defer to the Administrator of the respective Power Marketing 
Administration to calculate the impact of such a reallocation 
on the rates for hydroelectric power.
    Water supply and management issues are becoming 
increasingly important as the demand on existing supplies 
continues to grow. The Army Corps of Engineers currently 
manages 383 major dams and reservoirs, providing significant 
benefits to many regions of the nation. However, some of these 
reservoirs use operating plans that may no longer reflect the 
best comparative net economic and environmental returns for the 
nation. The intent of this program is to ensure existing Army 
Corps of Engineers reservoirs contribute to enhance economic 
and ecosystem values in a cost efficient and environmentally 
sustainable way as water demands continue to increase.

Sec. 2020. Federal hopper dredges

    This section lifts the annual operational restrictions on 
the Federal dredges, Yaquina and Essayons, to maximize the 
available dredging capacity to maintain channel dimensions of 
West Coast Federal navigation projects. The committee is aware 
that the current restrictions on the Federal hopper dredges do 
not maximize the use of these important Federal resources.

Sec. 2021. Extraordinary rainfall events

    In the State of Louisiana, extraordinary rainfall events 
such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Andrew shall not be 
considered in making a determination with respect to the 
ordinary high water mark for the purposes of carrying out 
section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Sec. 2022. Wildfire firefighting

    This section modifies Section 309 of Public Law 102-154 by 
adding ``Secretary of the Army'' to the entities able to 
participate with local authorities on firefighting.

Sec. 2023. Nonprofit organizations as sponsors

    This section modifies Section 221(b) of the Flood Control 
Act of 1970 by permitting nonprofit organization acting with 
the consent of the affected unit of government to be a non-
Federal sponsor of a Federal project.

Sec. 2024. Project administration

    This section requires the Secretary to assign a unique 
tracking number to each project to assist in public 
availability of information. It also requires the Secretary to 
provide project documents to the Library of Congress to improve 
public availability.

Sec. 2025. Program administration

    This section repeals certain existing provisions of law 
that affect the flexibility of the Corps to manage its program.

Sec. 2026. Extension of shore protection projects

    Prior to the termination of federal financial participation 
in a shore protection project, the Secretary is authorized to 
review the project to determine whether it would be feasible to 
extend Federal participation.

              SUBTITLE B--CONTINUING AUTHORITIES PROGRAMS

Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportation

    This section increases the per project limit from 
$4,000,000 to $7,000,000 for the continuing authority 
navigation program carried out under section 107 of the River 
and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577).

Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shore and 
        streambanks

    This section increases the annual program limit from 
$15,000,000 to $20,000,000 and the per project limit from 
$1,000,000 to $1,500,000 for the continuing authority program 
for emergency streambank protection carried out under section 
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r).

Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and 
        riparian ecosystems program

    This section increases the annual program limit from 
$25,000,000 to $75,000,000 for the continuing authority program 
for aquatic ecosystem restoration carried out under section 206 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 
2330).

Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for improvement and 
        restoration of ecosystems program

    This section increases the annual program limit from 
$25,000,000 to $50,000,000 for the continuing authority program 
that allows for modifications to existing projects to benefit 
the environment being carried out under section 1135 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).

Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats

    This section creates a new continuing authority program, 
Projects to Enhance Estuaries and Coastal Habitats, for 
improvement of the quality of the environment by performing 
estuary habitat restoration, with an annual program limit of 
$25,000,000 and a per project cost limit of $5,000,000.

Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites

    This section expands the existing Remediation of Abandoned 
Mine Sites (RAMS) program into a continuing authority program, 
with an annual program limit of $45,000,000, by amending 
section 560 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 
U.S.C. 2336; 113 Stat. 354-355) to authorize the Secretary to 
perform construction activities associated with remediation of 
abandoned mines, to cost share program features with non-profit 
organizations with the consent of the affected local 
government, to adjust the cost share requirement, and defines 
the operation and maintenance costs as 100 percent non-Federal.

Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation or removal of dams

    This section creates a new continuing authority program, 
Small Projects for the Rehabilitation or Removal of Dams, for 
improvement of the quality of the environment, with an annual 
program limit of $25,000,000 and a per project cost limit of 
$5,000,000.

Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communities

    This section gives the Secretary of the Army authority to 
develop criteria for the justification of Federal participation 
in remote harbors without the need to demonstrate that the 
project is justified solely by National Economic Development 
benefits. The remote or subsistence harbor projects would be 
cost shared in accordance with section 101 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986, in the same way other harbor 
projects are cost shared. The provision recognizes that there 
are communities within the United States and its Territories 
that are totally dependent on water transportation for their 
subsistence. In addition to their geographic isolation, in many 
cases these communities are in economically disadvantaged 
areas. Conventional procedures currently used to estimate 
National Economic Development benefits do not capture water 
transportation economic dependency and subsistence issues. This 
provision is responsive to the need to expand the economy and 
promote growth in areas of poverty and economic need.

Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projects

    Subsection (a) amends section 221 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1970, to require that if the Secretary determines that a 
project needs to be continued for the purposes of public health 
and safety, the non-Federal interest shall pay its share of the 
increased project costs, up to an amount equal to 20 percent of 
the original estimated project costs and in accordance with the 
statutorily determined cost share and the Secretary shall pay 
all increased costs remaining.
    Subsection (b) amends 912(b) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 to eliminate civil penalties in 
partnership agreements and allow the use of liquidated damages.
    Subsection (c) clarifies that these changes apply only to 
partnership agreements entered into after the date of 
enactment, unless the non-Federal interest requests 
applicability from the district engineer and construction has 
not been initiated.
    Subsection (d) clarifies that cooperation agreements or 
project cooperation agreements shall be partnerships agreements 
or project partnership agreements, respectively and vice versa.
    The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 significantly 
increased the roles and responsibilities of project sponsors. 
As a result of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 
project cooperation agreements (PCAs) required under section 
221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 and section 912 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 assumed significant 
importance in defining non-Federal responsibilities for 
providing items of local cooperation.
    In testimony before the committee, non-Federal project 
partners, including Mr. Gregory A. Zlotnik, Director of the 
Santa Clara Valley Water District in California, expressed 
frustration in the multiple layers of review and approval 
imposed upon the execution of PCAs within the Department of the 
Army, which produced needless delays and inefficiencies. The 
committee expects these changes will address the concerns of 
non-Federal interests, improve efficiency by streamlining the 
process for approving partnership agreements, and foster a 
culture of true partnership that will improve projects and 
their implementation.

Sec. 2040. Program names

    This section changes the name for the continuing authority 
program created under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

               SUBTITLE C--NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM

    The sections in this subtitle authorize the components of a 
new National Levee Safety Program. This program includes the 
National Levee Safety Committee (sec. 2053) and 
responsibilities of the Levee Safety Program (sec. 2054), and 
authorizes the appropriations associated with the Program (sec. 
2055).
    Sec. 2051 provides the short title for the program.
    Sec. 2052 provides definitions for the program.
    Sec. 2053 authorizes the establishment of the National 
Levee Safety Committee. The committee, chaired by the Secretary 
of the Army, shall be made up of representatives from Federal 
agencies, state and local governments, tribal governments, and 
recognized experts from throughout the United States. The 
committee has the responsibility of advising the Secretary of 
the Army on the policies, procedures, and program needs for the 
enhancement of levee safety for the protection of human life 
and property.
    Sec. 2054 authorizes the establishment of the National 
Levee Safety Program. The responsibility for establishment and 
maintenance of the program is with the Secretary of the Army in 
consultation with the National Levee Safety Committee and the 
State levee safety agencies. The purpose of the program is to 
ensure that new and existing levees are safe through the 
implementation of policy and procedures for hazard reduction 
and public safety. The program will also encourage the 
establishment and implementation of levee safety programs in 
each State, develop and support a public education and 
awareness program, and develop and provide technical assistance 
for Federal and State levee safety programs and non-Federal 
entities.
    In addition to the above under Sec. 2054, the Secretary of 
the Army shall develop, maintain, and periodically publish an 
inventory of levees in the United States and perform an 
assessment of these levees. The assessment of these levees will 
take into account the hydrologic and hydraulic condition, storm 
surges, geotechnical conditions, operating procedures, 
deficiencies, and other conditions that may occur in the 
vicinity of the levee system. The assessments will be 
prioritized based on which would constitute the highest risk of 
loss of human life or a risk to the public safety. Following 
the initial assessment, the reassessment of levees will occur 
every 5 years. This section also outlines the components of a 
State levee safety program to be eligible for assistance.
    Every odd numbered year the Secretary of the Army shall 
submit a report to Congress addressing the progress of the 
program during the previous two years and the implementation of 
Federal guidelines for levee safety. The report should also 
contain an update on the progress of the State programs as well 
as the recommendation for legislative or other actions that the 
Secretary considers to be necessary.
    Section 2055 authorizes appropriations for the Levee Safety 
Program established in Section 2054. Six items are identified 
for funding. The first is $50 million for the establishment and 
maintenance of the national inventory of levees. Second is $424 
million to perform levee assessments. Next is the provision of 
$15 million for state levee safety programs in 2007 followed by 
$5 million per year for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. Finally 
for research and levee safety training under Section 2054, $2 
million and $1 million, are authorized respectively. There is 
authorized $150 thousand for travel expenses associated with 
the Levee Safety Committee.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out, on an 
emergency basis, the 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. 3002. Sitka, Alaska

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

Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama

    This section authorizes the Secretary to construct a new 
project management office for the Black Warrior-Tombigbee 
Rivers and Alabama River projects to be located in the vicinity 
of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. To accomplish this section, the 
Secretary shall acquire necessary real estate interests, 
prepare required environmental documentation, design and 
construct office, warehouse, shop and dock facilities, and 
necessary ancillary buildings for the new project management 
office. The Secretary shall sell, convey, or otherwise transfer 
to the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, at fair market value, the 
land and structures with the existing project management 
office, if the city agrees to assume full responsibility and 
costs associated with the demolition of the existing project 
management office. There is authorized to carry out this 
section $32,000,000.

Sec. 3004. Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona

    The cost of the project for Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona 
authorized by Section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 is increased to $54,100,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $35,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of 
$19,100,000.

Sec. 3005. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas

    This section modifies the project for flood control, 
Augusta to Clarendon Levee, Lower White River, Arkansas 
project, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1941 (P.L. 77-
228) and modified by the Flood Control Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-
525), to authorize the Secretary to carry out rehabilitation of 
authorized and completed levees on the White River between 
Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas, at a total estimated cost of 
$8,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,200,000 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $2,800,000.

Sec. 3006. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana

    This section authorizes the Secretary to design, construct, 
operate and maintain bank stabilization measures, at Federal 
expense, along the Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and 
Louisiana, between mile 0 on the Black River, Louisiana, to 
mile 460 on the Ouachita River, Arkansas at the outlet of 
Remmel Dam.

Sec. 3007. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri

    This section modifies the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and 
Missouri project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49 
Stat. 1508, chapter 548), to authorize the Secretary to 
undertake channel stabilization and sediment removal measures 
as an integral part of original project and not to be 
considered a separable element. These measures would be 
provided at current project cost sharing, which is 100 percent 
Federal.

Sec. 3008. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri

    This section modifies the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and 
Missouri project, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49 
Stat. 1508, chapter 548), to authorize the Secretary to 
transfer acquired project mitigation lands in Arkansas directly 
to the State of Arkansas or its appropriate designee, provided 
that certain local requirements are met. Currently, transfer of 
the land is only authorized for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service.

Sec. 3009. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation system, Arkansas 
        and Oklahoma

    Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to continue 
construction of the 12-foot channel project as authorized by 
section 136 of P.L. 108-137.
    Subsection (b) authorizes the Secretary to determine the 
need for and construct modifications in the structures and 
operations of the Arkansas River in the area of Tulsa County, 
Oklahoma, specifically including the construction of low water 
dams and islands to provide nesting and foraging habitat for 
the interior least tern, in accordance with the study entitled, 
`Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan Planning Assistance to 
States.' Such habitat will provide for mitigation for any 
incidental taking relating to the McClellan-Kerr Navigation 
System. The non-Federal share of the cost of a project under 
this subsection shall be 35 percent. There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this subsection $12,000,000.

Sec. 3010. Cache Creek Basin, California

    This section modifies the Cache Creek Basin project 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), and directs the Secretary to 
mitigate the hydraulic impacts of the new south levee of the 
Cache Creek Settling Basin on the city of Woodland's storm 
drainage system capacity, including all appurtenant features, 
erosion control measures, and environmental mitigation 
features. This project would be a separable element of the 
original project.

Sec. 3011. CALFED Levee Stability Program, California

    This section authorizes an additional $106,000,000 to 
assist in the CALFED Levee Stability Program to continue the 
efforts authorized by the Water Supply, Reliability and 
Environmental Improvement Act (P.L. 108-361).

Sec. 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California

    This section modifies the project for environmental 
restoration, Hamilton Army Airfield, California, substantially 
in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
recommended in the final report of the Chief of Engineers of 
July 19, 2004. The project is modified to include the diked 
bayland parcel `Bel Marin Keys Unit V.' The total cost is 
$221,700,000, with a Federal cost of $166,200,000 and a non-
Federal cost of $55,500,000.

Sec. 3013. LA-3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation, 
        California

    This section amends section 102(c)(4) of the Marine 
Protection, Research, and Sanctuary Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 
1412(c)(4)) to extend the LA-3 Dredged Material Ocean Disposal 
Site interim designation from January 1, 2003, to January 1, 
2007. The extension is needed to allow for maintenance dredging 
activities to proceed within Newport Harbor as the formal site 
designation process continues to completion.

Sec. 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California

    This section authorizes the Secretary to prepare a limited 
reevaluation report to determine whether maintenance of the 
project is feasible. If the Secretary determines that 
maintenance of the project is feasible, the Secretary shall 
maintain the channel.

Sec. 3015. Llagas Creek, California

    This section authorizes the Secretary to complete the 
project for flood damage reduction, authorized by section 
501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 333), in accordance with the requirements of local 
cooperation agreements as specified in section 5 of the 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 USC 1005) at 
a total cost of $105,000,000 with a Federal cost of $65,000,000 
and a non-Federal cost of $40,000,000.

Sec. 3016. Magpie Creek, California

    This section directs the Secretary to apply cost-sharing 
requirements applicable to non-structural flood control under 
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. The crediting allowed under this provision shall not 
exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. The 
Secretary is directed to utilize the in-kind contribution 
authorization in section 2001 of this Act to provide a credit 
to the local sponsors for the value of their in-kind 
contributions made on authorized activities in the project's 
scope of work if the Secretary determines the work is integral 
to the project.

Sec. 3017. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California

    This section directs the Secretary to participate with 
appropriate State and local agencies in the implementation of a 
cooperative program to improve and manage fisheries and aquatic 
habitat conditions in the Pine Flat Reservoir and in the 14-
mile reach of Kings River immediately below the dam in 
accordance with Kings River Fisheries Management Program 
Framework. There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000.

Sec. 3018. Redwood City navigation project, California

    This section authorizes the Secretary to dredge the Redwood 
City Navigation Channel on an annual basis, to maintain the 
authorized depth of--30 feet mean lower low water.

Sec. 3019. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California

    This section directs the Secretary to apply remaining funds 
eligible for reimbursement on the Natomas Federal Plan as a 
credit toward the non-Federal share of costs for future work on 
any flood damage reduction project authorized before the date 
of enactment of this Act that is to be paid for by the 
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. The Secretary of the Army 
and the Secretary of the Interior are directed to expedite 
their respective activities, including the formulation of all 
necessary studies and decision documents in their collaborative 
effort regarding Folsom Dam.

Sec. 3020. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of San 
        Francisco, California

    This section declares portions of the San Francisco, 
California, waterfront not to be navigable water of the United 
States for the purpose of section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 
(33 U.S.C. 401) and the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
525 et seq.) if the Secretary determines that proposed projects 
are in the public interest. This determination is based on 
proposed projects which are to be carried out by non-Federal 
entities, consisting of bulkheads, fill, or otherwise occupied 
by permanent structures, that will impact the accessibility of 
the waterfront. If, after 20 years from the date of the 
enactment of this Act, any of the portions of the project 
declared to be non-navigable have not been impacted or if work 
has not begun within 5 years after the date of issuance of a 
permit, the declaration of nonnavigability shall cease to be 
effective.

Sec. 3021. Salton Sea restoration, California

    This section authorizes a special study of pilot projects 
identified in the preferred restoration concept plan approved 
by the Salton Sea Authority to determine if the pilot projects 
are economically justifiable, technically sound, 
environmentally acceptable and meet the objectives of the 
Salton Sea Reclamation Act (Public Law 105-372). If the 
Secretary makes a positive determination, the Secretary may 
enter into an agreement with the Salton Sea Authority, in 
consultation with the Salton Sea Science Office, to carry out 
pilot projects for improvement of the environment in the area 
of the Salton Sea. There is authorized $26,000,000 to pay 65% 
of the cost of any measures carried out, and of which not more 
than $5,000,000 may be used for any one pilot project.

Sec. 3022. Santa Barbra Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California

    The cost of the project for Santa Barbara Streams, Lower 
Mission Creek, California, authorized by Section 101(b)(8) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 is increased to 
$30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,000,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,000,000.

Sec. 3023. Upper Guadalupe River, California

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out 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), 
generally in accordance with Upper Guadalupe River Flood Damage 
Reduction Project, San Jose, California, Limited Reevaluation 
Report, dated March, 2004, at a total cost of $244,500,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $130,600,000 and an estimated 
non-Federal cost of $113,900,000.

Sec. 3024. Yuba River Basin project, California

    This section modifies the project for flood damage 
reduction authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275) by increasing 
the authorized project cost from $26,600,000 to $107,700,000 
with a Federal cost of $70,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of 
$37,700,000. The Secretary is directed to utilize the in-kind 
contribution authorization in section 2001 of this Act to 
provide a credit to the local sponsors for the value of their 
in-kind contributions made on authorized activities related to 
the levees in the project's scope of work, if the Secretary 
determines the work is integral to the project.

Sec. 3025. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, 
        Connecticut

    This section designates the western breakwater in New Haven 
Harbor as the `Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater'.

Sec. 3026. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut

    This section modifies the project for navigation, New 
London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of June 13, 
1902 (32 Stat. 333), to redesignate a portion of the 23-foot 
deep waterfront channel as an anchorage area.

Sec. 3027. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut

    This section deauthorizes two small areas and authorizes 
the Secretary to realign a portion of the 10-foot channel at 
the northern section of the project for navigation, Norwalk 
Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the Act of March 2, 1919 (40 
Stat. 1276).

Sec. 3028. St. George's Bridge, Delaware

    This section amends section 102(g) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4612) to direct the 
Secretary to assume ownership of the State Route 1 replacement 
bridge and continue to operate and maintain the existing St. 
Georges Bridge unless otherwise directed by Congress.

Sec. 3029. Additional program authority, comprehensive Everglades 
        restoration, Florida

    This section applies section 902 of WRDA 1986 to the cost 
limits on the Federal share, total cost, and aggregate cost of 
projects pursued under CERP's programmatic authority of WRDA 
2000 section 601(c).

Sec. 3030. Brevard County, Florida

    The project limit for Brevard County, Florida, authorized 
in Section 418 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
is amended from 7.1 mile reach to 7.6 mile reach.

Sec. 3031. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south Florida 
        ecosystem restoration, Florida

    This section increases the Federal appropriation limit for 
this program from $75,000,000 to $95,000,000 and removes 
language ending the period of appropriation, which was set at 
fiscal year 1999 in WRDA 1996 and at fiscal year 2003 in WRDA 
1999. It would also increase the limit on Federal expenditures 
for a single project from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 in the 
case of the Seminole Water Conservation Plan, which is one of 
the projects for which a Project Cooperation Agreement has been 
executed. Cost estimates for the projects have increased over 
time due to inflation, unexpected site conditions, design 
modifications necessary to meet the project goals, and 
construction bids higher than those originally estimated.

Sec. 3032. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects, 
        comprehensive Everglades restoration, Florida

    This section amends section 601(b)(2)(B) of WRDA 2000, to 
include the pilot projects for aquifer storage and recovery, 
Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer, Florida, under the cost 
sharing and other provisions of WRDA 2000. These pilot projects 
shall be treated as being integral components of the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and carried out in 
accordance with the Plan, except that costs of operation and 
maintenance of these projects shall remain 100 percent non-
Federal.

Sec. 3033. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida

    This section directs the Secretary to carry out the project 
for hurricane and storm damage reduction in Lido Key, Sarasota 
County, Florida, in accordance with the report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated December 22, 2004. The modified project 
provides for initial construction and periodic nourishment of 
an 80-foot-wide beach berm at elevation +5 feet National 
Geodetic Vertical Datum over 1.56 miles of shoreline. The 
authorized total cost is $14,809,000 with an estimated Federal 
cost of $9,088,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$5,721,000. Estimated total costs of $63,606,000 for periodic 
nourishment over a period of 50 years have an estimated Federal 
cost of $31,803,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$31,803,000.

Sec. 3034. Port Sutton Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida

    The project for Port Sutton Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida, 
authorized by Section 101(b)(12) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 is modified to authorize the project to 
be carried out at a cost of $12,900,000.

Sec. 3035. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida

    This section modifies the project for navigation, Tampa 
Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818) to authorize the Secretary 
to construct passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles 
long and centered on Tampa Bay Cut B, if the Secretary 
determines that the improvements are necessary for navigation 
safety.

Sec. 3036. Allatoona Lake, Georgia

    This section repeals the authority provided in section 325 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4849), and authorizes the Secretary to exchange land at 
Allatoona Lake, Georgia, by adding an alternative method 
whereby the Government could sell land above 863 feet in 
elevation and with the proceeds from the sales, without further 
appropriations, acquire additional lands, from willing sellers, 
to protect the water quality and overall environment of 
Allatoona Lake. The lands available to be sold are in 
accordance with the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by 
the Mobile district engineer dated April 5, 1996, and approved 
October 8, 1996.

Sec. 3037. Dworshak Reservoir Improvements, Idaho

    This section directs the Secretary to construct 
recreational facilities as well as improve existing Army Corps 
of Engineers and other improvements to recreation facilities at 
the existing Dworshak Reservoir to allow for operation at the 
lower pool elevations that are being experienced to assist in 
salmon species recovery efforts. The estimated total project 
cost is $5,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$3,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,400,000.

Sec. 3038. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho

    This section modifies the project at Gooding, Idaho, 
constructed under Public Law 75-5, the Emergency Conservation 
Work Program (16 U.S.C. 585 et seq.), to direct the 
rehabilitation of the Gooding Idaho Channel Project for the 
purpose of flood control and ecosystem restoration, if the 
Secretary determines the rehabilitation and ecosystem 
restoration to be feasible. The section authorizes the 
Secretary to plan, design and construct the project at a total 
cost of $9,000,000, provides that the non-Federal share of the 
cost of the project can be provided as in-kind contributions, 
services, supplies and material, and provides that non-Federal 
funds may come from other Federal programs if permitted under 
that Federal program. This provision directs the Secretary to 
consider the ability to pay provisions of section 103(m) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) 
when computing the non-Federal cost share.

Sec. 3039. Port of Lewiston, Idaho

    This section extinguishes reversionary interests and use 
restrictions related to industrial use purposes, the 
restriction that no activity shall be permitted that will 
compete with services and facilities offered by public marinas, 
and the restriction on human habitation or other building 
structure in which the elevation is above the standard project 
flood elevation. This section also specifies the deeds involved 
and includes a savings clause regarding other remaining rights 
and interests of the Army Corps of Engineers for authorized 
project purposes.

Sec. 3040. Cache River Levee, Illinois

    This section modifies the Cache River Levee, Illinois, 
authorized under the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 
Stat. 1215, Chapter 795) to add environmental restoration as a 
project purpose.

Sec. 3041. Chicago, Illinois

    This section modifies the existing authorization by 
clarifying that the study includes Lake Michigan as well as the 
Chicago River.

Sec. 3042. Chicago River, Illinois

    This section reduces the width of the authorized navigation 
channel from between 100 and 120 to no wider than 66 feet from 
100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet 
upstream of the Division Street Bridge, Chicago, Illinois to 
ensure consistency in Army Corps of Engineers records to actual 
bridge size.

Sec. 3043. Illinois River Basin Restoration

    This section increases the authorization of Section 
519(c)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, from 
$5,000,000 to $20,000,000.

Sec. 3044. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects 
        reconstruction pilot program

    This section directs the Secretary to reconstruct existing 
flood control projects in Missouri and Illinois as needed for 
proper functioning as originally authorized, so long as the 
deficiencies identified are not due to lack of proper operation 
and maintenance by the non-Federal interest. Costs shall be 
shared in the same percentages as the original projects. 
Operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of 
reconstructed projects are a non-Federal responsibility. A 
total of $50,000,000 is authorized for this effort. The 
following critical projects are to receive priority:
          (1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, 
        Illinois.
          (2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, 
        Illinois.
          (3) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
          (4) City of St. Louis, Missouri.
          (5) Missouri River Levee Drainage District, Missouri.

Sec. 3045. Spunky Bottom, Illinois

    This section adds ecosystem restoration as a project 
purpose to the flood control project between Beardstown, 
Illinois and the mouth of the Illinois River, authorized by 
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 
1583, Chapter 688). In addition, it directs that the flood 
control project shall remain eligible for emergency repair 
assistance under the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 
(Public Law 77-228), as amended (33 U.S.C. 701n) without 
consideration of economic justification. It also authorizes 
$7,500,000 in Federal funding ($500,000 of which will be 
available for post-construction monitoring and adaptive 
management for a period of 5 years following completion of 
construction) for project modifications carried out under 
section 1135 of WRDA 1986 for the Spunky Bottoms, Illinois 
project.

Sec. 3046. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas

    This section directs the transfer of approximately 3 acres 
of Federal lands at John Redmond Lake directly to Pleasant 
Township, Kansas. The conveyance would be at fair market value 
of undeveloped land. All costs associated with the conveyance 
shall be non-Federal.

Sec. 3047. Milford Lake, Milford, Kansas

    The Secretary is directed to convey at fair market value to 
the Geary County Fire Department, Milford, Kansas, all right, 
title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of 
land consisting of approximately 7.4 acres located in Geary 
County, Kansas.

Sec. 3048. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
        and West Virginia

    This section modifies the project for ecosystem 
restoration, Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, authorized by section 
101(a)(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 
Stat. 2578), to authorize the Secretary to cost share projects 
with non-profit organizations with the consent of the affected 
local government, prepare an implementation plan and initiate a 
pilot restoration program in the Lower Scioto Basin, Ohio.

Sec. 3049. McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana

    This section increases the authorized costs of the project 
for McAlpine Lock and Dam, authorized by Section 101(a)(10) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 to $430,000,000.

Sec. 3050. Public Access, Atchafalaya, Basin Floodway System, Louisiana

    This section authorizes the Secretary to acquire an 
additional 20,000 acres of land from willing sellers as is 
consistent with the Public Access feature. This section also 
addresses an inconsistency in previous Acts pertaining to a 
limitation placed on Federal expenditures. This section removes 
the $32,000,000 cap for the acquisition of additional lands 
retroactive to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 when 
the project scope was expanded.

Sec. 3051. Regional Visitor Center, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, 
        Louisiana

    This section directs the Secretary in consultation with the 
State of Louisiana to study, design, and construct a type A 
regional visitors center in the vicinity of Morgan City, 
Louisiana. The non-Federal share of the cost of upgrading the 
visitors center from a type B to a type B, and the operation 
and maintenance costs of the visitors center is 100 percent.

Sec. 3052. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana

    This section modifies the project for the Calcasieu River 
and Pass, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481) to authorize the Secretary to 
provide $3,000,000 for each fiscal year, in a total amount of 
$15,000,000, for such rock bank protection of the Calcasieu 
River from mile 5 to mile 16, as the Chief of Engineers 
determines to be advisable to reduce maintenance dredging needs 
and facilitate protection of valuable disposal areas for the 
Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.

Sec. 3053. East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana

    This section modifies the project for flood damage 
reduction and recreation, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, 
authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 277), as amended by section 
116 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (117 
Stat. 140), to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project 
substantially in accordance with the Report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated December 23, 1996, and the subsequent Post 
Authorization Change Report dated December 2004. The estimated 
cost is $178,000,000.

Sec. 3054. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Relocation Assistance, 
        Louisiana

    To support the relocation of the Port of New Orleans deep 
draft facilities from the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the 
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and the Inner Harbor Navigation 
Canal to the Mississippi River, $175,000,000 is authorized to 
be appropriated to be administered by the Economic Development 
Administration. An additional $185,000,000 is authorized to be 
available to support revolving loan funds to assist private 
businesses in relocation.

Sec. 3055. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana

    This section will allow the Secretary to purchase and 
reforest lands, which have been cleared or converted to 
agricultural uses for mitigation purposes. Current law 
restricts land purchases to bottomland hardwood lands. There 
are no additional willing sellers of bottomland hardwood lands 
available. This change will increase the amount of land 
available to meet the projects' mitigation requirements. The 
total project cost is $33,200,000.

Sec. 3056. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine

    This section authorizes the Secretary to continue the 
project initiated under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), up to a maximum of $20,000,000 to 
mitigate erosion on Camp Ellis Beach caused by the Federal 
navigation project.

Sec. 3057. Union River, Maine

    This section modifies the project for navigation, Union 
River, Maine, authorized by the Act of June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 
215, Chapter 314), by redesignating the upper 6-foot turning 
basin as an anchorage area.

Sec. 3058. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection 
        program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

    This section amends section 510(i) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3761) to increase the total 
program funding limit from $10,000,000 to $30,000,000.

Sec. 3059. Cumberland, Maryland

    This section amends section 580(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 375) to increase the total 
authorized cost of the project for restoration of the 
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal from $15,000,000 to $25,750,000 with 
an estimated Federal cost of $16,738,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $9,012,000.

Sec. 3060. Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts

    The portion of the project for navigation, Aunt Lydia's 
Cove, Massachusetts, authorized August 31, 1994, pursuant to 
section 107 of the Act of July 14, 1960, consisting of the 8-
foot deep anchorage in the cove is deauthorized.

Sec. 3061. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island

    First, this section extends the authorization for the 
project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and 
Rhode Island authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
Act of 1968(82 Stat. 731) and amends the authorization to 
restrict the project depth of the existing navigation project 
riverward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall 
River and Somerset, Massachusetts, to not more than 35 feet in 
depth. Second, this section also directs the Secretary to 
conduct a study to determine the feasibility of deepening the 
portion of the channel of the navigation project for Fall River 
Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, seaward of the Charles 
M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and Somerset, 
Massachusetts. If funds are not obligated for construction 
(including planning and design) of the Fall River Harbor 
project within 5 years of the enactment of this act, the 
original project will no longer be authorized.

Sec. 3062. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan

    This section modifies existing law to authorize the 
Secretary to establish and lead a partnership of Federal 
agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
and the State of Michigan and political subdivisions of the 
State and other involved parties in the management of the St. 
Clair River and Lake St. Clair Watersheds, in accordance with 
the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair Comprehensive Management 
Plan. The focus of this partnership would be to develop and 
implement projects consistent with the management plan.
    In 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated 
development of the management plan, emphasizing broad 
coordination with other public agencies and local stakeholders. 
The management plan recommends that successful, locally driven 
programs continue, and that larger efforts be coordinated by an 
intergovernmental steering group. This provision supports both 
efforts, allowing grants and other financial assistance as well 
as providing for direct participation in project development 
and implementation.
    The section directs the Secretary, working in consultation 
with the partnership, to develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. 
Clair strategic implementation plan in accordance with the St. 
Clair River and Lake St. Clair Management Plan; and to 
supplement the management plan and the strategic implementation 
plan, as needed.
    Appropriations to support this provision are authorized at 
$10,000,000 per fiscal year. The non-Federal share for the cost 
of technical assistance, planning, design, construction, and 
evaluation of a project, and the development of supplementary 
information, is 25 percent of the total cost of the project or 
development. All operation and maintenance costs associated 
with projects implemented under this provision are to be 100 
percent non-Federal responsibilities.

Sec. 3063. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota

    This section authorizes the Secretary to include public 
access and recreational facilities as part of the Federally 
cost-shared facilities for the project, constructed under 
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
577). These facilities include, parking facilities, pedestrian 
walkways, and boating and fishing access facilities. This 
section also increases the allowable Federal share to 
$9,000,000 to accommodate the increased project scope.

Sec. 3064. Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion Project, Mississippi and 
        Louisiana

    This section modifies the Mississippi and Louisiana 
Estuarine Areas, Mississippi and Louisiana, project to provide 
for implementation of the Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion 
Project. Freshwater diversion projects can restore historic 
salinity levels, which benefit valuable habitat.

Sec. 3065. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri

    This section directs a land exchange of 42 acres between 
S.S.S., Inc. and the Army Corps of Engineers within 2 years. 
The Federal land includes 2 parcels of Army Corps of Engineers 
land located on Buffalo Island in Pike County, Missouri. The 
S.S.S., Inc. land is situated in Pike County, Missouri, 
upstream and northwest, about 200 feet from Drake Island (also 
known as Grimes Island).

Sec. 3066. L-15 Levee, Missouri

    The section deems that 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 
to be a Federal levee.

Sec. 3067. Union Lake, Missouri

    This section directs the Secretary to offer to convey to 
the State of Missouri two tracts of land totaling approximately 
205.5 acres that were originally purchased for the Union Lake 
Project, which was deauthorized in the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)).

Sec. 3068. Lower Yellowstone Project, Montana

    The section authorizes the Secretary to use funds 
appropriated to carry out the Missouri River recovery and 
mitigation program to assist the Bureau of Reclamation in the 
design and construction of the Lower Yellowstone project of the 
Bureau, Intake, Montana.

Sec. 3069. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out 
restoration projects in the watershed of the Yellowstone River 
and tributaries in Montana and North Dakota. The restoration 
projects would be implemented in partnership with non-Federal 
sponsors, including non-profit entities with the support of the 
local government. Projects would provide for a wide range of 
measures in the main channel and flood plain to accomplish 
restoration, creation, and preservation of fish and wildlife 
habitat. Incorporation of multi-purpose features into these 
projects is authorized. This section authorizes Federal 
appropriations up to $30,000,000.

Sec. 3070. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada

    This section authorizes the Secretary to construct a 
project modification for environmental restoration on the 
Truckee River at McCarran Ranch, Nevada, with the Federal share 
of the cost in excess of the statutory $5,000,000 limit 
established under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a). The total project 
cost is $7,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$5,775,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,725,000.

Sec. 3071. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out 
restoration projects in the Middle Rio Grande. The Secretary 
shall consult with and consider the activities being carried 
out by the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act 
Collaborative Program and the Bosque Improvement Group of the 
Middle Rio Grande Bosque Initiative. The cost of projects 
carried out under this authority will be cost-shared at a non-
Federal share of 35 percent and shall include provision of 
necessary land, easements, relocations, and disposal sites. The 
non-Federal sponsor may, with the consent of the affected 
government, be a nonprofit entity. The program is authorized 
for an appropriation of $25,000,000.

Sec. 3072. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and 
        Connecticut

    This section authorizes the Secretary to plan, design, and 
construct projects to increase aquatic habitats within Long 
Island Sound, New York and Connecticut, and adjacent waters, 
including the construction and restoration of oyster beds and 
related shellfish habitat. There is authorized to be 
appropriated $25,000,000.

Sec. 3073. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York

    This section amends section 554 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) to increase the 
maximum Federal cost of the project from $5,200,000 to 
$18,200,000.

Sec. 3074. New York Harbor, New York, New York

    This section amends section 217 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a) which authorized the 
Secretary to enter into cost-sharing agreements with one or 
more non-Federal public interests for the acquisition, design, 
construction, management, or operation of a dredged material 
processing, treatment, decontamination, or disposal facility. 
This includes any facility used to demonstrate potential 
beneficial uses of dredged material. When appropriate, the 
Secretary may combine portions of separate Federal projects if 
the facility is used to manage dredged material from multiple 
Federal projects in the same geographic area. The New York and 
New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project, New York and New Jersey, 
is the most likely candidate navigation project to use the 
facility; however, the cost-sharing agreement may include the 
management of sediments from the maintenance dredging of 
Federal navigation projects that do not have partnership 
agreements.

Sec. 3075. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota

    This section amends section 707(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2699) to extend the 
authorization for appropriations by striking ``$5,000,000'' and 
all that follows through ``2005'' and inserting 
``$25,000,000''.

Sec. 3076. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio

    The section amends section 507(l) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) by increasing the 
authorization from $2,500,000 to $5,500,000 for repair and 
rehabilitation of the Lower Girard Lake Dam, which may include 
lowering the crest of the Dam by not more than 12.5 feet.

Sec. 3077. Toussaint River navigation project, Carroll Township, Ohio

    This section authorizes Federal funding for all the costs 
associated with increased operation and maintenance activities 
that are carried out in accordance with section 107 of the 
River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and relate 
directly to the presence of unexploded ordnance at the 
Toussaint River Navigation Project.

Sec. 3078. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma

    This section directs the Secretary to eliminate the 
requirement to pay accrued interest costs for the water supply 
storage following the end of the 10-year interest free period 
beginning on November 30, 1996 to September 1999; the date the 
storage was placed into active status.

Sec. 3079. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma

    This section requires the Secretary to maximize the storage 
capacity at Lake Eufaula to ensure that the full value of the 
reservoir is realized by the United States. To assist the 
Secretary, there is established a Lake Eufaula Advisory 
Committee.

Sec. 3080. Release of Reversionary Interest, Oklahoma

    This section extinguishes each reversionary interest and 
use restriction related to recreation and public parks on the 
land conveyed by the Secretary to the State of Oklahoma 
pursuant to the Act entitled `An Act to authorize the sale of 
certain lands to the State of Oklahoma' (67 Stat. 63, chapter 
118). Any deed of release, amended deed, or other appropriate 
instrument of release needed to extinguish each reversionary 
interest and use restriction, shall be filed and executed as 
soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this act.

Sec. 3081. Oklahoma Lakes Demonstration Program, Oklahoma

    This section directs the Secretary to implement within one 
year of enactment of this Act an innovative program at the 
Corps of Engineers lakes in Oklahoma. The purpose of the 
program is to demonstrate the benefits of enhanced recreation 
facilities and activities at those lakes. The Secretary is to 
report on the results of the program within two years of 
enactment of this Act. The authority provided by this section 
terminates ten years after the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 3082. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma

    This section directs the Secretary to use the costs for 
construction of the water conveyance facilities for the 
projects as in existence in June 1986. Any costs identified by 
the Army Corps of Engineers after June 1986 are considered a 
Federal cost.

Sec. 3083. Lookout Point Project, Lowell, Oregon

    This section directs the Secretary to offer to convey to 
the Lowell School District No. 71, Oregon one tract of land 
totaling approximately 0.98 acres located in Lane County, 
Oregon for use as a fire station. The conveyance shall not take 
place until the United States Forest Service, which currently 
operates structures on the property, completes and certifies 
that the necessary environmental remediation has been performed 
and transfers the structures to the Corps of Engineers.

Sec. 3084. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem restoration

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct studies and 
ecosystem restoration projects for the Upper Willamette 
Watershed, which includes the planning, design, and 
construction of ecosystem restoration projects. Habitat has 
been altered or destroyed for a wide variety of plants and 
animals, including fish species, such as bull trout and 
Willamette spring Chinook salmon and winter steelhead, listed 
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. There is 
authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000.

Sec. 3085. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York

    This section amends the project for ecosystem restoration, 
Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York, 
authorized by section 567 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787), to expand the definition of 
potential non-Federal sponsors; to authorize the Secretary to 
provide assistance for implementing wetland restoration 
projects and soil conservation measures; and defines an 
implementation strategy for carrying out the goals of the 
program.

Sec. 3086. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island

    This section authorizes the Secretary to use amounts in the 
Environmental Restoration Account, Formerly Used Defense Sites, 
for the removal of abandoned marine camels in Narragansett Bay, 
Rhode Island.

Sec. 3087. South Carolina Department of Commerce development proposal 
        at Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina

    This section directs the Secretary to convey to the State 
of South Carolina a portion of those lands described in Army 
Lease No. DACW21-1-92-500 (Abbeville, Hester Marina and Manor 
Recreation Areas) currently under lease to the South Carolina 
Department of Commerce (SCDOC) for 99 years for cost-shared 
recreation development pursuant to P.L. 89-72 (approximately 
650 acres). This section includes provisions for the Army to 
retain ownership of land that would have been acquired for 
operational purposes in accordance with existing policy and 
such other land as is determined to be required for project 
purposes. The section eliminates the applicability of section 
2696 of title 10, U.S.C. to this conveyance and allows the 
Secretary to require additional terms and conditions as 
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. The 
State is responsible for all costs associated with this 
conveyance, is required to pay fair market value for land 
conveyed, and is permitted to perform environmental or real 
estate actions associated with the conveyance in lieu of 
payment. This section retains the applicability of the 
Shoreline Management Policy of the Army Corps of Engineers and 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.), including public review under that Act, and other 
Federal statutes.

Sec. 3088. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota

    This section amends section 707(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2699) to extend the 
authorization for appropriations through 2010.

Sec. 3089. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project

    This section amends section 514 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) to 
extend the authorization of appropriations through fiscal year 
2015. For any project undertaken under this section, a non-
Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the 
consent of the affected local government.

Sec. 3090. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee

    This section modifies the project for flood control, 
Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi, authorized by 
section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4124) and modified by section 334 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), to authorize the 
Secretary to reconstruct, at Federal expense, the weir 
originally constructed in the vicinity of the mouth of 
Nonconnah Creek and to make repairs and maintain the weir in 
the future so that the weir functions properly. The estimated 
cost of reconstruction of the weir is $2,500,000.

Sec. 3091. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee

    This section extinguishes the reversionary interests and 
use restrictions relating to recreation and camping purposes 
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 Army Corps of 
Engineers retains remaining rights or interest of the Army 
Corps of Engineers with respect to an authorized purpose of any 
project.

Sec. 3092. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a 
project for flood damage reduction at Sandy Creek, Tennessee, 
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
701s) if the Secretary determines that the project is 
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically 
justified. Sandy Creek is not to be considered an authorized 
channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries Project, nor is the 
flood damage reduction project to be considered a part of the 
West Tennessee Tributaries Project.

Sec. 3093. Cedar Bayou, Texas

    This section modifies the project, authorized by section 
349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 
Stat. 2632), to authorize construction of a navigation channel 
that is 10 feet by 100 feet instead of 12 feet by 125 feet.

Sec. 3094. Denison, Texas

    This section authorizes the Secretary to 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 
approximately 900 acres of land located in Grayson County, 
Texas.

Sec. 3095. Freeport Harbor, Texas

    This section clarifies that all costs associated as a 
result of the discovery of the sunken vessel Comstock of the 
Corps of Engineers are a Federal responsibility and directs the 
Corps not to seek these costs or any costs associated with a 
delay from the local sponsor.

Sec. 3096. Harris County, Texas

    This section modifies section 575(b) of WRDA 1996 to 
require the Secretary to not consider flood control works 
constructed by non-Federal interests within the drainage area 
in the determination of conditions existing prior to 
construction of the Upper White Oak Bayou, Texas project 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).

Sec. 3097. Connecticut River Restoration, Vermont

    This section permits a nonprofit entity to act as the non-
Federal sponsor for the purposes of carrying out the activities 
described in the agreement executed between the Nature 
Conservancy and the Department of the Army on August 5, 2005.

Sec. 3098. Dam remediation, Vermont

    This section amends section 543 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (42 Stat. 2671) to add ecosystem 
restoration, protection, and preservation as a purpose of the 
dam remediation authority and identifies nine additional dams 
to be evaluated under the program.

Sec. 3099. Lake Champlain eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other 
        nonnative plant control, Vermont

    This section directs the Secretary to revise the existing 
General Design Memorandum prepared under the authority of 
section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610) 
to permit the use of chemical means of control, when 
appropriate, of Eurasian milfoil, water chestnuts, and other 
nonnative plants in the Lake Champlain basin, Vermont.

Sec. 3100. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont 
        and New Hampshire

    This section authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with 
Federal, State, local and non-profit agencies, to conduct a 
study and develop a strategy for the use of wetland 
restoration, soil and water conservation practices, and non-
structural measures in the Upper Connecticut River basin to 
reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and create wildlife 
habitat. It further directs the Secretary to participate in the 
implementation of the strategy in cooperation with local 
landowners and local government officials. The river basin 
provides important habitat for Atlantic salmon, dwarf mussels, 
beaver, otter, mink, bear, and moose. It is a flyway for 
migratory bird species. Portions of the Connecticut River, such 
as the Conte Refuge Special Focus Area, are known for their 
biological diversity and an unusual concentration of species 
that are disappearing from other places. It has the best dwarf 
wedge mussel population in the basin and it provides summer 
forage for migratory bald eagles. In addition, the Connecticut 
River Rapids Macrosite includes some of the river's last 
floodplain forests. There is $5,000,000 authorized to carry out 
the section.

Sec. 3101. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont 
        and New Hampshire

    This section directs the Secretary, in consultation with 
Federal, State, local and non-profit agencies, to conduct a 
study and develop a strategy for ecosystem restoration of the 
Upper Connecticut River ecosystem. It further directs the 
Secretary to participate in the implementation of critical 
restoration projects in the Upper Connecticut River Basin 
consistent with the developed strategy. The river basin 
provides important habitat for Atlantic salmon, dwarf mussels, 
beaver, otter, mink, bear, and moose. It is a flyway for 
migratory bird species. Portions of the Connecticut River, such 
as the Conte Refuge Special Focus Area, are known for their 
biological diversity and an unusual concentration of species 
that are disappearing from other places. It has the best dwarf 
wedge mussel population in the basin and it provides summer 
forage for migratory bald eagles. In addition, the Connecticut 
River Rapids Macrosite includes some of the river's last 
floodplain forests. There is $20,000,000 authorized to carry 
out the section.

Sec. 3102. Lake Champlain Watershed, Vermont and New York

    This section amends section 542 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (42 Stat. 2671) to identify additional 
activities that may be considered critical restoration 
projects, including geographic mapping using existing technical 
capacity to produce a high-resolution, multi-spectral 
satellite, imagery-based land use and cover data sets; and 
river corridor assessments, protection, management, and 
restoration for purposes of ecosystem restoration. This section 
increases the authorization for the section from $20,000,000 to 
$32,000,000.

Sec. 3103. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland

    This section amends section 704(b) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 22263(b)) to increase the 
authorized appropriation limit for the program from $20,000,000 
to $50,000,000. The provision also modifies the allowable 
activities to be conducted in the Chesapeake Bay and expands 
the purposes for which restoration activities may be undertaken 
and defines successful restoration activities.

Sec. 3104. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia

    This section amends section 577(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1196 (110 Stat. 3789) to increase the total 
project cost from $1,200,000 to $3,000,000 with a Federal cost 
of $2,400,000 and a non-Federal cost of $600,000.

Sec. 3105. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington

    This section modifies section 204 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1950 (64 Stat. 178) for a one-time placement of dredge 
material from the Columbia River channel onto the shoreline of 
Puget Island, Washington, for temporary protection from erosion 
of economic and environmental resources. This section 
authorizes appropriations of $1,000,000 at Federal expense and 
instructs the Secretary to perform appropriate agency 
coordination and ensure environmental compliance.

Sec. 3106. Lower granite pool, Washington

    This section extinguishes reversionary interests and use 
restrictions related to industrial use purposes, the 
restriction that no activity is permitted that will compete 
with services and facilities offered by public marinas, and the 
restriction on human habitation or other building structures in 
which the elevation is above the standard project flood 
elevation. This section also specifies the deeds involved and 
includes a savings clause regarding other remaining rights and 
interests of the Army Corps of Engineers for authorized project 
purposes.

Sec. 3107. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge, 
        Washington and Idaho

    This section directs the transfer of administrative 
jurisdiction over the land acquired for the McNary Lock and Dam 
Project and managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service under 
Cooperative Agreement Number DACW68-4-00-13 from the Army Corps 
of Engineers to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The land will 
continue to be managed as part of the McNary National Wildlife 
Refuge. This section includes specific provisions regarding 
retention of habitat unit credits at the Cummins property. It 
requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain priority 
approval of the Washington State Department of Fish and 
Wildlife for any change to the previously approved site 
development plan for the Cummins property, and it requires that 
the Fish and Wildlife Service continue operation of the Madame 
Dorian Recreation Area for public use and boater access.

Sec. 3108. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho

    This section modifies the project for the Snake River 
Project, Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), to 
amend the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan for the Lower 
Snake River, Washington, and Idaho. This section authorizes the 
Secretary to conduct studies and implement aquatic and riparian 
ecosystem restoration and improvements specifically for 
fisheries and wildlife.

Sec. 3109. Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington

    This section provides that the portion of the project for 
navigation, Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington, 
authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1958, consisting of 
the last 2,900 linear feet of the inner portion of the 
waterway, shall not be authorized as of the date of enactment 
of this Act.

Sec. 3110. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia

    This section authorizes the modification of the project for 
flood damage reduction, Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia, 
substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the 
conditions, recommended in a draft report of the Corps of 
Engineers at an estimated total cost of $45,500,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $34,125,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $11,375,000.

Sec. 3111. McDowell County, West Virginia

    The section modifies the non-structural component of the 
Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland Rivers 
project to direct the Secretary to take measures to provide 
protection from the reoccurrence of the greater of the April 
1977 flood; July 2001 flood; May 2002 flood; or the 100-year 
frequency event.

Sec. 3112. Green Bay Harbor Project, Green Bay, Wisconsin

    This section modifies the existing limits of the authorized 
navigation channel of the Green Bay Harbor Project, beginning 
at Station 190+00 to Station 378+00 to a width of 75 feet and a 
depth of 6 feet. This modification will allow the local 
entities to complete the cleanup of hazardous wastes currently 
within the waterway, but does not affect responsibility or 
liability for the cleanup.

Sec. 3113. Underwood Creek diversion facility project, Milwaukee 
        County, Wisconsin

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out 
planning, engineering, and design of an adaptive ecosystem 
restoration, flood damage reduction, and erosion protection 
project at the Milwaukee County Grounds, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. 
The project is made a part of the existing program for flood 
mitigation and riverine restoration.

Sec. 3114. Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin

    This section provides that a portion of the project for 
navigation, Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the River 
and Harbor Act of 1910, consisting of a 15-foot deep turning 
basin in the Oconto River, is no longer authorized.

Sec. 3115. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs

    This section allows the Secretary to operate headwaters 
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels 
established in 1988 as modified by this section in accordance 
with a manual developed by the Secretary after consultation 
with the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal governments. 
In addition, this section requires the Secretary to submit a 
notice of intent to Congress 14 days prior to operating the 
headwaters reservoir below the minimum or above the maximum 
water level limits. This notice does not have to be provided in 
cases where the operation is necessary to prevent the loss of 
life, to ensure the safety of a dam, or in anticipation of a 
flood control operation.

Sec. 3116. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive 
        Site

    This section amends section 103(c)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4811) to allow the 
purchase of property that is not limited to property being held 
by the Resolution Trust Corporation.

Sec. 3117. Upper Mississippi River system environmental management 
        program

    This section modifies the existing authorization to allow 
that for any project undertaken under this section, a non-
Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the 
consent of the affected local government.

Sec. 3118. Upper Basin of Missouri River

    This section permits funds made available for recovery or 
mitigation activities in the lower basin of the Missouri River 
to be used in the upper basin of the Missouri River.

Sec. 3119. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program

    This section amends the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem 
Restoration Program established in section 506(c) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 by directing the Corps to 
carry out a reconnaissance study before planning, designing, or 
constructing a project for restoring fisheries, ecosystems and 
beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. The Secretary shall then 
make a determination as to whether the planning should proceed. 
Any reconnaissance study carried out under this section shall 
be at Federal expense.

Sec. 3120. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation

    This section amends section 401(c) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990 to extend the authorization of the 
program from 2006 through 2011.

Sec. 3121. Great Lakes tributary models

    This section amends section 506(g)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 by extending the 
authorization of the program from 2006 through 2011.

Sec. 3122. Upper Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation System new 
        technology pilot program

    This section establishes a pilot program to evaluate new 
technologies for the Upper Ohio River and Tributaries 
Navigation System. The program may include the design, 
construction, or implementation of innovative technologies and 
solutions. The purposes of the program are to increase the 
reliability and availability of Federally-owned and Federally-
operated navigation facilities; to decrease system operational 
risks; and to improve vessel traffic management, access, and 
Federal asset management. The cost sharing for this program is 
in accordance with the formula relating to the applicable 
original construction project. The authorized appropriation for 
this program is $3,100,000.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil

    This section directs the Secretary to carry out a study, at 
Federal expense, to develop national protocols for the use of 
the Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for biological control of 
Eurasian milfoil in the lakes of Vermont and other northern 
tier States.

Sec. 4002. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Channel

    The committee is aware of scientific and technical concerns 
with the identification and differentiation of sturgeon species 
and the effects that this may have on navigation projects 
operated by the Corps of Engineers. The Secretary, in 
conjunction with Oklahoma State University, is directed to 
convene a panel of experts with acknowledged expertise in 
wildlife biology and genetics to review the available 
scientific information regarding the genetic variation of 
various sturgeon species and possible hybrids.

Sec. 4003. Los Angeles River Revitalization Study, California

    This section authorizes the Secretary to prepare a 
feasibility study for environmental restoration, flood control, 
recreation, and other aspects of Los Angeles River 
revitalization that is consistent with the goals Master Plan 
published by the city of Los Angles. The Secretary is 
authorized to construct demonstration projects in order to 
provide information to develop the study. The Federal share of 
the cost of any demonstration project shall be not more than 65 
percent. The authorized appropriation for the demonstration 
program is $12,000,000.

Sec. 4004. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California

    This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of bank stabilization and shore 
protection for Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California, under 
the authority of section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 
U.S.C. 426g).

Sec. 4005. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study

    This section amends section 414 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636) to increase by 12 
months an extension for completing the Oceanside, California 
Shoreline Special Study by striking ``32 months'' and inserting 
``44 months''.

Sec. 4006. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena, 
        California

    This section authorizes the Secretary to review the project 
for flood control and environmental restoration at St. Helena, 
California, generally in accordance with the Enhanced Minimum 
Plan A, as described in the Final Environmental Impact Report 
prepared by the city of St. Helena, California and certified by 
the city to be in compliance with the California Environmental 
Quality Act. Cost sharing for the project shall in accordance 
with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(33 U.S.C. 2213).

Sec. 4007. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sherman 
        Island, California

    This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of using a portion of Sherman Island, 
California, as a dredged material rehandling facility.

Sec. 4008. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California

    This section authorizes the Secretary in carrying out the 
feasibility phase of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline 
study to use planning and design documents prepared by the 
California State Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley 
Water District, and other local interests, in cooperation with 
the Army Corps of Engineers (who shall provide technical 
assistance to the local interests), as the basis for 
recommendations to Congress for authorization of a project to 
provide for flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay 
shoreline and restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt 
ponds.

Sec. 4009. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California

    This section directs the Secretary to submit to Congress a 
report describing the results of the San Pablo Bay watershed 
study not later than March 31, 2008.

Sec. 4010. Fountain Creek, North of Pueblo, Colorado

    This section directs the Secretary to expedite the 
completion of the Fountain Creek watershed study.

Sec. 4011. Selenium Study, Colorado

    This section authorizes the Secretary in consultation with 
State water quality and resource and conservation agencies, to 
conduct regional and watershed-wide studies to address selenium 
concentrations in the State of Colorado. The authorized 
appropriation for the study is $5,000,000.

Sec. 4012. Promontory Point third-party review, Chicago shoreline, 
        Chicago, Illinois

    This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a third-
party review of the Promontory Point project at a cost not to 
exceed $450,000. The Corps Buffalo and Seattle districts will 
jointly conduct the review. The review shall be based on the 
standards under part 68 of title 36, code of Federal 
Regulations (or successor regulation), for implementation by 
the non-Federal sponsor for the Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, 
Illinois, project.

Sec. 4013. Vidalia Port, Louisiana

    This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of a project for navigation 
improvement at Vidalia, Louisiana.

Sec. 4014. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan

    This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm 
damage reduction, beach erosion protection and other related 
measures along the shores of Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan. 
The study shall include consideration of replacement, repair or 
modification of existing local and Federal storm damage 
reduction and beach erosion protection measures.

Sec. 4015. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio

    This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of providing a safe harbor and 
shoreline protection at Middle Bass Island State Park.

Sec. 4016. Jasper County port facility study, South Carolina

    This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of providing improvements to the 
Savannah River, Jasper County, South Carolina, for navigation 
and other purposes related necessary to support locating a 
container cargo and other port facilities near the entrance to 
the Savannah Harbor Entrance Channel. The Secretary shall take 
into consideration landside infrastructure, dredged material 
disposal sites, and the results of consultation with the 
Governors of the States of Georgia and South Carolina.

Sec. 4017. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas

    This section authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the technical soundness, economic feasibility, and 
environmental acceptability of the plan prepared by the City of 
Arlington, Texas, as generally described in the report entitled 
``Johnson Creek: A Vision of Conservation, Arlington, Texas'', 
dated March 2006.

Sec. 4018. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study, at 
Federal expense, to determine the feasibility of a dispersal 
barrier for control of invasive species at the Lake Champlain 
Canal, Vermont and New York, and, if such project is found to 
be feasible, directs the Secretary to construct, maintain, and 
operate such dispersal barrier as necessary.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 5001. Lakes program

    This section amends section 602(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 
Stat. 295) to include additional sites in Illinois, North 
Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont to the Lakes Program.

Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration

    Subsection (a) amends section 102 of the Estuary 
Restoration Act (ERA) of 2000 (the Act) (33 U.S.C. 2901) to 
expand the purposes of the restoration program by including the 
implementation of a coordinated Federal approach to estuary 
habitat restoration activities, including the use of common 
monitoring standards and a common system for tracking 
restoration acreage; adding implementation to the strategy; and 
adding cooperative agreements to the Federal assistance 
purpose.
    Subsection (b) amends section 103(6)(A) of the Act (33 
U.S.C. 2902(6)(A)) by adding regional interests to the estuary 
habitat restoration plan.
    Subsection (c) amends section 104 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 
2903) to allow monitoring costs to be included in the total 
cost of the estuary restoration project and allows the 
Secretary, on recommendation of the Estuary Council, to 
delegate the implementation of projects costing less than 
$1,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior; the Under 
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of 
Commerce; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency; or the Secretary of Agriculture. These small projects 
may be funded from the responsible department or appropriations 
of the agency authorized by section 109(a)(1).
    Subsection (d) amends section 105(b) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 
2903(b)) to direct the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council to 
cooperate in the implementation of the strategy, recommend 
standards for monitoring restoration projects and contribution 
of project information to the data base, and use agency 
authorities to carry out the Act.
    Subsection (e) amends section 107(d) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 
2906(d) to give the Secretary general data compilation, 
coordination, and analysis responsibilities to support the 
strategy.
    Subsection (f) amends section 108(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 
2908(a)) by changing the reporting requirement from the third 
and fifth year to every sixth, eighth, and tenth fiscal year 
after November 7, 2000.
    Subsection (g) amends section 109(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 
2908(a)) to establish project funding for fiscal years 2007 
through 2011 as follows: $25,000,000 for the Secretary; 
$2,500,000 for the Secretary of the Interior; $2,500,000 for 
the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department 
of Commerce; $2,500,000 for the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency; and $2,500,000 for the 
Secretary of Agriculture. In addition, this subsection extends 
the monitoring authorization through 2011.
    Subsection (h) amends section 110 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 
2909) to allow nongovernmental organizations to enter into 
cooperative agreements or contracts.
    The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-457; 33 
U.S.C. 2901-2909) was enacted to promote the restoration of 
estuary habitat through the development of a national estuary 
habitat restoration strategy, creating and maintaining 
effective estuary restoration partnerships among public 
agencies and private sectors. In passing the Estuary 
Restoration Act, Congress recognized the importance of a 
national, strategic plan and multi-level partnerships for 
effectively addressing the problems plaguing our nation's 
estuaries. By setting a goal to restore one million acres of 
estuary habitat by 2010, the Act encourages coordination among 
all levels of government, along with engaging the unique 
strengths of the public, non-profit, and private sectors. In 
2002, the Estuary Council, consisting of members from several 
Federal agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers and the 
Department of Commerce, completed the national estuary strategy 
to ensure a comprehensive and integrated approach for 
implementing the Estuary Restoration Program.
    Section 5002 amends sections 102, 103(6)(A), 104, 105(b), 
107(d), 108(a), 109(a), and 110 of the Estuary Restoration Act 
(ERA) to clarify the coordinated Federal approach and 
cooperative nature of the law; to include monitoring costs as 
part of the total costs of an estuary restoration project; to 
provide new authorities to the Secretary for the delegation of 
small estuary projects; to extend funding authority for the 
Secretary; and to provide new authority for the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Department of Commerce, Environmental 
Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture to develop and 
implement estuary projects.
    Ongoing uncertainty exists regarding the inclusion of 
monitoring costs within the non-Federal cost share. Some are 
interpreting the law to read that the required monitoring is 
part of the `operations and maintenance', which may not be 
included in the sponsor's portion of the cost share agreement. 
The Council has released monitoring guidelines that stipulate 
restoration projects should be monitored for at least 5 years, 
an amount of time that may significantly increase the burden on 
the project sponsor, particularly if these costs are not 
included as part of the total cost of a project. Section 104(d) 
is amended to clarify that monitoring costs may be included in 
the total costs of an estuary project.
    To date, the ERA has received $3,500,000 in annual 
appropriations for estuary projects. Authorized at $275,000,000 
through fiscal year 2005, the ERA has faced a number of hurdles 
since its enactment in November 2000, including the Army Corps 
of Engineers' no new starts policy and the tight fiscal 
situation. The law has no sunset provision, but appropriations 
are defined only through fiscal year 2005. Section 109(a) of 
the ERA is amended to authorize $25,000,000 annually through 
fiscal year 2010 for the Secretary; $1,500,000 annually for the 
Department of Commerce estuary monitoring activities; and to 
grant new funding authority of $2,500,000 annually to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Commerce, 
Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture, 
respectively, for estuary projects. This new funding authority, 
combined with language encouraging the Secretary to delegate 
implementation of small projects with a Federal share of less 
than $1,000,000, is essential to maximize the partnership model 
of the Act and encourage other Federal partners to become 
engaged in project implementation.

Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland

    This section authorizes the Secretary to 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; 116 Stat. 275). The 
Delmarva Conservation Corridor (DCC) is an attempt to integrate 
and connect restoration efforts throughout the Delmarva 
Peninsula. The DCC is a multi-faceted effort, designed to 
preserve farmland and rural character, as well as restore 
natural ecosystem through the creation of a hub and corridor 
system.

Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, 
        Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

    This section designates that the Division Engineer, North 
Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, shall serve as 
the ex-officio United States member under the Susquehanna River 
Basin Compact, the Delaware River Basin Compact, and the 
Potomac River Basin Compact without additional compensation, 
and with the authority to designate an alternate member(s) in 
accordance with the terms of the applicable compact. The 
section directs the Secretary to allocate funds to the 
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Delaware River Basin 
Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River 
Basin, to fulfill the equitable funding requirements of the 
applicable compacts. The section directs the Secretary to enter 
into an agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 
the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Interstate 
Commission on the Potomac River Basin, to provide temporary 
water supply and conservation storage during drought 
emergencies.

Sec. 5005. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland

    This section authorizes 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 stakeholders, to develop 
and make available to the public a 10-year comprehensive action 
plan to provide for the restoration and protection of the 
Anacostia River ecosystem.

Sec. 5006. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers project, 
        Illinois

    The Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal forms a unique, man-
made link between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. 
The Canal also provides non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species 
access between the two water basins. As non-indigenous aquatic 
nuisance species move toward the Great Lakes from the 
Mississippi River and vice versa, they prey on native species 
and compete for food, living space and spawning areas. There is 
a current demonstration barrier authorized by the Non-
Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 
(amended through 1996) which is nearing the end of its useful 
life.
    Subsection (a) provides that both of the barriers currently 
on the ship canal are to be treated as a single project: 
Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to upgrade and make 
permanent the existing dispersal barrier at Federal expense; to 
construct the dispersal barrier currently being implemented 
using section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) at Federal expense; and to operate and 
maintain the dispersal barriers described in subsections (a) 
and (b) at Federal expense.
    This section also directs the Secretary to credit to each 
State the proportion funds that the State contributed to the 
dispersal barriers and allows the States to apply that credit 
toward the State's interest in other existing or future Corps 
projects.

Sec. 5007. Rio Grande environmental management program, New Mexico

    This section authorizes the Secretary to implement a 
program for planning, design, construction and evaluation of 
planning and implementation of measures for ecosystem 
restoration for the Rio Grande, including all tributaries of 
the River, from the border between the States of Colorado and 
New Mexico downstream to the border between the States of New 
Mexico and Texas. The section also provides for long-term 
monitoring, computerized data inventory and analyses, and 
applied research and adaptive management programs for the 
resources associated with the Rio Grande basin and its 
tributaries. The Secretary must ensure coordinated planning and 
implementation of the program by consulting with the State of 
New Mexico and other entities and by entering into an 
interagency agreement with the Secretary of the Interior that 
provides for the transfer of funds to Interior Department 
agencies for their participation in program planning, design, 
implementation and monitoring. The Secretary, in consultation 
with the Secretary of the Interior and the State of New Mexico, 
will be required to submit a report every 6 years that 
evaluates and describes the accomplishments of the program, and 
identifies needed adjustments to the program authorization. 
This program will not preempt any State water law, and will 
comply with the Rio Grande Compact and any applicable court 
decrees or State and Federal laws affecting water or water 
rights in the Rio Grande system. The cost of projects carried 
out under this authority will be cost-shared at a non-Federal 
share of 35 percent, which may be provided through cash 
contribution or in-kind services, and shall include provision 
of necessary land, easements, relocations, and disposal sites. 
The non-Federal sponsor, may, with the consent of the affected 
government, be a nonprofit entity. The program is authorized 
for an annual appropriation of $25,000,000.

Sec. 5008. Missouri River and Tributaries, mitigation, recovery and 
        restoration, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North 
        Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming

    This section authorizes the Secretary to participate with 
state and tribal officials and nongovernmental stakeholders in 
a study of the Missouri River and its tributaries to determine 
what actions are required to mitigate loss of aquatic and 
terrestrial habitat, recover Federally listed species under the 
Endangered Species Act and restore the ecosystem to prevent 
further declines among other native species.
    This section also establishes the Missouri River Recovery 
Implementation Committee made up of state representatives, 
tribal representatives and nongovernmental stakeholders. The 
committee will provide guidance to the Secretary with respect 
to recovery and mitigation activities, including changes to the 
implementation strategy from the use of adaptive management. 
The committee will also provide for the exchange of information 
regarding projects and programs among the agencies represented 
on the committee, establish working groups, facilitate 
resolution of interagency and intergovernmental conflicts 
regarding the Missouri River recovery and mitigation program 
and coordinate scientific research associated with Missouri 
River recovery and mitigation program.

Sec. 5009. St. Mary Project, Blackfeet Reservation, Montana

    This section authorizes the Secretary to work 
collaboratively with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on the 
evaluation and execution of major repair and rehabilitation 
needs for the St. Mary Diversion and Conveyance Work.

Sec. 5010. Lower Platte River Watershed restoration, Nebraska

    The section authorizes the Secretary to participate in 
watershed-based efforts in the Lower Platte River basin, 
Nebraska.

Sec. 5011. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and 
        Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration, South Dakota

    This section amends section 602(a)(4) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 386) to direct the 
Secretary of the Treasury to make funds available to the State 
of South Dakota from the State of South Dakota Terrestrial 
Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund. The prior 
authorization directed the Secretary of the Army to make such 
funds available to the State and the Secretary of the Treasury 
to make funds available to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and 
the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. This section also amends the 
investment strategy directed in sections 603 and 604 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 for the State of South 
Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and 
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux 
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund. This 
section directs the investment of funds in Treasury obligations 
with differing maturities to ensure high returns while allowing 
for the availability of funds.

Sec. 5012. Connecticut River dams, Vermont

    This section authorizes the Secretary to evaluate, design 
and construct structural modifications, at Federal expense, for 
the purposes of improving the environment, to the following 
Army Corps of Engineers operated dams in Vermont: Townshend 
Lake, Ball Mountain Lake, North Springfield Lake, North 
Hartland Lake, and Union Village Lake. There is authorized to 
carry out this section $30,000,000.

                   TITLE VI--PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama, authorized in 
the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 312).

Sec. 6002. Goleta and vicinity, California

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, 
Goleta and vicinity, California, authorized by section 201 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826).

Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut

    This section deauthorizes the Yellow Mill River portion of 
the project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, 
authorized by the Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), that 
consists of an 18-foot channel, 150 to 200 feet wide, extending 
about a mile upstream from the 35-foot entrance channel.

Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut

    This section deauthorizes the project for environmental 
infrastructure, Bridgeport, Connecticut, authorized by section 
219(f)(26) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 73, 113 Stat. 336).

Sec. 6005. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Part 
        II, installation of fender protection for bridges, Delaware and 
        Maryland

    This section deauthorizes the project for construction of 
bridge fenders for the Summit and St. Georges Bridges over the 
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Delaware and Maryland, 
authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249).

Sec. 6006. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, 
Shingle Creek Basin, Florida, authorized by section 203 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).

Sec. 6007. Brevoort, Indiana

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, 
Brevoort, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control 
Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1587).

Sec. 6008. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, 
Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 
10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 649).

Sec. 6009. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 
602 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
4148).

Sec. 6010. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), deauthorized in fiscal year 1991, 
and reauthorized by section 115(a)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4821).

Sec. 6011. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation at 
Muscatine Harbor on the Mississippi River at Muscatine, Iowa, 
authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 
(64 Stat. 166).

Sec. 6012. Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area, 
        Kentucky and Tennessee

    This section deauthorizes the uninitiated portions of the 
project for recreation facilities, Big South Fork National 
River and Recreational Area, Kentucky and Tennessee, authorized 
by section 108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 
(88 Stat. 43).

Sec. 6013. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control and 
water supply, Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 
203 the Flood Control Act 1962 (76 Stat. 1188).

Sec. 6014. Hazard, Kentucky

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Hazard, Kentucky, authorized by section 3 of the 
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014) 
and section 108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
(104 Stat. 4621).

Sec. 6015. West Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, 
West Kentucky Tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204 
of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1081), section 201 
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), and section 
401(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4129).

Sec. 6016. Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, Louisiana

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana, 
authorized by section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 (55 
Stat. 644) and section 1(a) of the Water Resources Development 
of 1974 (88 Stat. 12).

Sec. 6017. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation 
improvement for Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana, 
authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1033, 
chapter 831) and the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 
481).

Sec. 6018. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, 
        Louisiana

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, 
Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, 
Louisiana, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825).

Sec. 6019. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana

    This section deauthorizes the project for erosion 
protection and recreation, Fort Livingston, Grande Terre 
Island, Louisiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1946 
(33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.).

Sec. 6020. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, 
        Louisiana

    This section deauthorizes the project for the construction 
of bulkheads and jetties at Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, 
Louisiana, as part of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 
authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of 
1946 (60 Stat. 635).

Sec. 6021. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana To Daingerfield, 
        Texas

    This section deauthorizes the Red River Waterway, 
Shreveport, Louisiana to Dangerfield, Texas, authorized by 
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).

Sec. 6022. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine

    This section deauthorizes the project for environmental 
infrastructure, Casco Bay, Portland, Maine, authorized by 
section 307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4841).

Sec. 6023. Northeast Harbor, Maine

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Northeast Harbor, Maine, authorized by section 2 of the Act of 
March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 12, Chapter 19).

Sec. 6024. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine

    This section deauthorizes the project for environmental 
infrastructure, Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine, authorized by 
section 307 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4841).

Sec. 6025. Saint John River Basin, Maine

    This section deauthorizes the program for research and 
demonstration of cropland irrigation and soil conservation 
techniques, Saint John River Basin, Maine, authorized section 
1108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (106 Stat. 
4230).

Sec. 6026. Tenants Harbor, Maine

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Tenants Harbor, Maine, authorized by the first section of the 
Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1275, Chapter 95).

Sec. 6027. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan

    This section deauthorizes modifications to the project for 
navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 
202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4093).

Sec. 6028. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Greenville Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 601(a) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142).

Sec. 6029. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control, 
        Nebraska

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Platte River Flood and Related Streambank Erosion 
Control, Nebraska, authorized by section 603 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4149).

Sec. 6030. Epping, New Hampshire

    This section deauthorizes the project for environmental 
infrastructure, Epping, New Hampshire, authorized by section 
219(c)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835). No funds have been allocated to date and the 
project is eligible for deauthorization.

Sec. 6031. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, 
        Jersey City, New Jersey

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, New 
York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey 
City, New Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098).

Sec. 6032. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation 
rehabilitation, Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York, 
authorized by section 1163 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4258).

Sec. 6033. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Olcott Harbor, New York, authorized by section 601(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143).

Sec. 6034. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Outer 
Harbor, Buffalo, New York, authorized by section 110 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817).

Sec. 6035. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South 
Carolina, authorized by section 401(a) of Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4121).

Sec. 6036. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio, project modifications, authorized by 
section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482).

Sec. 6037. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio, authorized by section 101 of the River 
and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482).

Sec. 6038. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio, authorized by the first section of the 
Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636, chapter 595).

Sec. 6039. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon

    This section deauthorizes the proposed Seafarers Memorial 
at Hammond, Oregon, authorized by Title I of the Fiscal Year 
1991 Energy and Water Development Act (104 Stat. 2078).

Sec. 6040. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control and 
recreation, Tioga Hammond Lakes, Mill Creek Recreation, 
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 313).

Sec. 6041. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, 
Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 1(a) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 14).

Sec. 6042. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Narragansett Town Beach, Rhode Island, authorized by section 
361 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4861).

Sec. 6043. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Davisville, Quonset Point, Rhode Island, authorized by section 
571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3788).

Sec. 6044. Arroyo Colorado, Texas

    This section deauthorizes project for flood damage 
reduction, Arroyo Colorado, Texas, authorized by section 401(a) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
4125).

Sec. 6045. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Cypress Creek Structural, Texas, authorized by 
section 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 
(102 Stat. 4014).

Sec. 6046. East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, east fork of the 
        Trinity River, Texas

    This section deauthorizes the Increment II of the project 
for flood damage reduction, East Fork Channel Improvement, East 
Fork of the Trinity River, Texas, authorized by section 203 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1185).

Sec. 6047. Falfurrias, Texas

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood damage 
reduction, Falfurrias, Texas, authorized by the section 
3(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 
Stat. 4014).

Sec. 6048. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas

    This section deauthorizes the project for flood control, 
Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 742).

Sec. 6049. Lake of the Pines, Texas

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, Lake 
of the Pines, Texas for the portion of the Red River below 
Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27 
Stat. 88, chapter 158), as amended by the Act of July 24, 1946 
(60 Stat. 635, chapter 595), the Act of May 17, 1950 (64 Stat. 
163, chapter 188), and the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 
Stat. 731).

Sec. 6050. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas

    This section deauthorizes the project for navigation, 
Tennessee Colony Lake, Trinity River, Texas, authorized by 
section 204 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 
1091).

Sec. 6051. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington

    This section deauthorizes the unused portion of The City 
Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, 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, authorized by the 
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 347).

Sec. 6052. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia

    This section deauthorizes the project for bank erosion, 
Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section 
603(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4153).

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing on 
March 15, 2007 on Water Resources Needs and the President's 
Budget Proposal for the Army Corps of Engineers for Fiscal Year 
2008. Testimony was received from Senator Russell Feingold, 
Assistant Secretary of the Army John Paul Woodley, Chief of 
Engineers Lieutenant General Carl Strock, Ms. Pam Pogue, 
Hazards Program Manager, Rhode Island Emergency Management 
Agency, Mr. Doug J. Marchand, Executive Director, Georgia Ports 
Authority, and Mr. Jamie Williams, State Director, The Nature 
Conservancy of Montana.

                          Legislative History

    The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 is 
substantially the same bill as passed the Senate in July, 2006 
by voice vote. On March 29, 2007, the committee held a business 
meeting at which it considered the draft bill. The draft bill 
was adopted without amendment. The bill was ordered reported to 
the Senate by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                             Rollcall Votes

    There were no rollcall votes during the consideration of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 by the committee.

                          Mandates Assessment

    In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4), the committee finds that this bill would 
impose no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, 
local or tribal governments. All of its governmental directives 
are imposed on Federal agencies. Any costs that State, local or 
tribal might incur, including matching funds, would result from 
complying with conditions of Federal assistance. The bill does 
not directly impose any private sector mandates.

                    Evaluation of Regulatory Impact

    Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires publication in the report the committee's 
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill as reported. 
No regulatory impact is expected by the passage of the bill. 
The bill will not affect the personal privacy of individuals.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Due to time constraints the Congressional Budget Office 
estimate was not included in the report. When it is received by 
the committee, it will appear in the Congressional Record.

                               Disclosure

    The committee provides the following disclosure of the 
project-related provisions in the bill:


                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, 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:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                     [33 U.S.C. 622; 25 STAT. 423]

ACT OF AUGUST 11, 1888

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 3. CONTRACTS, ETC., WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF 
                    PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND DREDGING; REDUCTION 
                    OF FEDERALLY OWNED FLEET.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Program To Increase Use of Private Hopper Dredges.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (7) Limitations.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Increase in assigments of dredging 
                work.--For each fiscal year beginning after 
                October 12, 1996, the Secretary shall not 
                assign any greater quantity of dredging work to 
                any Federal hopper dredge in active status than 
                was assigned to that vessel in the average of 
                the 3 prior fiscal years. This subparagraph 
                shall not apply to the Federal hopper dredges 
                Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of Engineers.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                      [55 STAT. 642, CHAPTER 377]

ACT OF AUGUST 18, 1941

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  (a) The existing engineering plan for flood control in the 
alluvial valley of the Mississippi River is hereby modified so 
as to provide for the construction of plan 4 as set forth in 
the report of the Mississippi River Commission, dated March 7, 
1941, to the Chief of Engineers, except that the levees in the 
Yazoo Basin on the east bank of the Mississippi River south of 
the Coahoma-Bolivar County line in said plan shall have a 
three-foot freeboard over the project flood, and all levees 
shall be constructed with adequate section and foundation to 
conform to increased levee heights. The Boeuf Floodway in the 
project adopted by the Act of May 15, 1928, and the Eudora 
Floodway as well as the Northward Extension and the back 
protection levee extending from the head of the said Eudora 
Floodway north to the Arkansas River in the project adopted by 
the Act of June 15, 1936, as amended, are hereby abandoned, and 
the provisions of said Acts relating to the prosecution of work 
on said floodways and extension are hereby repealed Provided, 
That the Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, authorized by the 
first section of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534, chapter 
569), shall remain as a component of the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries Project and afforded operation and maintenance 
responsibilities as directed in section 3 of that Act (45 Stat. 
535).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                    [33 U.S.C. 701R--JUL. 24, 1946]

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1946

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 14.--The Secretary of the Army is authorized to allot from 
any appropriations heretofore or hereafter made for flood 
control, not to exceed [$15,000,000] $20,000,000 per year, for 
the construction, repair, restoration, and modification of 
emergency streambank and shoreline protection works to prevent 
damage to highways, bridge approaches, and public works, 
churches, hospitals, schools, and other nonprofit public 
services, when in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such 
work is advisable: Provided, That not more than [$1,000,000] 
$1,500,000 shall be allotted for this purpose at any single 
locality from the appropriations for any one fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                 [CF. 33 U.S.C. 426G, AUGUST 13, 1946]

AN ACT AUTHORIZING FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN THE COST OF PROTECTING THE 
                   SHORES OF PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY


[SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF SMALL PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED; 
                    EXPENDITURES; LOCAL COOPERATION; WORK TO BE 
                    COMPLETE; EXCEPTIONS

  [The Secretary is authorized to undertake construction of 
small shore and beach restoration and protection projects not 
specifically authorized by Congress, which otherwise comply 
with section 426e of this title, 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 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 426e(c) of this title: Provided further, That 
the provisions of local cooperation specified in section 426e 
of this title 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 426e(c) of this title, 
and as may result from the normal procedure applying to 
projects authorized after submission of survey reports.]

SEC. 3. STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION AND IMPACT MINIMIZATION 
                    PROGRAM.

  (a) Construction of Small Shore and Beach Restoration and 
Protection Projects.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may carry out 
        construction of small shore and beach restoration and 
        protection projects not specifically authorized by 
        Congress that otherwise comply with the first section 
        of this Act if the Secretary determines that such 
        construction is advisable.
          (2) Local cooperation.--The local cooperation 
        requirement under the first section of this Act shall 
        apply to a project under this section.
          (3) Completeness.--A project under this section--
                  (A) shall be complete; and
                  (B) shall not commit the United States to any 
                additional improvement to ensure the successful 
                operation of the project, except for 
                participation in periodic beach nourishment in 
                accordance with--
                          (i) the first section of this Act; 
                        and
                          (ii) the procedure for projects 
                        authorized after submission of a survey 
                        report.
  (b) National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and 
Demonstration Program.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
        Chief of Engineers, shall conduct a national shoreline 
        erosion control development and demonstration program 
        (referred to in this section as the ``program'').
          (2) Requirements.--
                  (A) In general.--The program shall include 
                provisions for--
                          (i) projects consisting of planning, 
                        design, construction, and adequate 
                        monitoring of prototype engineered and 
                        native and naturalized vegetative 
                        shoreline erosion control devices and 
                        methods;
                          (ii) detailed engineering and 
                        environmental reports on the results of 
                        each project carried out under the 
                        program; and
                          (iii) technology transfers, as 
                        appropriate, to private property 
                        owners, State and local entities, 
                        nonprofit educational institutions, and 
                        nongovernmental organizations.
                  (B) Determination of feasibility.--A project 
                under this section shall not be carried out 
                until the Secretary, acting through the Chief 
                of Engineers, determines that the project is 
                feasible.
                  (C) Emphasis.--A project carried out under 
                the program shall emphasize, to the maximum 
                extent practicable--
                          (i) the development and demonstration 
                        of innovative technologies;
                          (ii) efficient designs to prevent 
                        erosion at a shoreline site, taking 
                        into account the lifecycle cost of the 
                        design, including cleanup, maintenance, 
                        and amortization;
                          (iii) new and enhanced shore 
                        protection project design and project 
                        formulation tools the purposes of which 
                        are to improve the physical 
                        performance, and lower the lifecycle 
                        costs, of the projects;
                          (iv) natural designs, including the 
                        use of native and naturalized 
                        vegetation or temporary structures that 
                        minimize permanent structural 
                        alterations to the shoreline;
                          (v) the avoidance of negative impacts 
                        to adjacent shorefront communities;
                          (vi) the potential for long-term 
                        protection afforded by the technology; 
                        and
                          (vii) recommendations developed from 
                        evaluations of the program established 
                        under the Shoreline Erosion Control 
                        Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
                        1962-5 note; 88 Stat. 26), including--
                                  (I) adequate consideration of 
                                the subgrade;
                                  (II) proper filtration;
                                  (III) durable components;
                                  (IV) adequate connection 
                                between units; and
                                  (V) consideration of 
                                additional relevant 
                                information.
                  (D) Sites.--
                          (i) In general.--Each project under 
                        the program shall be carried out at--
                                  (I) a privately owned site 
                                with substantial public access; 
                                or
                                  (II) a publicly owned site on 
                                open coast or in tidal waters.
                          (ii) Selection.--The Secretary, 
                        acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
                        shall develop criteria for the 
                        selection of sites for projects under 
                        the program, including criteria based 
                        on--
                                  (I) a variety of geographic 
                                and climatic conditions;
                                  (II) the size of the 
                                population that is dependent on 
                                the beaches for recreation or 
                                the protection of private 
                                property or public 
                                infrastructure;
                                  (III) the rate of erosion;
                                  (IV) significant natural 
                                resources or habitats and 
                                environmentally sensitive 
                                areas; and
                                  (V) significant threatened 
                                historic structures or 
                                landmarks.
          (3) Consultation.--The Secretary, acting through the 
        Chief of Engineers, shall carry out the program in 
        consultation with--
                  (A) the Secretary of Agriculture, 
                particularly with respect to native and 
                naturalized vegetative means of preventing and 
                controlling shoreline erosion;
                  (B) Federal, State, and local agencies;
                  (C) private organizations;
                  (D) the Coastal Engineering Research Center 
                established by the first section of Public Law 
                88-172 (33 U.S.C. 426-1); and
                  (E) applicable university research 
                facilities.
          (4) Completion of demonstration.--After carrying out 
        the initial construction and evaluation of the 
        performance and lifecycle cost of a demonstration 
        project under this section, the Secretary, acting 
        through the Chief of Engineers, may--
                  (A) at the request of a non-Federal interest 
                of the project, amend the agreement for a 
                federally-authorized shore protection project 
                in existence on the date on which initial 
                construction of the demonstration project is 
                complete to incorporate the demonstration 
                project as a feature of the shore protection 
                project, with the future cost of the 
                demonstration project to be determined by the 
                cost-sharing ratio of the shore protection 
                project; or
                  (B) transfer all interest in and 
                responsibility for the completed demonstration 
                project to the non-Federal or other Federal 
                agency interest of the project.
          (5) Agreements.--The Secretary, acting through the 
        Chief of Engineers, may enter into an agreement with 
        the non-Federal or other Federal agency interest of a 
        project under this section--
                  (A) to share the costs of construction, 
                operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a 
                project under the program;
                  (B) to share the costs of removing a project 
                or project element constructed under the 
                program, if the Secretary determines that the 
                project or project element is detrimental to 
                private property, public infrastructure, or 
                public safety; or
                  (C) to specify ownership of a completed 
                project that the Chief of Engineers determines 
                will not be part of a Corps of Engineers 
                project.
          (6) Report.--Not later than December 31 of each year 
        beginning after the date of enactment of this 
        paragraph, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to 
        the Committee on Environment and Public works of the 
        Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
        Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report 
        describing--
                  (A) the activities carried out and 
                accomplishments made under the program during 
                the preceding year; and
                  (B) any recommendations of the Secretary 
                relating to the program.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        Secretary may expend, from any appropriations made 
        available to the Secretary for the purpose of carrying 
        out civil works, not more than $30,000,000 during any 
        fiscal year to pay the Federal share of the costs of 
        construction of small shore and beach restoration and 
        protection projects or small projects under the 
        program.
          (2) Limitation.--The total amount expended for a 
        project under this section shall--
                  (A) be sufficient to pay the cost of Federal 
                participation in the project (including 
                periodic nourishment as provided for under the 
                first section of this Act), as determined by 
                the Secretary; and
                  (B) be not more than $3,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 5. FEDERAL AID IN PROTECTION OF SHORES

  [(a) Declaration of Policy.--With the purpose of preventing 
damage to the shores and beaches of the United States, its 
Territories and possessions and promoting and encouraging the 
healthful recreation of the people, it is declared to be the 
policy of the United States, subject to sections 426e to 426h-1 
of this title, to promote shore protection projects and related 
research that encourage the protection, restoration, and 
enhancement of sandy beaches, including beach restoration and 
periodic beach nourishment, on a comprehensive and coordinated 
basis by the Federal Government, States, localities, and 
private enterprises. In carrying out this policy, preference 
shall be given to areas in which there has been a Federal 
investment of funds and 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.
  [(b) Federal Contribution; Maximum Amount; Exceptions.--The 
Federal contribution in the case of any project referred to in 
subsection (a) of this section shall not exceed one-half of the 
cost of the project, and the remainder shall be paid by the 
State, municipality, or other political subdivision in which 
the project is located, except that--
          [(1) the costs allocated to the restoration and 
        protection of Federal property shall be borne fully by 
        the Federal Government,
          [(2) Federal participation in the cost of a project 
        for restoration and protection of State, county, and 
        other publicly owned shore parks and conservation areas 
        may be, in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers, 
        not more than 70 per centum of the total cost exclusive 
        of land costs, when such areas: Include a zone which 
        excludes permanent human habitation; include but are 
        not limited to recreational beaches; satisfy adequate 
        criteria for conservation and development of the 
        natural resources of the environment; extend landward a 
        sufficient distance to include, where appropriate, 
        protective dunes, bluffs, or other natural features 
        which serve to protect the uplands from damage; and 
        provide essentially full park facilities for 
        appropriate public use, all of which shall meet with 
        the approval of the Chief of Engineers, and
          [(3) Federal participation in the cost of a project 
        providing hurricane protection may be, in the 
        discretion of the Secretary not more than 70 per centum 
        of the total cost exclusive of land costs.
  [(c) Periodic Beach Nourishment; ``Construction'' Defined.--
When in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers the most suitable 
and economical remedial measures would be provided by periodic 
beach nourishment, the term ``construction'' may be construed 
for the purposes of sections 426e to 426h-1 of this title to 
include the deposit of sand fill at suitable intervals of time 
to furnish sand supply to project shores for a length of time 
specified by the Chief of Engineers.
  [(d) Shores Other Than Public.--Shores other than public will 
be eligible for Federal assistance if there is benefit such as 
that arising from public use or from the protection of nearby 
public property or if the benefits to those shores are 
incidental to the project, and the Federal contribution to the 
project shall be adjusted in accordance with the degree of such 
benefits.
  [(e) Authorization of Projects.--
          [(1) In general.--No Federal contributions shall be 
        made with respect to a project under sections 426e to 
        426h-1 of this title unless the plan therefor shall 
        have been specifically adopted and authorized by 
        Congress after investigation and study by the Coastal 
        Engineering Research Center under the provisions of 
        section 426 of this title as amended and supplemented, 
        or, in the case of a small project under section 426g 
        or 426h of this title, unless the plan therefor has 
        been approved by the Chief of Engineers.
          [(2) Studies.--
                  [(A) In general.--The Secretary shall--
                          [(i) recommend to Congress studies 
                        concerning shore protection projects 
                        that meet the criteria established 
                        under sections 426e to 426h-1 of this 
                        title (including subparagraph (B)(iii)) 
                        and other applicable law;
                          [(ii) conduct such studies as 
                        Congress requires under applicable 
                        laws; and
                          [(iii) report the results of the 
                        studies to the Committee on Environment 
                        and Public Works of the Senate and the 
                        Committee on Transportation and 
                        Infrastructure of the House of 
                        Representatives.
                  [(B) Recommendations for shore protection 
                projects.--
                          [(i) In general.--The Secretary shall 
                        recommend to Congress the authorization 
                        or reauthorization of shore protection 
                        projects based on the studies conducted 
                        under subparagraph (A).
                          [(ii) Considerations.--In making 
                        recommendations, the Secretary shall 
                        consider the economic and ecological 
                        benefits of the shore protection 
                        project.
                  [(C) Coordination of projects.--In conducting 
                studies and making recommendations for a shore 
                protection project under this paragraph, the 
                Secretary shall--
                          [(i) determine whether there is any 
                        other project being carried out by the 
                        Secretary or the head of another 
                        Federal agency that may be 
                        complementary to the shore protection 
                        project; and
                          [(ii) if there is such a 
                        complementary project, describe the 
                        efforts that will be made to coordinate 
                        the projects.
          [(3) Shore protection projects.--
                  [(A) In general.--The Secretary shall 
                construct, or cause to be constructed, any 
                shore protection project authorized by 
                Congress, or separable element of such a 
                project, for which funds have been appropriated 
                by Congress.
                  [(B) Agreements.--
                          [(i) Requirement.--After 
                        authorization by Congress, and before 
                        commencement of construction, of a 
                        shore protection project or separable 
                        element, the Secretary shall enter into 
                        a written agreement with a non-Federal 
                        interest with respect to the project or 
                        separable element.
                          [(ii) Terms.--The agreement shall--
                                  [(I) specify the life of the 
                                project; and
                                  [(II) ensure that the Federal 
                                Government and the non-Federal 
                                interest will cooperate in 
                                carrying out the project or 
                                separable element.
                  [(C) Coordination of projects.--In 
                constructing a shore protection project or 
                separable element under this paragraph, the 
                Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, 
                coordinate the project or element with any 
                complementary project identified under 
                paragraph (2)(C).]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                            [33 U.S.C. 701S]

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1948

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  [Sec. 205. That the] * * *

SEC. 205. PROJECTS TO ENHANCE REDUCTION OF FLOODING AND OBTAIN RISK 
                    MINIMIZATION.

  The * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                      [64 STAT. 170--MAY 17, 1950]

 FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1950

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 204. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN

           The project for flood protection [at Calion, 
        Arkansas] improvements at Calion, Arkansas (including 
        authorization for the comprehensive flood-control 
        project for Ouachita River and tributaries, 
        incorporating in the project all flood control, 
        drainage, and power improvements in the basin above the 
        lower end of the left bank Ouachita River levee) 
        authorized by the Act of August 18, 1941, in accordance 
        with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in 
        House Document Numbered 427, Seventy-sixth Congress, 
        first session, is hereby modified to include additional 
        improvements at Calion, Arkansas (including 
        authorization for the comprehensive flood-control 
        project for Ouachita River and tributaries, 
        incorporating in the project all flood control, 
        drainage, and power improvements in the basin above the 
        lower end of the left bank Ouachita River levee), in 
        accordance with plans on file in the office of the 
        Chief of Engineers, at an estimated cost of $430,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


           [33 U.S.C. 577; PUBLIC LAW 86-645--JUL. 14, 1960]

                      RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1960


SEC. 101. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  [Sec. 107. (a) That the Secretary of the Army is hereby 
authorized to]

SEC. 107. NAVIGATION ENHANCEMENTS FOR WATERBOURNE TRANSPORTATION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army may allot from any 
appropriations hereafter made for rivers and harbors not to 
exceed $2,000,000 for any one fiscal year for the construction 
of small river and harbor improvement projects not specifically 
authorized by Congress which will result in substantial 
benefits to navigation and which can be operated consistently 
with appropriate and economic use of the waters of the Nation 
for other purposes, when in the opinion of the Chief of 
Engineers such work is advisable, if benefits are in excess of 
the cost.
  [(b) Not more]
(b) Allotment.--Not more than [$4,000,000] $7,000,000 shall be 
allotted for the construction of a project under this section 
at any single locality and the amount allotted shall be 
sufficient to complete the Federal participation in the project 
under this section.
  [(c) Local]
  (c) Local Contributions.--Local interests shall provide 
without cost to the United States all necessary lands, 
easements and rights-of-way for all projects to be constructed 
under the authority of this section. In addition, local 
interests may be required to hold and save the United States 
free from damages that may result from the construction and 
maintenance of the project and may be required to provide such 
additional local cooperation as the Chief of Engineers deems 
appropriate. A State, county, municipality or other responsible 
local entity shall give assurance satisfactory to the Chief of 
Engineers that such conditions of cooperation as are required 
will be accomplished.
  [(d) Non-Federal]
  (d) Non-Federal Share.--Non-Federal interests may be required 
to share in the cost of the project to the extent that the 
Chief of Engineers deems that such cost should not be borne by 
the Federal government in view of the recreational or otherwise 
special or local nature of the project benefits.
  [(e) Each]
  (e) Completion.--Each project for which money is alloted 
under this section shall be complete in itself and not commit 
the United States to any additional improvement to insure its 
successful operation, other than routine maintenance, and 
except as may result from the normal procedure applying to 
projects authorized after submission of survey reports, and 
projects constructed under the authority of this section shall 
be considered as authorized projects.
  [(f) This]
  (f) Applicability.--This section shall apply to, but not be 
limited to, the provision of low water access navigation 
channels from the existing channel of the Mississippi River to 
harbor areas heretofore or now established and located along 
the Mississippi River.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                   [PUBLIC LAW 91-611--DEC. 31, 1970]

                        [CF. 42 U.S.C. 1962D-5B]

 FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  [Sec. 221.]

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

  [(a) Cooperation of non-Federal interest.--
  [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 the provisions 
of section 1962d-5a of this title 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.]
  (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 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.--An agreement described in 
        paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated 
        damages in the event of a failure of 1 or more parties 
        to perform.
          (3) Obligation of future appropriations.--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.
          (4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
                  (A) In general.--An agreement under paragraph 
                (1) shall provide that the Secretary shall 
                credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
                of the project, including a project implemented 
                under general continuing authority, 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 
                        an agreement for the project, including 
                        efforts on constructed elements 
                        incorporated into the project; and
                          (iii) materials and services provided 
                        after an agreement is executed.
                  (B) Condition.--The Secretary shall credit an 
                in-kind contribution under subparagraph (A) if 
                the Secretary determines that the property or 
                service provided as an in-kind contribution is 
                integral to the project.
                  (C) Limitations.--Credit authorized 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 land, an easement or right-of-
                        way, or an area for disposal of dredged 
                        material for the project; and
                          (iii) 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.
  (b) [A non-Federal interest shall be](1) In General.--In this 
section, the term ``non-Federal interest'' means 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.
  (2) Inclusions.--The term ``non-Federal interest'' includes a 
nonprofit organization acting with the consent of the affected 
unit of government.
  (c) Every agreement entered into pursuant to this section 
shall be enforcible in the appropriate district court of the 
United States.
  (d) After commencement of construction of a project, the 
Chief of Engineers may undertake performance of those items of 
cooperation necessary to the functioning of the project for its 
purposes, if he has first notified the non-Federal interest of 
its failure to perform the terms of its agreement and has given 
such interest a reasonable time after such notification to so 
perform.
  (e) Public Health and Safety.--If the Secretary determines 
that a project needs to be continued for the purpose of public 
health and safety--
          (1) the non-Federal interest shall pay the increased 
        projects costs, up to an amount equal to 20 percent of 
        the original estimated project costs and in accordance 
        with the statutorily-determined cost share; and
          (2) notwithstanding the statutorily-determined 
        Federal share, the Secretary shall pay all increased 
        costs remaining after payment of 20 percent of the 
        increased costs by the non-Federal interest under 
        paragraph (1).
  (f) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) limits the 
authority of the Secretary to ensure that a partnership 
agreement meets the requirements of law and policies of the 
Secretary in effect on the date of execution of the partnership 
agreement.
  [(e)] (g) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 
of Engineers, shall maintain a continuing inventory of 
agreements and the status of their performance, and shall 
report thereon annually to the Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                   [PUBLIC LAW 92-532--OCT. 23, 1972]

                       [CF. 33 U.S.C. 1412(C)(4)]

MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 1412. DUMPING PERMIT PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Designation of Sites
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) General site management plan requirement; 
        prohibitions.--After January 1, 1995, no site shall 
        receive a final designation unless a management plan 
        has been developed pursuant to this section. Beginning 
        on January 1, 1997, no permit for dumping pursuant to 
        this Act or authorization for dumping under section 
        1413(e) of this title shall be issued for a site (other 
        than the site located off the coast of Newport Beach, 
        California, which is known as ``LA-3'') unless such 
        site has received a final designation pursuant to this 
        subsection or an alternative site has been selected 
        pursuant to section 1413(b) of this title. Beginning 
        [January 1, 2003] January 1, 2007, no permit for 
        dumping pursuant to this Act or authorization for 
        dumping under section 1413(e) of this title shall be 
        issued for the site located off the coast of Newport 
        Beach, California, which is known as ``LA-3'', unless 
        such site has received a final designation pursuant to 
        this subsection or an alternative site has been 
        selected pursuant to section 1413(b) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                   [PUBLIC LAW 93-251--MAR. 7, 1974]

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974

  Sec. 1. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [Sec. 22. (a) The Secretary]

SEC. 22. PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES.

  (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 the 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) 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) [Up to 1/2 of the] the non-Federal contribution 
        for preparation of a plan subject to the cost sharing 
        program under this subsection may be made by the 
        provision of services, materials, supplies, or other 
        in-kind services necessary to prepare the plan.
          (3) Fees collected under this subsection shall be 
        deposited into the account in the Treasury of the 
        United States entitled, ``Contributions and Advances, 
        Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers (8862)'' and 
        shall be available until expended to carry out this 
        section.
  [(c) There is]
  (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 
        except that not more than $500,000 shall be expended in 
        any one year in any one State.] subsection (a)(1).
          (2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to carry out subsection (a)(2) $10,000,000 
        for each fiscal year, of which not more than $2,000,000 
        for each fiscal year may be used by the Secretary to 
        enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofit 
        organizations and State agencies to provide assistance 
        to rural and small communities

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Annual Submission.--For each fiscal year, based on 
performance criteria developed by the Secretary, the Secretary 
shall list in the annual civil works budget submitted to 
Congress the individual activities proposed for funding under 
subsection (a)(1) for the fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                          [CF. 33 U.S.C. 426J]

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1976


[SEC. 426J. PLACEMENT ON STATE BEACHES OF SAND DREDGED IN CONSTRUCTING 
                    AND MAINTAINING NAVIGATION INLETS AND CHANNELS 
                    ADJACENT TO SUCH BEACHES

  [The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
Engineers, is authorized upon request of the State, to place on 
the beaches of such State beach-quality sand which has been 
dredged in constructing and maintaining navigation inlets and 
channels adjacent to such beaches, if the Secretary deems such 
action to be in the public interest and upon payment by such 
State of 35 percent of the increased cost thereof above the 
cost required for alternative methods of disposing of such 
sand. At the request of the State, the Secretary may enter into 
an agreement with a political subdivision of the State to place 
sand on the beaches of the political subdivision of the State 
under the same terms and conditions required in the first 
sentence of this section; except that the political subdivision 
shall be responsible for providing any payments required under 
such sentence in lieu of the State. In carrying out this 
section, the Secretary shall give consideration to the schedule 
of the State, or the schedule of the responsible political 
subdivision of the requesting State, for providing its share of 
funds for placing such sand on the beaches of the State or the 
political subdivision and shall, to the maximum extent 
practicable, accommodate such schedule.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                   [PUBLIC LAW 99-662--NOV. 17, 1986]

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

   (a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 601. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS.

   (a) Authorization of Construction.--The following works of 
improvement for water resources development and conservation 
and for other purposes are adopted and authorized to be 
prosecuted by the Secretary substantially in accordance with 
the plans and subject to the conditions recommended in the 
respective reports designated in this subsection, except as 
otherwise provided in this subsection:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Missouri River Mitigation, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and 
Nebraska--The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife 
losses, Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation 
Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska: Report of the 
Chief of Engineers, dated April 24, 1984, at a total cost of 
$51,900,000, with a first Federal cost of $51,900,000. The 
Secretary shall study the need for additional measures for 
mitigation of losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat caused 
by such project and shall report to Congress, within three 
years after the date of enactment of this Act, on the results 
of such study and any recommendations for additional measures 
needed for mitigation of such losses.
  The Secretary may carry out any recovery or mitigation 
activities in the upper basin of the Missouri River, including 
the States of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South 
Dakota, using funds made available under this heading in 
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) and consistent with the project purposes of the 
Missouri River Mainstem System as authorized by section 10 of 
the Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the ``Flood 
Control Act of 1944'') (58 Stat. 897).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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) Albert Lea Lake, Freeborn County, Minnesota, 
        removal of silt and aquatic growth;
           (2) Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, and in that part 
        of Deep River upstream of such lake through Lake 
        Station, Indiana, removal of silt, aquatic growth, and 
        other material and construction of silt traps or other 
        devices to prevent and abate the deposit of sediment in 
        Lake George and such part of Deep River;
           (3) Greenwood Lake and Belcher Creek, New Jersey, 
        removal of silt and stumps;
           (4) Sauk Lake and its tributary streams in the 
        vicinity of Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minnesota, 
        removal of silt and aquatic growth;
           (5) Deal Lake, Monmouth County, New Jersey, removal 
        of silt and stumps and the control of pollution from 
        nonpoint sources;
           (6) Lake Worth, Tarrant County, Texas, removal of 
        silt and aquatic growth, including construction of silt 
        traps and providing other devices or equipment to 
        prevent and abate the further deposit of sediment in 
        Lake Worth; such project shall also provide for the use 
        of dredged material from Lake Worth for the reclamation 
        of despoiled land;
           (7) Hamlet City Lake, Hamlet, North Carolina, 
        removal of accumulated silt and debris including 
        construction of silt traps and providing other devices 
        or equipment to prevent and abate the further deposit 
        of sediment in Hamlet City Lake;
           (8) Lake Herman, Lake County, South Dakota, removal 
        of excess silt;
           (9) Gorton's Pond, Warwick, Rhode Island, mitigation 
        activities recommended in the 1982 Environmental 
        Protection Agency diagnostic feasibility study, 
        including the installation of retention basins, the 
        dredging of inlets and outlets in recommended areas and 
        the disposal of dredge material, and weed harvesting 
        and nutrient inactivation;
           (10) Wappingers Lake, New York, for removal of silt 
        and aquatic growth;
           (11) Lake George, New York, for removal of silt and 
        aquatic growth, stump removal, and the control of 
        pollution;
           (12) Goodyear Lake, Otsego County, New York, removal 
        of silt and aquatic growth;
           (13) Otsego Lake, Otsego County, New York, removal 
        of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address high 
        nutrient concentration;
           (14) Oneida Lake, Oneida County, New York, removal 
        of silt and aquatic growth and nutrient monitoring;
           (15) Skaneateles and Owasco Lakes, New York, removal 
        of silt and aquatic growth and prevention of sediment 
        deposit;
           (16) Twin Lakes, Paris, Illinois, removal of silt 
        and excess aquatic vegetation, including measures to 
        address excessive sedimentation, high nutrient 
        concentration, and shoreline erosion;
           (17) Clear Lake, Lake County, California, removal of 
        silt and aquatic growth and measures to address 
        excessive sedimentation and high nutrient 
        concentration;
           (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) Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, removal of silt 
        and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
        sedimentation;
          (22) Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt and 
        aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
        sedimentation;
          (23) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and 
        aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
        sedimentation; and
          (24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal 
        of silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of 
        structural integrity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 704. STUDY OF CORPS CAPABILITY TO CONSERVE FISH AND WILDLIFE.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Projects.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary is further authorized 
        to conduct projects of alternative or beneficially 
        modified habitats for fish and wildlife, including but 
        not limited to man-made reefs for fish. There is 
        authorized to be appropriated not to exceed 
        [$20,000,000] $50,000,000 to carry out such projects. 
        [Such projects]
          (2) Inclusions.--Such projects shall be developed, 
        and their effectiveness evaluated, in consultation with 
        the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
        Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such projects 
        shall include--
                  (A) the construction of a reef for fish 
                habitat in Lake Erie in the vicinity of 
                Buffalo, New York;
                  (B) the construction of a reef for fish 
                habitat in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity 
                of Fort Lauderdale, Florida;
                  (C) the construction of a reef for fish 
                habitat in Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the 
                town of Newfane, New York; and
                  [(D) the construction of reefs and related 
                clean shell substrate for fish habitat, 
                including manmade 3-dimensional oyster reefs, 
                in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in 
                Maryland and Virginia if the reefs are 
                preserved as permanent sanctuaries by the non-
                Federal interests, consistent with the 
                recommendations of the scientific consensus 
                document on Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration 
                dated June 1999.]
                  (D) the restoration and rehabilitation of 
                habitat for fish, including native oysters, in 
                the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in 
                Virginia and Maryland, including--
                          (i) the construction of oyster bars 
                        and reefs;
                          (ii) the rehabilitation of existing 
                        marginal habitat;
                          (iii) the use of appropriate 
                        alternative substrate material in 
                        oyster bar and reef construction;
                          (iv) the construction and upgrading 
                        of oyster hatcheries; and
                          (v) activities relating to increasing 
                        the output of native oyster broodstock 
                        for seeding and monitoring of restored 
                        sites to ensure ecological success.
          (3) Restoration and rehabilitation activities.--The 
        restoration and rehabilitation activities described in 
        paragraph (2)(D) shall be--
                  (A) for the purpose of establishing permanent 
                sanctuaries and harvest management areas; and
                  (B) consistent with plans and strategies for 
                guiding the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay 
                oyster resource and fishery.
          [(2)] (4) Cost sharing
                  (A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the 
                cost of any project under this subsection shall 
                be 25 percent.
                  (B) Form.--The non-Federal share may be 
                provided through in-kind services, including 
                the provision by the non-Federal interest of 
                shell stock material that is determined by the 
                Chief of Engineers to be suitable for use in 
                carrying out the project.
                  (C) Applicability.--The non-Federal interest 
                shall be credited with the value of in-kind 
                services provided on or after October 1, 2000, 
                for a project described in paragraph (1) 
                completed on or after that date, if the 
                Secretary determines that the work is integral 
                to the project.
          (5) Definition of ecological success.--In this 
        subsection, the term ``ecological success'' means--
                  (A) achieving a tenfold increase in native 
                oyster biomass by the year 2010, from a 1994 
                baseline; and
                  (B) the establishment of a sustainable 
                fishery as determined by a broad scientific and 
                economic consensus.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 904. MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED IN PLANNING.

   [Enhancing] (a) In General.--Enhancing national economic 
development (including benefits to particular regions of the 
Nation not involving the transfer of economic activity to such 
regions from other regions), the quality of the total 
environment (including preservation and enhancement of the 
environment), the well-being of the people of the United 
States, the prevention of loss of life, and the preservation of 
cultural and historical values shall be addressed in the 
formulation and evaluation of water resources projects to be 
carried out by the Secretary, and the associated benefits and 
costs, both quantifiable and unquantifiable, and information 
regarding potential loss of human life that may be associated 
with flooding and coastal storm events, shall be displayed in 
the benefits and costs of such projects.
  (b) Assessments.--For all feasibility reports completed after 
December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall assess whether--
          (1) the water resource project and each separable 
        element is cost-effective; and
          (2) the water resource project complies with Federal, 
        State, and local laws (including regulations) and 
        public policies.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

   (a)(1) In the case of any water resources project which is 
authorized to be constructed by the Secretary before, on, or 
after the date of enactment of this Act, construction of which 
has not commenced as of the date of enactment of this Act, and 
which necessitates the mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, 
including the acquisition of lands or interests in lands to 
mitigate losses to fish and wildlife, as a result of such 
project, such mitigation, including acquisition of the lands or 
interests--
           (A) shall be undertaken or acquired before any 
        construction of the project (other than such 
        acquisition) commences, or
           (B) shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently 
        with lands and interests in lands for project purposes 
        (other than mitigation of fish and wildlife losses),
 whichever the Secretary determines is appropriate, except that 
any physical construction required for the purposes of 
mitigation may be undertaken concurrently with the physical 
construction of such project.
   (2) For the purposes of this subsection, any project 
authorized before the date of enactment of this Act on which 
more than 50 percent of the land needed for the project, 
exclusive of mitigation lands, has been acquired shall be 
deemed to have commenced construction under this subsection.
  (3) Completion of mitigation.--In any case in which it is not 
technically practicable to complete mitigation by the last day 
of construction of the project or separable element of the 
project because of the nature of the mitigation to be 
undertaken, the Secretary shall complete the required 
mitigation as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case 
later than the last day of the first fiscal year beginning 
after the last day of construction of the project or separable 
element of the project.
   (b)(1) After consultation with appropriate Federal and non-
Federal agencies, the Secretary is authorized to mitigate 
damages to fish and wildlife resulting from any water resources 
project under his jurisdiction, whether completed, under 
construction, or to be constructed. Such mitigation may include 
the acquisition of lands, or interests therein, except that--
           (A) acquisition under this paragraph shall not be by 
        condemnation in the case of projects completed as of 
        the date of enactment of this Act or on which at least 
        10 percent of the physical construction on the project 
        has been completed as of the date of enactment of this 
        Act; and
           (B) acquisition of water, or interests therein, 
        under this paragraph, shall not be by condemnation.
 The Secretary, shall, under the terms of this paragraph, 
obligate no more than $30,000,000 in any fiscal year. With 
respect to any water resources project, the authority under 
this subsection shall not apply to measures that cost more than 
$7,500,000 or 10 percent of the cost of the project, whichever 
is greater.
   (2) Whenever, after his review, the Secretary determines 
that such mitigation features under this subsection are likely 
to require condemnation under subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Secretary shall transmit 
to Congress a report on such proposed modification, together 
with his recommendations.
    (3) Use of consolidated mitigation.--
          (A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that 
        other forms of compensatory mitigation are not 
        practicable or are less environmentally desirable, the 
        Secretary may purchase available credits from a 
        mitigation bank or conservation bank that is approved 
        in accordance with the Federal Guidance for the 
        Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigations Banks 
        (60 Fed. Reg. 58605) or other applicable Federal laws 
        (including regulations).
          (B) Service area.--To the maximum extent practicable, 
        the service area of the mitigation bank or conservation 
        bank shall be in the same watershed as the affected 
        habitat.
          (C) Responsibility relieved.--Purchase of credits 
        from a mitigation bank or conservation bank for a water 
        resources project relieves the Secretary and the non-
        Federal interest from responsibility for monitoring or 
        demonstrating mitigation success.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   (d) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals.--
           (1) In general.--After November 17, 1986, the 
        Secretary shall not submit any proposal for the 
        authorization of any water resources project [to the 
        Congress unless such report contains] to Congress, and 
        shall not select a project alternative in any final 
        record of decision, environmental impact statement, or 
        environmental assessment, unless the proposal, record 
        of decision, environmental impact statement, or 
        environmental assessment contains (A) a recommendation 
        with a specific plan to mitigate fish and wildlife 
        losses created by such project, or (B) a determination 
        by the Secretary that such project will have negligible 
        adverse impact on fish and wildlife. Specific 
        mitigation plans shall ensure that impacts to 
        bottomland hardwood forests are mitigated in-kind, and 
        other habitat types are mitigated to not less than in-
        kind conditions to the extent possible. In carrying out 
        this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with 
        appropriate Federal and non-Federal agencies.
           (2) Design of mitigation projects.--The Secretary 
        shall design mitigation projects to reflect 
        contemporary understanding of the science of mitigating 
        the adverse environmental impacts of water resources 
        projects.
          (3) Mitigation requirements.--
                  (A) In general.--To mitigate losses to flood 
                damage reduction capabilities and fish and 
                wildlife resulting from a water resources 
                project, the Secretary shall ensure that the 
                mitigation plan for each water resources 
                project complies fully with the mitigation 
                standards and policies established pursuant to 
                section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
                Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
                  (B) Inclusions.--A specific mitigation plan 
                for a water resources project under paragraph 
                (1) shall include, at a minimum--
                          (i) a plan for monitoring the 
                        implementation and ecological success 
                        of each mitigation measure, including a 
                        designation of the entities that will 
                        be responsible for the monitoring;
                          (ii) the criteria for ecological 
                        success by which the mitigation will be 
                        evaluated and determined to be 
                        successful;
                          (iii) land and interests in land to 
                        be acquired for the mitigation plan and 
                        the basis for a determination that the 
                        land and interests are available for 
                        acquisition;
                          (iv) a description of--
                                  (I) the types and amount of 
                                restoration activities to be 
                                conducted; and
                                  (II) the resource functions 
                                and values that will result 
                                from the mitigation plan; and
                          (v) a contingency plan for taking 
                        corrective actions in cases in which 
                        monitoring demonstrates that mitigation 
                        measures are not achieving ecological 
                        success in accordance with criteria 
                        under clause (ii).
          (4) Determination of success.--
                  (A) In general.--A mitigation plan under this 
                subsection shall be considered to be successful 
                at the time at which the criteria under 
                paragraph (3)(B)(ii) are achieved under the 
                plan, as determined by monitoring under 
                paragraph (3)(B)(i).
                  (B) Consultation.--In determining whether a 
                mitigation plan is successful under 
                subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consult 
                annually with appropriate Federal agencies and 
                each State in which the applicable project is 
                located on at least the following:
                          (i) The ecological success of the 
                        mitigation as of the date on which the 
                        report is submitted.
                          (ii) The likelihood that the 
                        mitigation will achieve ecological 
                        success, as defined in the mitigation 
                        plan.
                          (iii) The projected timeline for 
                        achieving that success.
                          (iv) Any recommendations for 
                        improving the likelihood of success.
                  (C) Reporting.--Not later than 60 days after 
                the date of completion of the annual 
                consultation, the Federal agencies consulted 
                shall, and each State in which the project is 
                located may, submit to the Secretary a report 
                that describes the results of the consultation 
                described in (B).
                  (D) Action by secretary.--The Secretary shall 
                respond in writing to the substance and 
                recommendations contained in each report under 
                subparagraph (C) by not later than 30 days 
                after the date of receipt of the report.
          (5) Monitoring.--Mitigation monitoring shall continue 
        until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation has 
        met the ecological success criteria.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 912. SECTION 221 AGREEMENTS.

   (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   (b)(1) The Secretary may require compliance with any 
requirements pertaining to cooperation by non-Federal interests 
in carrying out any water resources project authorized before, 
on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
   (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.]
   (3) Non-Federal interests shall be liable for interest on 
any payments required pursuant to section 221 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1970 that may fall delinquent. The interest rate 
to be charged on any such delinquent payment shall be at a 
rate, to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, equal 
to 150 percent of the average bond equivalent rate of the 
thirteen-week Treasury bills auctioned immediately prior to the 
date on which such payment became delinquent, or auctioned 
immediately prior to the beginning of each additional three-
month period if the period of delinquency exceeds three months.
   (4) The Secretary may request the Attorney General to bring 
a civil action for appropriate relief, including permanent or 
temporary [injunction, for] injunction and payment of 
liquidated damages, for any violation of an order issued under 
this section, [to collect a civil penalty imposed under this 
section,] to recover any cost incurred by the Secretary in 
undertaking performance of any item of cooperation under 
section 221(d) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, or to collect 
interest for which a non-Federal interest is liable under 
paragraph (3). Any action under this subsection may be brought 
in the district court of the United States for the district in 
which the defendant is located or resides, or is doing 
businesss, and such court shall have jurisdiction to restrain 
such violation, to require compliance, to require payment of 
[any civil penalty imposed under this section,] any liquidated 
damages, and to require payment of any costs incurred by the 
Secretary in undertaking performance of any such item.
   (5) The Secretary is authorized to determine that no funds 
appropriated for operation and maintenance, including operation 
and maintenance of the project for flood control, Mississippi 
River and Tributaries, are to be used for the particular 
benefit of projects within the jurisdiction of any non-Federal 
interest when such non-Federal interest is in arrears for more 
than twenty-four months in the payment of charges due under an 
agreement entered into with the United States pursuant to 
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-
611).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1103. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PLAN.

   (a)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   (e) Program Authority.--
           (1) Authority.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary, in 
                consultation with the Secretary of the Interior 
                and the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 
                Missouri, and Wisconsin, may undertake, as 
                identified in the master plan--
                          (i) a program for the planning, 
                        construction, and evaluation of 
                        measures for fish and wildlife habitat 
                        rehabilitation and enhancement; and
                          (ii) implementation of a long-term 
                        resource monitoring, computerized data 
                        inventory and analysis, and applied 
                        research program, including research on 
                        water quality issues affecting the 
                        Mississippi River, including elevated 
                        nutrient levels, and the development of 
                        remediation strategies.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 1135. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.]

SEC. 1135. ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND 
                    RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated not to exceed [$25,000,000] $50,000,000 
annually to carry out this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  [PUBLIC LAW 100-676--NOV. 17, 1988]

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1988


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

   (a) Short Title  .--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1988''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 21. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

  (a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, the Secretary is directed to maintain water levels in the 
Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs within the following 
operating limits: Winnibigoshish 1296.94 feet--1303.14 feet; 
Leech 1293.20 feet--1297.94 feet; Pokegama 1270.42 feet--
[1276.42] 1278.42 feet; Sandy 1214.31 feet--[1218.31] 1221.31 
feet; Pine 1227.32 feet--[1234.82] 1235.30 feet; and Gull 
1192.75 feet--1194.75 feet. Such water levels shall be measured 
using the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
  [(b) Exception.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters 
reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels 
established in subsection (a) in accordance with a contingency 
plan which the Secretary develops after consulting with the 
Governor of Minnesota and affected landowners and commercial 
and recreational users. The Secretary shall transmit such plan 
to Congress within 6 months after the date of the enactment of 
this Act. The Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14 
days prior to operating any such headwaters reservoir below the 
minimum or above the maximum water level limits specified in 
subsection (a).]
  (b) Exception.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may operate the 
        headwaters reservoirs below the minimum or above the 
        maximum water levels established under subsection (a) 
        in accordance with water control regulation manuals (or 
        revisions to those manuals) developed by the Secretary, 
        after consultation with the Governor of Minnesota and 
        affected tribal governments, landowners, and commercial 
        and recreational users.
          (2) Effective date of manuals.--The water control 
        regulation manuals referred to in paragraph (1) (and 
        any revisions to those manuals) shall be effective as 
        of the date on which the Secretary submits the manuals 
        (or revisions) to Congress.
          (3) Notification.--
                  (A) In general.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B), not less than 14 days before 
                operating any headwaters reservoir below the 
                minimum or above the maximum water level limits 
                specified in subsection (a), the Secretary 
                shall submit to Congress a notice of intent to 
                operate the headwaters reservoir.
                  (B) Exception.--Notice under subparagraph (A) 
                shall not be required in any case in which--
                          (i) the operation of a headwaters 
                        reservoir is necessary to prevent the 
                        loss of life or to ensure the safety of 
                        a dam; or
                          (ii) the drawdown of the water level 
                        of the reservoir is in anticipation of 
                        a flood control operation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  [PUBLIC LAW 101-646--NOV. 29, 1990]

    NONINDIGENOUS AQUATIC NUISANCE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1990


SECTION 1001. SHORT TITLE.

   This title may be cited as the ``Nonindigenous Aquatic 
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990''.

SEC. 1002. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

   (a) Findings.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1202. AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--* * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Zebra Mussel Demonstration Program.--
          (1) In general.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

           (3) Dispersal barrier demonstration.--
                   (A) In general.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) Authorization of appropriations.--There 
                are authorized to be appropriated to the 
                Department of the Army[, to carry out this 
                paragraph, $750,000] such sums as are necessary 
                to carry out the dispersal barrier 
                demonstration project under this paragraph.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  [PUBLIC LAW 101-640--NOV. 28, 1990]

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

   (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1990''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) Projects With Report of the Chief of Engineers.--Except 
as provided in this subsection, 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, 
recommended in the respective reports designated in this 
subsection:
          (1) Bayou la batre, alabama.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (10) McAlpine lock and dam, indiana and kentucky.--
        The project for navigation, McAlpine Lock and Dam, 
        Indiana and Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
        dated June 29, 1990, at a total cost of [$219,600,000] 
        $430,000,000, with a first Federal cost of 
        [$219,600,000] $430,000,000. The Federal share of costs 
        of construction of the project is to be paid one-half 
        from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the 
        Treasury and one-half from amounts appropriated from 
        the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 102. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

  (g) Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and 
Maryland.--The project for navigation, inland waterway from the 
Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, 
authorizaed by the frist section of the Act of August 30, 1935 
(49 Stat. 1030), and modified by the Act entitled ``An Act 
authorizing construction of a highway bridge across the 
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at Saint Georges, Delaware'', 
approved August 7, 1939 (53 Stat. 1240-1241), is modified to 
direct the Secretary to replace the highway bridge on United 
States Route 13 in the vicinity of St. Georges, Delaware, to 
meet current and projected traffic needs, at a Federal cost of 
$115,000,000. The State may carry out the bridge replacement, 
the Secretary may reimburse the State for costs incurred. The 
Secretary shall assume ownership responsibility for the 
replacement bridge not later than the date on which the 
construction of the bridge is completed and the contractors are 
released of their responsibility by the State. In addition, the 
Secretary may not carry out any action to close or remove the 
St. George's Bridge, Delaware, without specific congressional 
authorization.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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] 
through 2011.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  [PUBLIC LAW 102-154--NOV. 13, 1991]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, OF 
1992

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 101. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  [PUBLIC LAW 102-580--OCT. 31, 1992]

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

   (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 103. VISITOR CENTERS

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront 
Interpretive Site.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Location of museum.--The museum shall be located 
        on [property currently held by the Resolution Trust 
        Corporation in the vicinity of the Mississippi River 
        Bridge] riverfront property in Vicksburg, Mississippi. 
        Title to the property shall be transferred to the 
        Secretary at no cost.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 [SEC. 204. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

   [(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
projects for the protection, restoration, and creation of 
aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands, 
in connection with dredging for construction, operation, or 
maintenance by the Secretary of an authorized navigation 
project.
   [(b) Secretarial Findings.--Subject to subsection (c) of 
this section, projects for the protection, restoration, or 
creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats may be 
undertaken in any case where the Secretary finds that--
           [(1) the environmental, economic, and social 
        benefits of the project, both monetary and nonmonetary, 
        justify the cost thereof; and
           [(2) the project would not result in environmental 
        degradation.
   [(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.]

SEC. 204. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

  (a) In General.--In connection with sediment obtained through 
the construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized 
Federal water resources project, the Secretary, acting through 
the Chief of Engineers, shall develop Regional Sediment 
Management plans and carry out projects at locations identified 
in the plan prepared under subsection (e), or identified 
jointly by the non-Federal interest and the Secretary, for use 
in the construction, repair, modification, or rehabilitation of 
projects associated with Federal water resources projects, 
for--
          (1) the protection of property;
          (2) the protection, restoration, and creation of 
        aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including 
        wetlands; and
          (3) the transport and placement of suitable sediment
  (b) Secretarial Findings.--Subject to subsection (c), 
projects carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out in 
any case in which the Secretary finds that--
          (1) the environmental, economic, and social benefits 
        of the project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify 
        the cost of the project; and
          (2) the project would not result in environmental 
        degradation.
  (c) Determination of Planning and Project Costs.--
          (1) In general.--In consultation and cooperation with 
        the appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local 
        agencies, the Secretary, acting through the Chief of 
        Engineers, shall develop at Federal expense plans and 
        projects for regional management of sediment obtained 
        in conjunction with construction, operation, and 
        maintenance of Federal water resources projects.
          (2) Costs of construction.--
                  (A) In general.--Costs associated with 
                construction of a project under this section or 
                identified in a Regional Sediment Management 
                plan 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 an 
                authorized Federal water resources project in 
                the most cost-effective way, consistent with 
                economic, engineering, and environmental 
                criteria.
                  (B) Cost sharing.--The determination of any 
                non-Federal share of the construction cost 
                shall be based on the cost sharing as specified 
                in subsections (a) through (d) of section 103 
                of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
                (33 U.S.C. 2213), for the type of Federal water 
                resource project using the dredged resource.
                  (C) Total cost.--Total Federal costs 
                associated with construction of a project under 
                this section shall not exceed $5,000,000 
                without Congressional approval.
          (3) Operation, maintenance, replacement, and 
        rehabilitation costs.--Operation, maintenance, 
        replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with a 
        project are a non-Federal sponsor responsibility.
  (d) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method for Environmental 
Purposes.--
          (1) In general.--In developing and carrying out a 
        Federal water resources project involving the disposal 
        of 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 the 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.
          (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of such 
        incremental costs shall be determined in accordance 
        with subsection (c).
  (e) State and Regional Plans.--The Secretary, acting through 
the Chief of Engineers, may--
          (1) cooperate with any State in the preparation of a 
        comprehensive State or regional coastal sediment 
        management plan within the boundaries of the State;
          (2) encourage State participation in the 
        implementation of the plan; and
          (3) submit to Congress reports and recommendations 
        with respect to appropriate Federal participation in 
        carrying out the plan.
  (f) Priority Areas.--In carrying out this section, the 
Secretary shall give priority to regional sediment management 
projects in the vicinity of--
          (1) Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York;
          (2) Fletcher Cove, California;
          (3) Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and 
        Pennsylvania; and
          (4) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio.
  (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 during 
each fiscal year, to remain available until expended, for the 
Federal costs identified under subsection (c), of which up to 
$5,000,000 shall be used for the development of regional 
sediment management plans as provided in subsection (e).
  (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[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 land 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.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  [PUBLIC LAW 104-303--OCT. 12, 1996]

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

   (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SECTION 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.]

SEC. 206. RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC AND 
                    RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAM.

  (a) General Authority.--The Secretary may carry out [an 
aquatic] a freshwater aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
protection project if the Secretary zdetermines that the 
project--
          (1) will improve the quality of the environment and 
        is in the public interest; and
          (2) is cost-effective.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   (e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out this section [$25,000,000] $75,000,000 for each 
fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

   (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   (e) Reimbursement.--
           (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

           (6) Schedule and manner of reimbursement.--
                   (A) Budgeting.--The Secretary shall budget 
                and request appropriations for reimbursements 
                under this section on a schedule that is 
                consistent with a Federal construction 
                schedule.
                   (B) Commencement of reimbursements.--
                Reimbursements under this section may commence 
                on approval of a project by the Secretary.
                   (C) Credit.--At the request of a non-Federal 
                interest, the Secretary may reimburse the non-
                Federal interest by providing credit toward 
                future non-Federal costs of the project.
                   (D) Scheduling.--Nothing in this paragraph 
                affects the discretion of the President to 
                schedule new construction starts.
                  (E) Budget priority.--
                          (i) In general.--Budget priority for 
                        projects under this section shall be 
                        proportionate to the percentage of 
                        project completion.
                          (ii) Completed project.--A completed 
                        project shall have the same priority as 
                        a project with a contractor on site.
  (f) Specific Projects.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (9) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--An 
        element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland 
        Underflow Plan, Illinois.
          (10) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood 
        control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, authorized by the first 
        section of the Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804, 
        chapter 535) (commonly known as the ``River and Harbor 
        Act of 1938'') and modified by section 3a of the Act of 
        August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414, chapter 699) (commonly 
        known as the ``Flood Control Act of 1939''), except 
        that, subject to the approval of the Secretary as 
        provided by this section, the non-Federal interest may 
        design and construct an alternative to such project.
          (11) Halls bayou, texas.--The Halls Bayou element of 
        the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and 
        tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of 
        the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
        2201 note), except that, subject to the approval of the 
        Secretary as provided by this section, the non-Federal 
        interest may design and construct an alternative to 
        such project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 217. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY PARTNERSHIPS.

   (a) Additional Capacity.--
           (1) Provided by secretary.--At the request of a non-
        Federal interest with respect to a project, the 
        Secretary may provide additional capacity at a dredged 
        material disposal facility constructed by the Secretary 
        beyond the capacity that would be required for project 
        purposes if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay, 
        during the period of construction, all costs associated 
        with the construction of the additional capacity.
           (2) Cost recovery authority.--The non-Federal 
        interest may recover the costs assigned to the 
        additional capacity through fees assessed on third 
        parties whose dredged material is deposited at the 
        facility and who enter into agreements with the non-
        Federal interest for the use of the facility. The 
        amount of such fees may be determined by the non-
        Federal interest.
   (b) Non-Federal Use of Disposal Facilities.--
           (1) In general.--The Secretary--
                   (A) may permit the use of any dredged 
                material disposal facility under the 
                jurisdiction of, or managed by, the Secretary 
                by a non-Federal interest if the Secretary 
                determines that such use will not reduce the 
                availability of the facility for project 
                purposes; and
                   (B) may impose fees to recover capital, 
                operation, and maintenance costs associated 
                with such use.
           (2) Use of fees.--Notwithstanding section 401(c) of 
        the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
        1341(c)) but subject to advance appropriations, any 
        monies received through collection of fees under this 
        subsection shall be available to the Secretary, and 
        shall be used by the Secretary, for the operation and 
        maintenance of the disposal facility from which the 
        fees were collected.
  (c) Dredged Material Facility.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost-
        sharing agreements with 1 or more non-Federal public 
        interests with respect to a project, or group of 
        projects within a geographic region, if appropriate, 
        for the acquisition, design, construction, management, 
        or operation of a dredged material processing, 
        treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility 
        (including any facility used to demonstrate potential 
        beneficial uses of dredged material, which may include 
        effective sediment contaminant reduction technologies) 
        using funds provided in whole or in part by the Federal 
        Government.
          (2) Performance.--One or more of the parties to the 
        agreement may perform the acquisition, design, 
        construction, management, or operation of a dredged 
        material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, 
        or disposal facility.
          (3) Multiple federal projects.--If appropriate, the 
        Secretary may combine portions of separate Federal 
        projects with appropriate combined cost-sharing between 
        the various projects, if the facility serves to manage 
        dredged material from multiple Federal projects located 
        in the geographic region of the facility.
          (4) Public financing.--
                  (A) Agreements.--
                          (i) Specified Federal funding sources 
                        and cost sharing.--The cost-sharing 
                        agreement used shall clearly specify--
                                  (I) the Federal funding 
                                sources and combined cost-
                                sharing when applicable to 
                                multiple Federal navigation 
                                projects; and
                                  (II) the responsibilities and 
                                risks of each of the parties 
                                related to present and future 
                                dredged material managed by the 
                                facility.
                          (ii) Management of sediments.--
                                  (I) In general.--The cost-
                                sharing agreement may include 
                                the management of sediments 
                                from the maintenance dredging 
                                of Federal navigation projects 
                                that do not have partnerships 
                                agreements.
                                  (II) Payments.--The cost-
                                sharing agreement 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 treatment, 
                                processing, contaminant 
                                reduction, or disposal 
                                facilities.
                          (iii) Credit.--The cost-sharing 
                        agreement may allow costs incurred 
                        prior to execution of a partnership 
                        agreement for construction or the 
                        purchase of equipment or capacity for 
                        the project to be credited according to 
                        existing cost-sharing rules.
                  (B) Credit.--
                          (i) 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 
                        other non-Federal interest for the 
                        cost-sharing, construction, and 
                        operation and maintenance of a Federal 
                        navigation project.
                          (ii) 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 public 
                        interest of a Federal navigation 
                        project may seek credit for funds 
                        provided for the acquisition, design, 
                        construction, management, or operation 
                        of a dredged material processing, 
                        treatment, or disposal facility to the 
                        extent the facility is used to manage 
                        dredged material from the Federal 
                        navigation project.
                          (iii) Non-federal interest 
                        responsibilities.--The non-Federal 
                        interest shall--
                                  (I) be responsible for 
                                providing all necessary land, 
                                easement rights-of-way, or 
                                relocations associated with the 
                                facility; and
                                  (II) receive credit 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, or disposal 
        facilities in connection with construction or 
        maintenance of Federal navigation projects. If a non-
        Federal interest is a sponsor of the project, the 
        Secretary shall consult with the non-Federal interest 
        in carrying out the program with respect to the 
        project.
           (2) Private financing.--
                   (A) Agreements.--In carrying out this 
                subsection, the Secretary may enter into an 
                agreement with a non-Federal interest with 
                respect to a project, a private entity, or both 
                for the acquisition, design, construction, 
                management, or operation and maintenance of a 
                dredged material processing, treatment, or 
                disposal facility (including any facility used 
                to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of 
                dredged material) using funds provided in whole 
                or in part by the private entity.
                   (B) Reimbursement.--If any funds provided by 
                a private entity are used to carry out a 
                project under this subsection, the Secretary 
                may reimburse the private entity over a period 
                of time agreed to by the parties to the 
                agreement through the payment of subsequent 
                user fees. Such fees may include the payment of 
                a disposal or tipping fee for placement of 
                suitable dredged material at the facility.
                   (C) Amount of fees.--User fees paid pursuant 
                to subparagraph (B) shall be sufficient to 
                repay funds contributed by the private entity 
                plus a reasonable return on investment approved 
                by the Secretary in cooperation with the non-
                Federal interest with respect to the project 
                and the private entity.
                   (D) Federal share.--The Federal share of 
                such fees shall be equal to the percentage of 
                the total cost that would otherwise be borne by 
                the Federal Government as required pursuant to 
                existing cost-sharing requirements, including 
                section 103 of the Water Resources Development 
                Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) and section 204 of 
                the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 
                U.S.C. 2325).
                   (E) Budget act compliance.--Any spending 
                authority (as defined in section 401(c)(2) of 
                the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
                651(c)(2))) authorized by this section shall be 
                effective only to such extent and in such 
                amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 234. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY.

   [(a) In General.--The Secretary may engage in activities in 
support of other Federal agencies or international 
organizations to address problems of national significance to 
the United States.]
  (a) In General.--The Secretary may engage in activities 
(including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies, 
international organizations, or foreign governments to address 
problems of national significance to the United States.
   (b) Consultation.--The Secretary may engage in activities in 
support of international organizations only after consulting 
with the [Secretary of State] Department of State.
   (c) Use of Corps' Expertise.--The Secretary may use the 
technical and managerial expertise of the Corps of Engineers to 
address domestic and international problems related to water 
resources, infrastructure development, and environmental 
protection.
   (d) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out this section [$250,000 for fiscal year 2001] 
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 and each fiscal year 
thereafter. The Secretary may accept and expend additional 
funds from other Federal agencies [or international 
organizations], international organizations, or foreign 
governments to carry out this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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] $5,500,000 (which repair and 
        rehabilitation shall include lowering the crest of the 
        Dam by not more than 12.5 feet).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 510. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION 
                    PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$10,000,000] 
$30,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 516. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT.

   (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

   (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
           (1) In general.--There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
        $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
           (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 2011.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 528. EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Restoration activities.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Critical restoration projects.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) Authorization of appropriations.--
                          (i) In General.--There is authorized 
                        to be appropriated to the Department of 
                        the Army to pay the Federal share of 
                        the cost of carrying out projects under 
                        subparagraph (A) [$75,000,000 for the 
                        period consisting of fiscal years 1997 
                        through 1999.] $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.]
                          (ii) Federal share.--
                                  (I) In general.--Except as 
                                provided in subclause (II), the 
                                Federal share of the cost of 
                                carrying out a project under 
                                subparagraph (A) shall not 
                                exceed $25,000,000.
                                  (II) Seminole water 
                                conservation plan.--The Federal 
                                share of the cost of carrying 
                                out the Seminole Water 
                                Conservation Plan shall not 
                                exceed $30,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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] $18,200,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 567. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Cooperation Agreements.--In conducting the study and 
developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may 
enter into cooperation agreements to provide financial 
assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local government 
agencies, including assistance for the implementation of 
wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation 
measures.]
  (c) Cooperation Agreements.--
          (1) In general.--In conducting the study and 
        implementing the strategy under this section, the 
        Secretary shall enter into cost-sharing and project 
        cooperation agreements with the Federal Government, 
        State and local governments (with the consent of the 
        State and local governments), land trusts, or 
        nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations with expertise 
        in wetland restoration.
          (2) Financial assistance.--Under the cooperation 
        agreement, the Secretary may provide assistance for 
        implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil 
        and water conservation measures.
  [(d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall undertake 
development and implementation of the strategy authorized by 
this section in cooperation with local landowners and local 
government officials.]
  (d) Implementation of Strategy.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
        development, demonstration, and implementation of the 
        strategy under this section in cooperation with local 
        landowners, local government officials, and land 
        trusts.
          (2) Goals of projects.--Projects to implement the 
        strategy under this subsection shall be designed to 
        take advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other 
        agencies, local municipalities, or nonprofit, 
        nongovernmental organizations with expertise in wetland 
        restoration that would increase the effectiveness or 
        decrease the overall cost of implementing recommended 
        projects.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 575. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Specific Projects.--The projects to which subsection (a) 
apply are--
          (1) the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou 
        Basin, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
        Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1258);
          (2) the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and 
        tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a) of the 
        Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 
        4610); and
          (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 
$2,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $600,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                   [PUBLIC LAW 106-53--AUG. 17, 1999]

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

   (a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (22) Shenandoah River, Virginia; [and]
          (23) Lincoln Creek, Wisconsin[.]; and
          (24) Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Project 
        (County Grounds), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[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:
          (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 this section.
          (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 
                Government, 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) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
        cost of technical assistance, or the cost of planning, 
        design, construction, and evaluation of a project under 
        subsection (c), and the cost of development of 
        supplementary information under subsection (d)--
                  (A) shall be 25 percent of the total cost of 
                the project or development; and
                  (B) 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 
        provided for use 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 sponsor 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. 514. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for any 
project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest 
may include a regional or national nonprofit entity with the 
consent of the affected local government.
  (g) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal 
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any 
single locality.
  [(f)] (h) Cost Sharing.--
          [(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
        cost of the project shall be 35 percent.]
          (1) Non-federal share.--
                  (A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the 
                cost of projects may be provided--
                          (i) in cash;
                          (ii) by the provision of land, 
                        easements, rights-of-way, relocations, 
                        or disposal areas;
                          (iii) by in-kind services to 
                        implement the project; or
                          (iv) by any combination of the 
                        foregoing.
                  (B) Private ownership.--Land needed for a 
                project under this authority may remain in 
                private ownership subject to easements that 
                are--
                          (i) satisfactory to the Secretary; 
                        and
                          (ii) necessary to assure achievement 
                        of the project purposes.
          (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
        any 1 activity described in subsection (b) shall not 
        exceed $5,000,000.
          (3) Operation and maintenance.--The operation and 
        maintenance of the project shall be a non-Federal 
        responsibility.
  [(g)] (i) 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 2000 and 2001.] per year, and that authority 
shall extend until Federal fiscal year 2015.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 560. ABANDONED AND INACTIVE NONCOAL MINE RESTORATION.

  (a) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--In this section, the 
term ``non-Federal interest'' includes, with the consent of the 
affected local government, nonprofit entities, notwithstanding 
section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
5b).
   [(a) ]  (b) In General.--The Secretary may provide 
technical, planning, and design , and construction assistance 
to Federal and non-Federal interests, including, with the 
consent of the affected local government, nonprofit entities, 
for carrying out projects to address water quality problems 
caused by drainage and related activities from abandoned and 
inactive noncoal mines.
   [(b) ]  (c) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under 
subsection (a) may be in support of projects for the purpose 
of--
          (1) managing drainage from abandoned and inactive 
        noncoal mines;
          (2) restoring and protecting streams, rivers, 
        wetlands, other waterbodies, and riparian areas 
        degraded by drainage from abandoned and inactive 
        noncoal mines; and
          (3) demonstrating management practices and innovative 
        and alternative treatment technologies to minimize or 
        eliminate adverse  physical hazards and environmental 
        effects associated with [drainage from ] abandoned and 
        inactive noncoal mines.
   [(c) ]  (d)  Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of 
the cost of assistance under subsection (a) shall be [50] 25 
percent, except that the Federal share with respect to projects 
located on land owned by the United States shall be 100 
percent.
  [(d)] (e) Effect on Authority of Secretary of the Interior.--
Nothing in this section affects the authority of the Secretary 
of the Interior under title IV of the Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1231 et seq.).
  [(e)] (f)  Technology Database for Reclamation of Abandoned 
Mines.--The Secretary may provide assistance to non-Federal and 
nonprofit entities to develop, manage, and maintain a database 
of conventional and innovative, cost-effective technologies for 
reclamation of abandoned and inactive noncoal mine sites. Such 
assistance shall be provided through the Rehabilitation of 
Abandoned Mine Sites Program managed by the Sacramento District 
Office of the Corps of Engineers.
  [(f)  Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.]
  (g) Operation and Maintenance.--The non-Federal share of the 
costs of operation and maintenance for a project carried out 
under this section shall be 100 percent.
  (h) No Effect on Liability.--The provision of assistance 
under this section shall not relieve from liability any person 
that would otherwise be liable under Federal or State law for 
damages, response costs, natural resource damages, restitution, 
equitable relief, or any other relief.
  (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section for each fiscal year 
$45,000,000, to remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 580. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND, FLOOD PROJECT MITIGATION.

  (a) In General.--The project for flood control and other 
purposes, Cumberland, Maryland, authorized by section 5 of the 
Act of June 22, 1936 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act 
of 1936'') (49 Stat. 1574, chapter 688), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to undertake, as a separate part of the 
project, restoration of the historic Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 
substantially in accordance with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 
National Historic Park, Cumberland, Maryland, Rewatering Design 
Analysis, dated February 1998, at a total cost of [$15,000,000] 
$25,750,000, with an estimated Federal cost of [$9,750,000] 
$16,738,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of [$5,250,000] 
$9,012,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 602. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (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) Notification.--On receipt of the 
                        plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat 
                        restoration submitted by the Cheyenne 
                        River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule 
                        Sioux Tribe, each of the committees 
                        referred to in paragraph (3) shall 
                        notify the Secretary of the Treasury of 
                        the receipt of each of the plans.
                          [(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, 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.--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 Fund in accordance 
                with all of 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, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
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) up to $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.--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 each of the Funds in 
                accordance with all of 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 plan 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, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
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) up to $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 
        2007; and
          (2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent 
        fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                     [33 U.S.C. 2901--NOV. 7, 2000]

                     ESTUARY RESTORATION ACT OF 2000


SEC. 101. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 102. PURPOSES.

   The purposes of this title are--
          (1) to promote the restoration of estuary habitat by 
        implementing a coordinated Federal approach to estuary 
        habitat restoration activities, including the use of 
        common monitoring standards and a common system for 
        tracking restoration acreage;
          (2) to develop and implement a national estuary 
        habitat restoration strategy for creating and 
        maintaining effective estuary habitat restoration 
        partnerships among public agencies at all levels of 
        government and to establish new partnerships between 
        the public and private sectors;
          (3) to provide Federal assistance for estuary habitat 
        restoration projects through cooperative agreements and 
        to promote efficient financing of such projects; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.

  In this title, the following definitions apply:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (6) Estuary habitat restoration plan.--
                  (A) In general.--The term ``estuary habitat 
                restoration plan'' means any [Federal or State] 
                Federal, State, or regional plan for 
                restoration of degraded estuary habitat that 
                was developed with the substantial 
                participation of appropriate public and private 
                stakeholders.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 104. ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAM.

  (a) Establishment.--There is established an estuary habitat 
restoration program under which the Secretary may carry out 
estuary habitat restoration projects and provide technical 
assistance through the award of contracts and cooperative 
agreements in accordance with the requirements of this title.
  (b) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Selection of Projects.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Factors for selection of projects.--In selecting 
        an estuary habitat restoration project, the Secretary 
        shall consider the following factors:
                  (A) Whether the project is part of an 
                approved Federal or State estuary management or 
                habitat restoration plan.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Priority.--In selecting estuary habitat 
        restoration projects to be carried out under this 
        title, the Secretary shall give priority consideration 
        to a project if, in addition to meriting selection 
        based on the factors under paragraph (3)--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) the project includes pilot testing of or 
                a demonstration of an innovative technology or 
                approach having the potential for improved 
                cost-effectiveness in estuary habitat 
                restoration.
  (d) Cost Sharing.--
          (1) Federal share.--[Except]
                  (i) In general.--Except as provided in 
                paragraph (2) and subsection (e)(2), the 
                Federal share of the cost of an estuary habitat 
                restoration project (other than the cost of 
                operation and maintenance of the project) 
                carried out under this title shall not exceed 
                65 percent of such cost.
                  (ii) Monitoring.--
                          (I) Costs.--The costs of monitoring 
                        an estuary habitat restoration project 
                        funded under this title may be included 
                        in the total cost of the estuary 
                        habitat restoration project.
                          (II) Goals.--The goals of the 
                        monitoring shall be--
                                  (aa) to measure the 
                                effectiveness of the 
                                restoration project; and
                                  (bb) to allow adaptive 
                                management to ensure project 
                                success.
          (2) Innovative technology costs.--The Federal share 
        of the incremental additional cost of including in a 
        project pilot testing of or a demonstration of an 
        innovative technology or approach described in 
        subsection (c)(4)(B) of this section shall be 85 
        percent.
          (3) Non-Federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
        cost of an estuary habitat restoration project carried 
        out under this chapter shall include lands, easements, 
        rights-of-way, and relocations and may include services 
        (including monitoring), or any other form of in-kind 
        contribution determined by the Secretary to be an 
        appropriate contribution equivalent to the monetary 
        amount required for the non-Federal share of the 
        activity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Cooperation of non-Federal interests.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may not carry out an 
        estuary habitat restoration project until a non-Federal 
        interest has entered into a written agreement with the 
        Secretary in which the non-Federal interest agrees to--
                  (A) provide all lands, easements, rights-of-
                way, and relocations and any other elements the 
                Secretary determines appropriate under 
                subsection (d)(3) of this section; and
                  (B) provide for long-term maintenance and 
                monitoring of the project.
          (2) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding 
        section 1962d-5b(b) of title 42, for any project to be 
        undertaken under this chapter, the Secretary, in 
        consultation and coordination with appropriate State 
        and local governmental agencies and Indian tribes, may 
        allow a nongovernmental organization to serve as the 
        non-Federal interest for the project.
  (g) Delegation of project implementation.--[In carrying]
          (1) In general.--In carrying out this chapter, the 
        Secretary may delegate project implementation to 
        another Federal department or agency on a reimbursable 
        basis if the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the 
        Council, determines such delegation is appropriate.
          (2) Small projects.--
                  (A) Definition of small project.--In this 
                paragraph, the term ``small project'' means a 
                project carried out under this title at a 
                Federal cost of less than $1,000,000.
                  (B) Small project delegation.--In carrying 
                out this title, the Secretary, upon the 
                recommendation of the Council, may delegate 
                implementation of a small project to--
                          (i) the Secretary of the Interior 
                        (acting through the Director of the 
                        United States Fish and Wildlife 
                        Service);
                          (ii) the Under Secretary for Oceans 
                        and Atmosphere of the Department of 
                        Commerce;
                          (iii) the Administrator of the 
                        Environmental Protection Agency; or
                          (iv) the Secretary of Agriculture.
                  (C) Funding.--The implementation of a small 
                project delegated to the head of a Federal 
                department or agency under this paragraph may 
                be carried out using--
                          (i) funds appropriated to the 
                        department or agency under section 
                        109(a)(1); or
                          (ii) any other funds available to the 
                        department or agency.
                  (D) Agreements.--The Federal department or 
                agency to which implementation of a small 
                project is delegated shall enter into an 
                agreement with the non-Federal interest 
                generally in conformance with the criteria in 
                subsections (d) and (e). Cooperative agreements 
                may be used for any delegated project.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 105. ESTABLISHMENT OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION COUNCIL.

  (a) Council.--There is established a council to be known as 
the ``Estuary Habitat Restoration Council''.
  (b) Duties.--The Council shall be responsible for--
          (1) soliciting, reviewing, and evaluating project 
        proposals and developing recommendations concerning 
        such proposals based on the factors specified in 
        section 2903(c)(3) of this title;
          (2) submitting to the Secretary a list of recommended 
        projects, including a recommended priority order and 
        any recommendation as to whether a project should be 
        carried out by the Secretary or by another Federal 
        department or agency under section 2903(g) of this 
        title;
          (3) developing and transmitting to Congress a 
        national strategy for restoration of estuary habitat;
          (4) periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the 
        national strategy in meeting the purposes of this 
        chapter and, as necessary, updating the national 
        strategy; [and]
          (5) providing advice on the development of the 
        database, monitoring standards, and report required 
        under sections 2906 and 2907 of this title[.]; and
          (6) cooperating in the implementation of the strategy 
        developed under section 106;
          (7) recommending standards for monitoring for 
        restoration projects and contribution of project 
        information to the database developed under section 
        107; and
          (8) otherwise using the respective agency authorities 
        of the Council members to carry out this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 107. MONITORING OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECTS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Coordination of Data.--The Under Secretary shall 
[compile] have general data compilation, coordination, and 
analysis responsibilities to carry out this title and in 
support of the strategy developed under this section, including 
compilation of information that pertains to estuary habitat 
restoration projects from other Federal, State, and local 
sources and that meets the quality control requirements and 
data standards established under this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 108. REPORTING.

  (a) In General.--At the end of the [third and fifth] sixth, 
eighth, and tenth fiscal years following November 7, 2000, the 
Secretary, after considering the advice and recommendations of 
the Council, shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 
of activities carried out under this chapter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 109. FUNDING.

  (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          (1) Estuary habitat restoration projects.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated [to the Secretary] for 
        carrying out and providing technical assistance for 
        estuary habitat restoration projects--
                  [(A) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
                  [(B) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
                2002 and 2003;
                  [(C) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
                  [(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.]
                  (A) to the Secretary, $25,000,000 for each of 
                fiscal years 2007 through 2011;
                  (B) to the Secretary of the Interior (acting 
                through the Director of the United States Fish 
                and Wildlife Service), $2,500,000 for each of 
                fiscal years 2007 through 2011;
                  (C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and 
                Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce, 
                $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 
                through 2011;
                  (D) to the Administrator of the Environmental 
                Protection Agency, $2,500,000 for each of 
                fiscal years 2007 through 2011; and
                  (E) to the Secretary of Agriculture, 
                $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 
                through 2011.
          Such sums shall remain available until expended.
          (2) Monitoring.--There is authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Under Secretary for Oceans and 
        Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce for the 
        acquisition, maintenance, and management of monitoring 
        data on restoration projects carried out under this 
        title and other information compiled under section 107, 
        $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 
        2011. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 110. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

  (a) Agency Consultation and Coordination.--In carrying out 
this chapter, the Secretary shall, as necessary, consult with, 
cooperate with, and coordinate its activities with the 
activities of other Federal departments and agencies.
  (b) Cooperative Agreements; Memoranda of Understanding.--In 
carrying out this chapter, the Secretary may--
          (1) enter into cooperative agreements or contracts 
        with Federal, State, and local government agencies, 
        nongovernmental organizations, and other entities; and
          (2) execute such memoranda of understanding as are 
        necessary to reflect the agreements.
  (c) Federal Agency Facilities and Personnel.--Federal 
agencies may cooperate in carrying out scientific and other 
programs necessary to carry out this chapter, and may provide 
facilities and personnel, for the purpose of assisting the 
Council in carrying out its duties under this chapter.
  [(d) Identification and Mapping of Dredged Material Disposal 
Sites.--In consultation with appropriate Federal and non-
Federal public entities, the Secretary shall undertake, and 
update as warranted by changed conditions, surveys to identify 
and map sites appropriate for beneficial uses of dredged 
material for the protection, restoration, and creation of 
aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands, 
in order to further the purposes of this chapter.
  [(e) Study of Bioremediation Technology.--
          [(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after 
        November 7, 2000, the Administrator of the 
        Environmental Protection Agency, with the participation 
        of the estuarine scientific community, shall begin a 2-
        year study on the efficacy of bioremediation products.
          [(2) Requirements.--The study shall--
                  [(A) evaluate and assess bioremediation 
                technology--
                          [(i) on low-level petroleum 
                        hydrocarbon contamination from 
                        recreational boat bilges;
                          [(ii) on low-level petroleum 
                        hydrocarbon contamination from 
                        stormwater discharges;
                          [(iii) on nonpoint petroleum 
                        hydrocarbon discharges; and
                          [(iv) as a first response tool for 
                        petroleum hydrocarbon spills; and
                  [(B) recommend management actions to optimize 
                the return of a healthy and balanced ecosystem 
                and make improvements in the quality and 
                character of estuarine waters.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  [PUBLIC LAW 106-541--DEC. 11, 2000]

                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

   (a) Short Title.--This Act many be cited as the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000''.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (16) Ohio river, kentucky, illinois, indiana, ohio, 
        pennsylvania, and west virginia.--
                  [(A) In general.--Projects for ecosystem 
                restoration, Ohio River Mainstem]
                  (A) Authorization.--
                          (i) In general.--Projects for 
                        ecosystem restoration, Ohio River Basin 
                        (excluding the Tennessee and Cumberland 
                        River Basins), Kentucky, Illinois, 
                        Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West 
                        Virginia, at a total cost of 
                        $307,700,000, with an estimated Federal 
                        cost of $200,000,000 and an estimated 
                        non-Federal cost of $107,700,000.
                          (ii) Nonprofit entity.--For any 
                        ecosystem restoration project carried 
                        out under this paragraph, with the 
                        consent of the affected local 
                        government, a nonprofit entity may be 
                        considered to be a non-Federal 
                        interest.
                          (iii) Program implementation plan.--
                        There is authorized to be developed a 
                        program implementation plan of the Ohio 
                        River Basin (excluding the Tennessee 
                        and Cumberland River Basins) at full 
                        Federal expense.
                          (iv) Pilot program.--There is 
                        authorized to be initiated a completed 
                        pilot program in Lower Scioto Basin, 
                        Ohio.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

  (a) In General.--[In fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the] The 
Secretary, after public notice, may accept and expend funds 
contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the 
evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department 
of the Army.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(c) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided under 
this section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000, through 
March 31, 2006.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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
          (2) shall construct other recreational features, 
        authorized as part of the project, within, and in the 
        vicinity of, the Lower Atchafalaya Basin protection 
        leveesand may include Eagle Point Park, Jeanerette, 
        Louisiana, as 1 of the alternative sites.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 321. DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

  The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota, carried 
out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 
U.S.C. 577), is modified to include the relocation of Scenic 
Highway 61, including any required bridge construction, and to 
provide public access and recreational facilities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 349. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (2) Cedar bayou, texas.--The project for navigation, 
        Cedar Bayou, Texas, authorized by the first section of 
        the Act entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the 
        construction, repair, and preservation of certain 
        public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
        purposes'', approved September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 444), 
        and modified by the first section of the Act entitled 
        ``An Act authorizing the contruction, repair, and 
        preservation of certain public works on rivers and 
        harbors, and for other purposes'', approved July 3, 
        1930 (46 Stat. 926), and deauthorized by section 1002 
        of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
        Stat, 4219), [except that the project is authorized 
        only for construction of a navaigation channel 12 feet 
        deep by 125 feet wide] except that the project is 
        authorized for construction of a navigation channel 
        that is 10 feet deep by 100 feet wide from mile -2.5 
        (at the junction with the Houston Ship Channel) to mile 
        11.0 on Cedar Bayou.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 414. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.

  Not later than [32 months] 44 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study, at 
Federal expense, of plans--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 418. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

  The Secretary shall prepare a general reevaluation report on 
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), to determine, if the 
project were modified to direct the Secretary to incorporate in 
the project any or all of the [7.1-mile reach]7.6-mile reach of 
the project that was deleted from the south reach of the 
project, as described in paragraph (5) of the Report of the 
Chief of Engineers, dated December 23, 1996, whether the 
project as modified would be technically sound, environmentally 
acceptable, and economically justified.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 425. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
shoreline protection along Lake Michigan and the Chicago River, 
Chicago, Illinois.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 506. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Reconnaissance studies.--Before planning, 
        designing, or constructing a project under paragraph 
        (3), the Secretary shall carry out a reconnaissance 
        study--
                  (A) to identify methods of restoring the 
                fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the 
                Great Lakes; and
                  (B) to determine whether planning of a 
                project under paragraph (3) should proceed.
          [(2)] (3) Projects.--The Secretary shall plan, 
        design, and construct projects to support the 
        restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial 
        uses of the Great Lakes.
          [(3)] (4) Evaluation program.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop 
                a program to evaluate the success of the 
                projects carried out under [paragraph (2)] 
                paragraph (3) in meeting fishery and ecosystem 
                restoration goals.
                  (B) Studies.--Evaluations under subparagraph 
                (A) shall be conducted in consultation with the 
                Great Lakes Fishery Commission and appropriate 
                Federal, State, and local agencies.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Cost Sharing.--
          (1) Development of plan.--The Federal share of the 
        cost of development of the plan under subsection (c)(1) 
        shall be 65 percent.
          (2) Reconnaissance studies.--Any reconnaissance study 
        under subsection (c)(2) shall be carried out at full 
        Federal expense.
          [(2)] (3) Project planning, design, construction, and 
        evaluation.--The Federal share of the cost of planning, 
        design, construction, and evaluation of a project under 
        paragraph [(2) or (3)] (3) or (4) of subsection (c) 
        shall be 65 percent.
          [(3)] (4) Non-federal share.--
                  (A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-
                of-way.--The Secretary shall credit the non-
                Federal interest for the value of any land, 
                easement, right-of-way, dredged material 
                disposal area, or relocation provided for 
                carrying out a project under [subsection 
                (c)(2)] subsection (c)(3).
                  (B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may 
                provide up to 50 percent of the non-Federal 
                share required under paragraphs (1) and (2) in 
                the form of services, materials, supplies, or 
                other in-kind contributions.
          [(4)] (5) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, 
        maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of 
        projects carried out under this section shall be a non-
        Federal responsibility.
          [(5)] (6) Non-federal interests.--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 private 
        interest and a nonprofit entity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 519. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.

  (a) Illinois river basin defined.--* * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Critical restoration projects.--
          (1) In general.--* * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
        carrying out any project under this subsection shall 
        not exceed [$5,000,000]$20,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 542. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in 
        critical restoration projects in the Lake Champlain 
        watershed.
          (2) Types of projects.--A critical restoration 
        project shall be eligible for assistance under this 
        section if the critical restoration project consists of 
        --
                  (A) implementation of an intergovernmental 
                agreement for coordinating regulatory and 
                management responsibilities with respect to the 
                Lake Champlain watershed;
                  (B) acceleration of whole farm planning to 
                implement best management practices to maintain 
                or enhance water quality and to promote 
                agricultural land use in the Lake Champlain 
                watershed;
                  (C) acceleration of whole community planning 
                to promote intergovernmental cooperation in the 
                regulation and management of activities 
                consistent with the goal of maintaining or 
                enhancing water quality in the Lake Champlain 
                watershed;
                  (D) natural resource stewardship activities 
                on public or private land to promote land uses 
                that--
                          (i) preserve and enhance the economic 
                        and social character of the communities 
                        in the Lake Champlain watershed; and
                          (ii) protect and enhance water 
                        quality; [or]
                  (E) river corridor assessment, protection, 
                management, and restoration for the purposes of 
                ecosystem restoration;
                  (F) geographic mapping conducted by the 
                Secretary using existing technical capacity to 
                produce a high-resolution, multispectral 
                satellite imagery-based land use and cover data 
                set; or
                  [(E)] (G) any other activity determined by 
                the Secretary to be appropriate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Cost Sharing.--
          (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under 
        this section with respect to a critical restoration 
        project, the Secretary shall enter into a project 
        cooperation agreement that shall require the non-
        Federal interest--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (2) Non-federal share.--
                  (A) Credit for design work.--[The non-
                Federal]
                          (i) In general.--The non-Federal 
                        interest shall receive credit for the 
                        reasonable costs of design work carried 
                        out by the non-Federal interest before 
                        the date of execution of a project 
                        cooperation agreement for the critical 
                        restoration project, if the Secretary 
                        finds that the design work is integral 
                        to the project.
                          (ii) Approval of district engineer.--
                        Approval of credit for design work of 
                        less than $100,000 shall be determined 
                        by the appropriate district engineer.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (B) Credit for land, easements, and rights-
                of-way.--The Secretary shall credit the non-
                Federal interest for the value of any land, 
                easement, right-of-way, dredged material 
                disposal area, or relocation provided for 
                carrying out the project.
                  (C) Form.--The non-Federal interest may 
                provide [up to 50 percent of] the non-Federal 
                share in the form of services, materials, 
                supplies, or other in-kind contributions.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section 
[$20,000,000]$32,000,000, to remain available until expended.

SEC. 543. VERMONT DAMS REMEDIATION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary--
          (1) shall conduct a study to evaluate the structural 
        integrity and need for modification or removal of each 
        dam located in the State of Vermont and described in 
        subsection (b);
          (2) shall provide to the non-Federal interest design 
        analysis, plans and specifications, and cost estimates 
        for repair, restoration, modification, and removal of 
        each dam described in subsection (b); [and]
          (3) may carry out measures to prevent or mitigate 
        against such risk if the Secretary determines that a 
        dam described in subsection (b) presents an imminent 
        and substantial risk to public safety[.]; and
          (4) may carry out measures to restore, protect, and 
        preserve an ecosystem affected by a dam described in 
        subsection (b).
  (b) Dams To Be Evaluated.--The dams referred to in subsection 
(a) are the following:
          (1) East Barre Dam, Barre Town.
          (2) Wrightsville Dam, Middlesex-Montpelier.
          (3) Lake Sadawga Dam, Whitingham.
          (4) Dufresne Pond Dam, Manchester.
          (5) Knapp Brook Site 1 Dam, Cavendish.
          (6) Lake Bomoseen Dam, Castleton.
          (7) Little Hosmer Dam, Craftsbury.
          (8) Colby Pond Dam, Plymouth.
          (9) Silver Lake Dam, Barnard.
          (10) Gale Meadows Dam, Londonderry.
          (11) Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick.
          (12) Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly.
          (13) Curtis Pond, Calais.
          (14) Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield.
          (15) Burr Pond, Sudbury.
          (16) Maidstone Lake, Guildhall.
          (17) Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam.
          (18) Lake Fairlee.
          (19) West Charleston Dam.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 601. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (2) Specific authorizations.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (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, with an estimated 
                Federal cost of $34,500,000 and an estimated 
                non-Federal cost of $34,500,000:
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (v) Hillsboro and okeechobee aquifer, 
                        florida.--The pilot projects 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 
                        the purposes of this section as being 
                        in the Plan and carried out in 
                        accordance with this section, except 
                        that costs of operation and maintenance 
                        of those projects shall remain 100 
                        percent non-Federal.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
the Secretary to carry out this title [$5,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 2001 through 2005]$25,000,000. Such sums shall 
remain available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 904. MISSOURI RIVER TRUST.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Membership.--The Trust shall be composed of 25 members to 
be appointed by the Secretary, including--
          (1) 15 members recommended by the Governor of South 
        Dakota that--
                  (A) represent equally the various interests 
                of the public; and
                  (B) include representatives of--
                          (i) the South Dakota Department of 
                        Environment and Natural Resources;
                          (ii) the South Dakota Department of 
                        Game, Fish, and Parks;
                          (iii) environmental groups;
                          (iv) the hydroelectric power 
                        industry;
                          (v) local governments;
                          (vi) recreation user groups;
                          (vii) agricultural groups; [and]
                          (viii) rural water systems; and
                          [(viii)](ix) other appropriate 
                        interests;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 907. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
the Secretary to carry out this title $10,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 2001 through [2005] 2010. Such sums shall remain 
available until expended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                  [PUBLIC LAW 108-335--OCT. 18, 2004]

              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT 2005


SEC. 301. * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[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 are 
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).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                  [PUBLIC LAW 109-103--NOV. 19, 2005]

          ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT 2006


[SEC. 101.

  [(a) None of the funds provided in title I of this Act, or 
provided by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies or 
entities funded in title I of this Act that remain available 
for obligation or expenditure in fiscal year 2006, shall be 
available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming 
of funds that--
          [(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
        activity;
          [(2) eliminates a program, project or activity;
          [(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, 
        project or activity for which funds have been denied or 
        restricted by this Act;
          [(4) proposes to use funds directed for a specific 
        activity by either the House or the Senate Committees 
        on Appropriations for a different purpose;
          [(5) augments existing programs, projects or 
        activities in excess of $2,000,000 or 50 percent, 
        whichever is less, unless prior approval is received 
        from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations;
          [(6) reduces existing programs, projects or 
        activities in excess of $2,000,000 or 50 percent, 
        whichever is less, unless prior approval is received 
        from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations; 
        or
          [(7) creates, reorganizes, or restructures a branch, 
        division, office, bureau, board, commission, agency, 
        administration, or department different from the budget 
        justifications submitted to the Committees on 
        Appropriations or the table accompanying the Statement 
        of Managers accompanying this Act, whichever is more 
        detailed, unless prior approval is received from the 
        House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
  [(b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or 
activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1948; section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946; section 
208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954; section 107 of the River 
and Harbor Act of 1960; section 103 of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1962; section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968; 
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986; 
section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996; 
sections 204 and 207 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 or section 933 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986.
  [(c) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Corps of Engineers shall submit a report to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives to establish the baseline for application of 
reprogramming and transfer authorities for the current fiscal 
year: Provided, That the report shall include--(1) a table for 
each appropriation with a separate column to display the 
President's budget request, adjustments made by Congress, 
adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if appropriate, and the 
fiscal year enacted level;
          [(2) a delineation in the table for each 
        appropriation both by object class and program, project 
        and activity as detailed in the budget appendix for the 
        respective appropriations; and
          [(3) an identification of items of special 
        congressional interest: Provided further, That the 
        amount appropriated for salaries and expenses of the 
        Corps of Engineers shall be reduced by $100,000 per day 
        for each day after the required date that the report 
        has not been submitted to the Congress.(d) None of the 
        funds received as a non-Federal share for project costs 
        by any agency funded in title I of this Act shall be 
        available for reprogramming.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 106.

  [Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the requirements 
regarding the use of continuing contracts under the authority 
of section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
(33 U.S.C. 2331) shall apply only to projects funded under the 
Operation and Maintenance account and the Operation and 
Maintenance subaccount of the Flood Control, Mississippi River 
and Tributaries account.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 108.

  [None of the funds made available in title I of this Act may 
be used to award any continuing contract or to make 
modifications to any existing continuing contract that commits 
an amount for a project in excess of the amount appropriated 
for such project pursuant to this Act: Provided, That the 
amounts appropriated in this Act may be modified pursuant to 
the authorities provided in section 101 of this Act or through 
the application of unobligated balances for such project.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 128. AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA (FOLSOM DAM AND 
                    PERMANENT BRIDGE).--

  (a) Coordination Of Flood Damage Reduction And Dam Safety.--
[The Secretary]
          (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Army and the 
        Secretary of the Interior are directed to collaborate 
        on authorized activities to maximize flood damage 
        reduction improvements and address dam safety needs at 
        Folsom Dam and Reservoir, California. [The Secretaries]
          (2) Technical reviews.--The Secretaries shall 
        expedite technical reviews for flood damage reduction 
        and dam safety improvements. [In developing]
          (3) Improvements.--
                  (A) In general.--In developing improvements 
                under this section, the Secretaries shall 
                consider reasonable modifications to existing 
                authorized activities, including a potential 
                auxiliary spillway. [In conducting]
                  (B) Use of funds.--In conducting such 
                activities, the Secretaries are authorized to 
                expend funds for coordinated technical reviews 
                and joint planning, and preliminary design 
                activities.
          (4) Project alternative solutions study.--The 
        Secretaries, in cooperation with non-Federal agencies, 
        are directed to expedite their respective activities, 
        including the formulation of all necessary studies and 
        decision documents, in furtherance of the collaborative 
        effort known as the ``Project Alternative Solutions 
        Study'', as well as planning, engineering, and design, 
        including preparation of plans and specifications, of 
        any features recommended for authorization by the 
        Secretary of the Army under paragraph (6).
          (5) Consolidation of technical reviews and design 
        activities.--The Secretary of the Army shall 
        consolidate technical reviews and design activities 
        for--
                  (A) the project for flood damage reduction 
                authorized by section 101(a)(6) of the Water 
                Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
                274); and
                  (B) the project for flood damage reduction, 
                dam safety, and environmental restoration 
                authorized by sections 128 and 134 of the 
                Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
                Act, 2004 (117 Stat. 1838, 1842).
          (6) Report.--The recommendations of the Secretary of 
        the Army, along with the views of the Secretary of the 
        Interior and relevant non-Federal agencies resulting 
        from the activities directed in paragraphs (4) and (5), 
        shall be submitted to the Committee on Environment and 
        Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
        Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives by not later than June 30, 2007, and 
        the Secretary of the Army shall provide a status report 
        by not later than April 30, 2007.
          (7) Effect.--Nothing in this section shall be deemed 
        as deauthorizing the full range of project features and 
        parameters of the projects listed in paragraph (5), nor 
        shall it limit any previous authorizations granted by 
        Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  
