[House Report 111-654]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-654

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



 
                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2010

                                _______
                                

 September 29, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5892]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 5892) to provide for the 
conservation and development of water and related resources, to 
authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various 
projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United 
States, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources 
Development Act of 2010''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as 
follows:

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

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

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.
Sec. 2002. Fish and wildlife mitigation.
Sec. 2003. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 2004. Revision of project partnership agreement.
Sec. 2005. Independent peer review.
Sec. 2006. Safety assurance review.
Sec. 2007. Funding for harbor maintenance programs.
Sec. 2008. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 2009. Project modifications for improvement of environment.
Sec. 2010. Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration.
Sec. 2011. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric 
facilities.
Sec. 2012. Repeal.
Sec. 2013. Cost estimates for feasibility reports.
Sec. 2014. Mitigation status report.
Sec. 2015. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, Arizona.
Sec. 3003. Rio de Flag, Arizona.
Sec. 3004. Tres Rios, Arizona.
Sec. 3005. Russian River project, Sonoma County, California.
Sec. 3006. South Sacramento County streams, California.
Sec. 3007. Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado.
Sec. 3008. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New 
Mexico, and Texas.
Sec. 3009. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia.
Sec. 3010. Kissimmee River restoration, Florida.
Sec. 3011. Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 3012. Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia.
Sec. 3013. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, 
Illinois.
Sec. 3014. Lower Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.
Sec. 3015. Wood River levee system reconstruction, Madison County, 
Illinois.
Sec. 3016. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 3017. Rhodes Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland.
Sec. 3018. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 3019. Ada, Minnesota.
Sec. 3020. Montevideo, Minnesota.
Sec. 3021. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Sec. 3022. Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri.
Sec. 3023. Lower Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey.
Sec. 3024. Ocean Gate, Ocean County, New Jersey.
Sec. 3025. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3026. Spring Creek, New York.
Sec. 3027. Hocking River basin, Monday Creek, Ohio.
Sec. 3028. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem 
restoration, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 3029. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Sec. 3030. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 3031. Houston-Galveston navigation channels, Texas.
Sec. 3032. Project reauthorization.
Sec. 3033. Project deauthorizations.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. Hollis, Alaska.
Sec. 4002. Bullard Wash, Goodyear, Arizona.
Sec. 4003. Lower Santa Cruz River, Casa Grande, Arizona.
Sec. 4004. Maricopa County, Arizona.
Sec. 4005. Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley Counties, 
Arkansas.
Sec. 4006. Oil Trough, Arkansas.
Sec. 4007. Randolph County, Arkansas.
Sec. 4008. Berkeley Marina, Berkeley, California.
Sec. 4009. Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California.
Sec. 4010. Colorado Lagoon and Alamitos Bay, Long Beach, California.
Sec. 4011. Lodi Lake, Lodi, California.
Sec. 4012. Oakland-Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Oakland, California.
Sec. 4013. Noyo Harbor District, Noyo, California.
Sec. 4014. Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Sec. 4015. Redwood City Navigation Channel, California.
Sec. 4016. Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto, California.
Sec. 4017. Sacramento Regional Sanitation District, Sacramento, 
California.
Sec. 4018. San Pablo Bay, Hercules, California.
Sec. 4019. Stockton, California.
Sec. 4020. Tijuana River environmental restoration, San Diego, 
California.
Sec. 4021. Tijuana River wetlands restoration, San Diego County, 
California.
Sec. 4022. Ventura River, Ventura County, California.
Sec. 4023. Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, California.
Sec. 4024. Fountain Creek watershed, Pueblo, Colorado.
Sec. 4025. Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado.
Sec. 4026. Holly Pond and Norotan River, Stamford, Connecticut.
Sec. 4027. Housatonic River, New Milford, Connecticut.
Sec. 4028. Long Island Sound and Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut.
Sec. 4029. Meriden, Connecticut.
Sec. 4030. South Cove, Old Saybrook, Connecticut.
Sec. 4031. West River, New Haven Harbor, West Haven, Connecticut.
Sec. 4032. Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
Sec. 4033. Washington, District of Columbia.
Sec. 4034. Lake County, Florida.
Sec. 4035. Marion County, Florida.
Sec. 4036. Miami, Florida.
Sec. 4037. Oakland Park, Florida.
Sec. 4038. Riviera Beach, Florida.
Sec. 4039. South Daytona, Florida.
Sec. 4040. Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 4041. Peavine Creek, Decatur, Georgia.
Sec. 4042. Richland Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia.
Sec. 4043. Study for water supply, Georgia.
Sec. 4044. Suwannee Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia.
Sec. 4045. Agat and Merizo, Guam.
Sec. 4046. Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii.
Sec. 4047. Waialua-Kaiaka watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
Sec. 4048. Albany Park, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4049. Carpenter Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois.
Sec. 4050. Des Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois.
Sec. 4051. Ferson-Otter Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois.
Sec. 4052. Middle Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri.
Sec. 4053. North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4054. River Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago 
River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4055. Thillens Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, 
Illinois.
Sec. 4056. Village of Skokie, Illinois.
Sec. 4057. Bowman Creek, South Bend, Indiana.
Sec. 4058. Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana.
Sec. 4059. Burlington, Iowa.
Sec. 4060. Beneficial use of dredged material, Louisiana and 
Mississippi.
Sec. 4061. Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4062. LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John Counties, 
Louisiana.
Sec. 4063. Ruth Canal freshwater diversion, Vermilion, Louisiana.
Sec. 4064. Anacostia River watershed, Prince George's County, Maryland.
Sec. 4065. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline study, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 
Virginia.
Sec. 4066. Dredged material disposal, Baltimore Harbor, Maryland.
Sec. 4067. Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island recreation and public access, 
Maryland.
Sec. 4068. Capisic Brook, Portland, Maine.
Sec. 4069. Fishing and Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine.
Sec. 4070. Southern Maine/New Hampshire dredged material disposal 
study, Maine and New Hampshire.
Sec. 4071. Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds, Middlesex and 
Essex Counties, Massachusetts.
Sec. 4072. Hoosic River watershed, North Adams, Massachusetts.
Sec. 4073. Mystic River watershed, Massachusetts.
Sec. 4074. Quequechan River, Fall River, Massachusetts.
Sec. 4075. Clinton River, Clinton Township, Michigan.
Sec. 4076. Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan.
Sec. 4077. Upper Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan.
Sec. 4078. Amory, Mississippi.
Sec. 4079. Coastal Mississippi ecosystem restoration, Mississippi.
Sec. 4080. Fulton, Mississippi.
Sec. 4081. Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 4082. Lucedale, Mississippi.
Sec. 4083. Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes County, Mississippi.
Sec. 4084. Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri.
Sec. 4085. Little Blue River, Jackson County, Missouri.
Sec. 4086. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 4087. Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Sec. 4088. New Hampshire.
Sec. 4089. Piscataqua River, New Hampshire.
Sec. 4090. Barnegat Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth Counties, New 
Jersey.
Sec. 4091. Beverly, New Jersey.
Sec. 4092. Borough of Pine Beach, New Jersey.
Sec. 4093. Haddon Township, New Jersey.
Sec. 4094. Rahway River watershed, New Jersey.
Sec. 4095. Third River, Belleville, Bloomfield, and Nutley, New Jersey.
Sec. 4096. Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey.
Sec. 4097. Township of Ocean, New Jersey.
Sec. 4098. Preakness Brook, Wayne, New Jersey.
Sec. 4099. Dona Ana, New Mexico.
Sec. 4100. Hidalgo County, New Mexico.
Sec. 4101. Otero County, New Mexico.
Sec. 4102. Valencia County, New Mexico.
Sec. 4103. Glen Cove, New York.
Sec. 4104. Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New York.
Sec. 4105. Kill van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten Island, New York.
Sec. 4106. Mariners Marsh and Arlington Marsh, Staten Island, New York.
Sec. 4107. New York, New York.
Sec. 4108. Norton Basin Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York.
Sec. 4109. Queens, New York.
Sec. 4110. Rockaway Beach Seawall, Rockaway, New York.
Sec. 4111. Roosevelt island, East River, New York, New York.
Sec. 4112. Charlotte, North Carolina.
Sec. 4113. Nantahala River, Swain, North Carolina.
Sec. 4114. Missouri River and tributaries, South and Central North 
Dakota, North Dakota.
Sec. 4115. Big Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 4116. Brandywine Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 4117. Carlisle Township, Lorain County, Ohio.
Sec. 4118. Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas River watershed, 
Summit County, Ohio.
Sec. 4119. Euclid Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 4120. Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio.
Sec. 4121. Lower Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio.
Sec. 4122. Ohio River, Ohio.
Sec. 4123. Shaker Lakes, Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
Sec. 4124. Stark County, Ohio.
Sec. 4125. Tinkers Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 4126. Upper Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
Sec. 4127. West Creek watershed, Ohio.
Sec. 4128. Yellow Creek and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio.
Sec. 4129. Ferry Creek Reservoir, Brookings, Oregon.
Sec. 4130. Oregon Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters, Oregon.
Sec. 4131. Port Orford, Oregon.
Sec. 4132. Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4133. Delaware River and tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4134. Elk Creek, Meadville, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4135. Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4136. Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4137. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction.
Sec. 4138. Guayama, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4139. Rincon, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4140. Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 4141. South Carolina.
Sec. 4142. James River, South Dakota.
Sec. 4143. Station Camp Creek, Gallatin, Tennessee.
Sec. 4144. Brazos River, Texas.
Sec. 4145. Hickory Creek, City of Balch Springs, Texas.
Sec. 4146. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (Barbours Cut), Texas.
Sec. 4147. Port of Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 4148. Simsboro Aquifer, City of Bastrop, Texas.
Sec. 4149. Navasota River watershed, Grimes County, Texas.
Sec. 4150. Rio Grande basin, Texas.
Sec. 4151. Roma, Texas.
Sec. 4152. Cottonwood Heights, Utah.
Sec. 4153. Emery Town, Utah.
Sec. 4154. Big Sandy River reallocation study, Virginia and West 
Virginia.
Sec. 4155. Buckroe and Grandview Beaches, Hampton, Virginia.
Sec. 4156. Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia.
Sec. 4157. Hampton, Virginia.
Sec. 4158. James River watershed, Virginia.
Sec. 4159. Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington.
Sec. 4160. Green River, Kent, Washington.
Sec. 4161. Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, Washington.
Sec. 4162. Lake Michigan shoreline, City of Cudahy, Wisconsin.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 5001. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection 
program.
Sec. 5002. Saint Lawrence Seaway.
Sec. 5003. Watershed management.
Sec. 5004. Comprehensive shoreline restoration.
Sec. 5005. Northeast Coastal Region ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5006. Anacostia watershed, District of Columbia and Maryland.
Sec. 5007. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 5008. Cambridge, Maryland.
Sec. 5009. Hart-Miller Island, Maryland.
Sec. 5010. Gallops Island, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sec. 5011. Sharkey County, Mississippi.
Sec. 5012. Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project, Charleston, South 
Carolina.
Sec. 5013. Sense of Congress on the promotion of General Michael J. 
Walsh to Major General, United States Army.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following projects 
for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are 
authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in 
accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in 
the respective reports designated in this section:
          (1) Mid-chesapeake bay island ecosystem restoration project, 
        chesapeake bay, dorchester county, maryland.--The project for 
        ecosystem restoration, Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem 
        Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County, 
        Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 24, 
        2009, at a total cost of $1,612,000,000, with an estimated 
        Federal cost of $1,045,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
        cost of $567,000,000.
          (2) Mississippi coastal improvements program, hancock, 
        harrison, and jackson counties, mississippi.--The project for 
        hurricane and storm damage reduction, Mississippi Coastal 
        Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, 
        Mississippi: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 
        15, 2009, at a total cost of $1,182,600,000, with an estimated 
        Federal cost of $746,750,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
        of $435,850,000.
          (3) West onslow beach and new river inlet (topsail beach), 
        pender county, north carolina.--The project for hurricane and 
        storm damage reduction, West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet 
        (Topsail Beach), Pender County, North Carolina: Report of the 
        Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 2009, at a total cost of 
        $32,131,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,708,000 and 
        an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,423,000, and at an 
        estimated total cost of $113,904,000 for periodic beach 
        nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
        estimated Federal cost of $56,952,000 and an estimated non-
        Federal cost of $56,952,000.

SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 
may carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
          (1) Del rosa channel, san bernadino, california.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Del Rosa Channel, San Bernadino, 
        California.
          (2) Laguna creek, vacaville, california.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Laguna Creek, Vacaville, California.
          (3) Ulatis creek, vacaville, california.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Ulatis Creek, Vacaville, California.
          (4) Sanderson gulch, denver, colorado.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Sanderson Gulch, Denver, Colorado.
          (5) Willow creek, creede, colorado.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Willow Creek, Creede, Colorado.
          (6) Big econ river, orange, florida.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Big Econ River, Orange, Florida.
          (7) Bay gall creek, warner robbins, georgia.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Bay Gall Creek, Warner Robbins, 
        Georgia.
          (8) Des plaines river, park ridge, illinois.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Des Plaines River, Park Ridge, 
        Illinois.
          (9) Kishwaukee river, dekalb, illinois.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Kishwaukee River, DeKalb, Illinois.
          (10) Navajo creek, palos heights, illinois.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Navajo Creek, Palos Heights, Illinois.
          (11) Stony creek, oak lawn, illinois.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois.
          (12) Vicinity of the 71st street ditch, justice, illinois.--
        Project for flood damage reduction, in the vicinity of the 71st 
        Street Ditch, Justice, Illinois.
          (13) West branch of mill creek, palos park, illinois.--
        Project for flood damage reduction, West Branch of Mill Creek, 
        Palos Park, Illinois.
          (14) Dry run creek, waterloo, iowa.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Dry Run Creek, Waterloo, Iowa.
          (15) Louisville, kentucky.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Louisville, Kentucky.
          (16) Baltimore city, maryland.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Baltimore City, Maryland, in the vicinity of Druid 
        Hill Park.
          (17) Pine tree brook, avon, massachusetts.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Pine Tree Brook, Avon, Massachusetts.
          (18) Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts.
          (19) Harding canal seawall, detroit, michigan.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Harding Canal Seawall, Detroit, 
        Michigan.
          (20) Big river, high ridge, missouri.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Big River, High Ridge, Missouri.
          (21) Saw mill river basin, greehburgh, new york.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Saw Mill River basin, Greehburgh, New 
        York.
          (22) Sparkill creek, orangetown, new york.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Sparkill Creek, Orangetown, New York.
          (23) Independence, ohio.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
        Independence, Ohio.
          (24) Valley view, ohio.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
        Valley View, Ohio.
          (25) Winyeh bay, georgetown, south carolina.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Winyeh Bay, Georgetown, South Carolina.
          (26) Del rio, val verde, texas.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Del Rio, Val Verde, Texas.
          (27) Craford bay seawall, portsmouth, virginia.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Craford Bay Seawall, Portsmouth, 
        Virginia.
          (28) Southern branch of the elizabeth river, portsmouth, 
        virginia.--Project for flood damage reduction, Southern Branch 
        of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth, Virginia.
          (29) Roxbury and westpoint townships, wisconsin.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Roxbury and Westpoint Townships, 
        Wisconsin.

SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 
may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 
1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
          (1) Naknek river, naknek, alaska.--Project for emergency 
        streambank protection, Naknek River, Naknek, Alaska.
          (2) Quinnipiac river, new haven, connecticut.--Project for 
        emergency streambank protection, Quinnipiac River, New Haven, 
        Connecticut.
          (3) Biscayne bay, north bay village, florida.--Project for 
        emergency streambank protection, Biscayne Bay, North Bay 
        Village, Florida.
          (4) Bronx river, new york, new york.--Project for emergency 
        streambank protection, Bronx River, New York, New York.
          (5) Ohio river, ironton, ohio.--Project for emergency 
        streambank protection, Ohio River, Ironton, Ohio.
          (6) Newport, rhode island.--Project for emergency streambank 
        protection, Newport, Rhode Island.
          (7) Tiverton, rhode island.--Project for emergency streambank 
        protection, Tiverton, Rhode Island.

SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 
may carry out the project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
          (1) Detroit river, wyandotte, michigan.--Project for 
        navigation, Detroit River, Wyandotte, Michigan.
          (2) Stouts creek, lacey township, new jersey.--Project for 
        navigation, Stouts Creek, Lacey Township, New Jersey.
          (3) Brown's river, nassau county, new york.--Project for 
        navigation, Brown's River, Nassau County, New York.
          (4) Detroit harbor, wisconsin.--Project for navigation, 
        Detroit Harbor, Wisconsin.

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

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is 
appropriate, may carry out the project under section 1135 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a):
          (1) Rheem creek, contra costa county, california.--Project 
        for improvement of the quality of the environment, Rheem Creek, 
        Contra Costa County, California.
          (2) Rodeo creek, contra costa county, california.--Project 
        for improvement of the quality of the environment, Rodeo Creek, 
        Contra Costa County, California.

SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND ESTUARY 
                    RESTORATION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is 
appropriate, may carry out the project under section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
          (1) Emeryville harbor, emeryville, california.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Emeryville Harbor, 
        Emeryville, California.
          (2) Los angeles river, cudahy, california.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Los Angeles River, 
        Cudahy, California.
          (3) Laguna salada, pacifica, california.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem and estuary restoration, Laguna Salada, Pacifica, 
        California.
          (4) Animas river, la plata, colorado.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem and estuary restoration, Animas River, La Plata, 
        Colorado.
          (5) North fork of the gunnison river, delta, colorado.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, North 
        Fork of the Gunnison River, Delta, Colorado.
          (6) Line and cane creeks, henry county, georgia.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Line and Cane 
        Creeks, Henry County, Georgia.
          (7) Bremme creek, dupage, illinois.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem and estuary restoration, Bremme Creek, DuPage, 
        Illinois.
          (8) Blackberry creek, kendall, illinois.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem and estuary restoration, Blackberry Creek, Kendall, 
        Illinois.
          (9) Gompers park, north branch chicago river, illinois.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Gompers 
        Park, North Branch Chicago River, Illinois.
          (10) Kankakee river, will county, illinois.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Kankakee River, Will 
        County, Illinois.
          (11) Prairie creek watershed, will county, illinois.--Project 
        for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Prairie Creek 
        Watershed, Will County, Illinois.
          (12) West branch of the dupage river, dupage, illinois.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, West 
        Branch of the DuPage River, DuPage, Illinois.
          (13) Long creek watershed, cumberland, maine.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Long Creek 
        Watershed, Cumberland, Maine.
          (14) Cabin branch watershed, prince george's county, 
        maryland.--Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary 
        restoration, Cabin Branch Watershed, Prince George's County, 
        Maryland.
          (15) Little paint branch stream, prince george's county, 
        maryland.--Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary 
        restoration, Little Paint Branch Stream, Prince George's 
        County, Maryland.
          (16) Lower beaverdam creek, prince george's county, 
        maryland.--Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary 
        restoration, Lower Beaverdam Creek, Prince George's County, 
        Maryland.
          (17) Northeast anacostia river, prince george's county, 
        maryland.--Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary 
        restoration, Northeast Anacostia River, Prince George's County, 
        Maryland.
          (18) Northwest anacostia river, prince george's county, 
        maryland.--Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary 
        restoration, Northwest Anacostia River, Prince George's County, 
        Maryland.
          (19) Assabet river, middlesex and worcester, massachusetts.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Assabet 
        River, Middlesex and Worcester, Massachusetts.
          (20) Lewis bay, yarmouth, massachusetts.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem and estuary restoration, Lewis Bay, Yarmouth, 
        Massachusetts.
          (21) Pig's eye lake, st. paul, minnesota.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Pig's Eye Lake, St. 
        Paul, Minnesota.
          (22) Barnegat bay, ocean county, new jersey.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Barnegat Bay, Ocean 
        County, New Jersey.
          (23) Branchport creek, oceanport borough, new jersey.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, 
        Branchport Creek, Oceanport Borough, New Jersey.
          (24) Hackensack river, hudson county, new jersey.--Project 
        for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Hackensack 
        River, Hudson County, New Jersey.
          (25) Lake topanemus, freehold, new jersey.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Lake Topanemus, 
        Freehold, New Jersey.
          (26) Las cruces dam, dona ana, new mexico.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Las Cruces Dam, Dona 
        Ana, New Mexico.
          (27) Pugsley creek, castle hill, new york.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Pugsley Creek, 
        Castle Hill, New York.
          (28) Olentangy river, franklin, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem and estuary restoration, Olentangy River, Franklin, 
        Ohio.
          (29) Scioto river, franklin, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem and estuary restoration, Scioto River, Franklin, 
        Ohio.
          (30) Woonasquatucket river, providence, rhode island.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, 
        Woonasquatucket River, Providence, Rhode Island.
          (31) Claytor lake, pulaski, virginia.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem and estuary restoration, Claytor Lake, Pulaski, 
        Virginia.

SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 
may carry out the project under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores 
of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
426g):
          (1) Deerfield beach, broward county, florida.--Project for 
        shoreline protection, Deerfield Beach, Broward County, Florida.
          (2) Barnegat, ocean county, new jersey.--Project for 
        shoreline protection, Barnegat, Ocean County, New Jersey.
          (3) Manhasset bay, port washington, new york.--Project for 
        shoreline protection, Manhasset Bay, Port Washington, New York.

SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project 
for aquatic nuisance plant control in the Republican River basin, 
Colorado, under section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 
U.S.C. 610).
  (b) Special Rule.--In carrying out the project under subsection (a), 
the Secretary may control and eradicate riverine nuisance plants.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 2001. CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.

  (a) Limitation; Savings Provision.--Section 221(a)(4)(E) of the Flood 
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(a)(4)(E)) is amended by 
striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
                          ``(ii) Limitation.--In any case in which a 
                        specific provision of law provides for a non-
                        Federal interest to receive credit toward the 
                        non-Federal share of the cost of a study for, 
                        or construction or operation and maintenance 
                        of, a water resources project, the Secretary 
                        shall apply--
                                  ``(I) the specific provision of law 
                                instead of this paragraph; or
                                  ``(II) at the request of the non-
                                Federal interest, the specific 
                                provision of law and such provisions of 
                                this paragraph as the non-Federal 
                                interest may request.
                          ``(iii) Savings provision.--Nothing in this 
                        subparagraph affects the applicability of 
                        subsection (a)(4)(C).''.
  (b) Water Resources Project Defined.--Section 221(b) of such Act (42 
U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs 
        (A) and (B), respectively;
          (2) by moving subparagraphs (A) and (B) (as so redesignated) 
        and the matter following such subparagraphs 2 ems to the right;
          (3) by striking ``(b)'' and all that follows through ``The 
        term'' and inserting the following:
  ``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
          ``(1) Non-federal interest.--The term''; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(2) Water resources project.--The term `water resources 
        project' includes projects studied, reviewed, designed, 
        constructed, operated and maintained, or otherwise subject to 
        Federal participation under the authority of the civil works 
        program of the Secretary of the Army for the purposes of 
        navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, 
        hurricane and storm damage reduction, water supply, recreation, 
        hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife conservation, water 
        quality, environmental infrastructure, resource protection and 
        development, and related purposes.''.
  (c) Technical Correction.--Section 221(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
1962d-5b(c)) is amended by striking ``enforcible'' and inserting 
``enforceable''.

SEC. 2002. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

  (a) Mitigation Plans as Part of Project Proposals.--Section 906(d)(1) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)(1)) 
is amended--
          (1) in the first sentence--
                  (A) by inserting ``for damages to ecological 
                resources, including terrestrial and aquatic resources, 
                and'' after ``mitigate'';
                  (B) by inserting ``ecological resources and'' after 
                ``impact on''; and
                  (C) by inserting ``without the implementation of 
                mitigation measures'' before the period; and
          (2) by inserting before the last sentence the following: ``If 
        the Secretary determines that mitigation to in-kind conditions 
        is not possible, the Secretary shall identify in the report the 
        basis for that determination.''.
  (b) Mitigation Requirements.--Section 906(d)(3)(A) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 2283(d)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting ``, at a minimum,'' after 
``complies with''.

SEC. 2003. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.

  Section 2006 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 
U.S.C. 2242) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(c) Applicability.--This section shall apply to project studies 
that include--
          ``(1) a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d) of 
        the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
        2215(d)); or
          ``(2) a detailed project report, as defined in such section 
        105(d) and carried out under section 107(a) of the River and 
        Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)).''.

SEC. 2004. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.

  Section 2008(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 
U.S.C. 2340(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``This 
subsection shall apply without regard to whether the original 
partnership agreement was entered into before, on, or after the date of 
enactment of this subsection.''.

SEC. 2005. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

  (a) Timing of Peer Review.--Section 2034(b) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2343(b)) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
          (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
          ``(3) Reasons for timing.--If the Chief of Engineers does not 
        initiate a peer review for a project study at a time described 
        in paragraph (2), the Chief shall make publicly available, 
        including on the Internet, for each of such times the reasons 
        for not conducting the review, and shall include the reasons in 
        the decision document for the project study.''.
  (b) Establishment of Panels.--Section 2034(c)(4) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 2343(c)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(4) Congressional and public notification.--Upon 
        identification of a project study for peer review under this 
        section, but prior to initiation of the review by the panel of 
        experts, the Chief of Engineers shall--
                  ``(A) notify the Committee on Environment and Public 
                Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation 
                and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives of 
                the review; and
                  ``(B) make publicly available, including on the 
                Internet, information on--
                          ``(i) the dates scheduled for beginning and 
                        ending the review;
                          ``(ii) the entity that has the contract for 
                        the review; and
                          ``(iii) the names and qualifications of the 
                        panel of experts.''.
  (c) Recommendations of Panel.--Section 2034(f) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
2343(f)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 
following:
          ``(2) Public availability and transmittal to congress.--After 
        receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 
        under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall make available 
        to the public, including on the Internet, and transmit to the 
        Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives--
                  ``(A) a copy of the report within 3 days of receiving 
                the report; and
                  ``(B) a copy of any written response of the Chief of 
                Engineers on recommendations contained in the report 
                within 3 days of the date of the response.
          ``(3) Inclusion in project study.--A report on a project 
        study from a panel of experts under this section and the 
        written response of the Chief of Engineers shall be included in 
        the final decision document for the project study.''.

SEC. 2006. SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.

  Section 2035 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 
U.S.C. 2344) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(i) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a safety assurance review conducted 
under this section.''.

SEC. 2007. FUNDING FOR HARBOR MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS.

  (a) Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Guarantee.--
          (1) In general.--The total budget resources made available 
        from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund each fiscal year 
        pursuant to section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986 (relating to expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance 
        Trust Fund) shall be equal to the level of receipts plus 
        interest credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for that 
        fiscal year. Such amounts may be used only for harbor 
        maintenance programs described in section 9505(c) of such Code.
          (2) Guarantee.--No funds may be appropriated for harbor 
        maintenance programs described in such section unless the 
        amount described in paragraph (1) has been provided.
  (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Total budget resources.--The term ``total budget 
        resources'' means the total amount made available by 
        appropriations Acts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for 
        a fiscal year for making expenditures under section 9505(c) of 
        the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
          (2) Level of receipts plus interest.--The term ``level of 
        receipts plus interest'' means the level of taxes and interest 
        credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under section 
        9505 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a fiscal year as 
        set forth in the President's budget baseline projection as 
        defined in section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
        Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) for that fiscal 
        year submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United 
        States Code.

SEC. 2008. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

  Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 
2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 119 Stat. 2169; 120 Stat. 318; 120 Stat. 
3197; 121 Stat. 1067; 123 Stat. 3478) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``permits under the 
        jurisdiction'' and inserting ``permits of such entities related 
        to projects for a public purpose under the jurisdiction'';
          (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e);
          (3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
  ``(b) Effect on Permitting.--
          ``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
        Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under 
        subsection (a) will not impact impartial decision-making with 
        respect to permits, either substantively or procedurally.
          ``(2) Impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out this 
        section, the Secretary shall ensure that the evaluation of 
        permits carried out using funds accepted under this section 
        shall--
                  ``(A) be reviewed by the District Commander of the 
                Corps District in which the project or activity is 
                located, unless the evaluation of the permit is 
                initially conducted by the District Commander whereby 
                the review shall be conducted by the Commander of the 
                Corps Division in which the District is located; and
                  ``(B) utilize the same procedures for decisions that 
                would otherwise be required for the evaluation of 
                permits for similar projects or activities not carried 
                out using funds authorized under this section.
  ``(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds accepted under 
this section shall be used to carry out a review of the evaluation of 
permits required under subsection (b)(2)(A).
  ``(d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall ensure that all final 
permit decisions carried out using funds authorized under this section 
are made available to the public, including on the Internet.''; and
          (4) in subsection (e) (as redesignated), by striking ``2010'' 
        and inserting ``2016''.

SEC. 2009. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.

  Section 1135(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2309a(d)) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting 
``$10,000,000''.

SEC. 2010. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND ESTUARY RESTORATION.

  Section 206(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 
U.S.C. 2330(d)) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting 
``$10,000,000''.

SEC. 2011. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION AND HYDROELECTRIC 
                    FACILITIES.

  (a) In General.--Section 314 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2321) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 314. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION AND HYDROELECTRIC 
                    FACILITIES.

  ``Activities currently performed by personnel under the direction of 
the Secretary in connection with the operation and maintenance of 
navigation or hydroelectric power generating facilities, including all 
personnel under the direction of the Secretary in connection with the 
operation and maintenance of navigational infrastructure such as 
floodgates, locks, and dams, at Corps of Engineers water resources 
projects, are considered to be inherently governmental functions and 
not commercial activities. This section does not prohibit contracting 
out major maintenance or other functions that are currently contracted 
out or studying services not directly connected with project 
maintenance and operations.''.
  (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents contained in section 
1(b) of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to section 
314 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 314. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric 
facilities.''.

SEC. 2012. REPEAL.

  Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (31 U.S.C. 
6505 note; 114 Stat. 2592), and the item relating to such section in 
the table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act, are repealed.

SEC. 2013. COST ESTIMATES FOR FEASIBILITY REPORTS.

  Section 905(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2282) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Cost estimates for feasibility reports.--In preparing a 
        feasibility report under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
        include in the report, and any budget documents (including 
        justification materials) submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) 
        of title 31, United States Code, an accounting of the total 
        cost of the recommended plan and an estimate of the Federal and 
        non-Federal participation in the plan based on the following 
        scenarios:
                  ``(A) The cost of the project based on optimal levels 
                of Federal funding for the recommended plan.
                  ``(B) The estimated cost of the project, based on a 
                50 percent increase in the period for implementation of 
                the recommended plan.
                  ``(C) The estimated cost of the project, based on a 
                100 percent increase in the period for implementation 
                of the recommended plan.''.

SEC. 2014. MITIGATION STATUS REPORT.

  Section 2036(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 
U.S.C. 2283a) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
          (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
          ``(3) Information included.--In reporting the status of all 
        projects included in the report, the Secretary shall--
                  ``(A) use a uniform methodology for determining the 
                status of all projects included in the report;
                  ``(B) use a methodology that describes both a 
                qualitative and quantitative status for all projects in 
                the report; and
                  ``(C) provide specific dates for and participants in 
                the consultations required under section 906(d)(4)(B) 
                of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
                U.S.C. 2283(d)(4)(B)).''.

SEC. 2015. USE OF AMERICAN IRON, STEEL, AND MANUFACTURED GOODS.

  (a) Restriction.--None of the funds authorized or otherwise made 
available by this Act may be used for a project unless all of the iron, 
steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the 
United States.
  (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case or 
category of cases in which the Secretary finds that--
          (1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the 
        public interest;
          (2) iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not 
        produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably 
        available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or
          (3) inclusion of iron, steel, and manufactured goods produced 
        in the United States will increase the cost of the overall 
        project by more than 25 percent.
  (c) Public Notice of Waiver Request.--If the Secretary receives a 
request to waive the application of subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
publish in a timely manner that request online and in the Federal 
Register.
  (d) Justification for Waiver.--If the Secretary determines that it is 
necessary to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a finding 
under subsection (b), the Secretary shall publish online and in the 
Federal Register a detailed written justification as to why the 
provision is being waived.
  (e) Application.--This section shall be applied in a manner 
consistent with United States obligations under international 
agreements.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

SEC. 3001. DOUGLAS HARBOR, JUNEAU, ALASKA.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for navigation, Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska, being carried 
out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
577), shall be $7,000,000.

SEC. 3002. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, ARIZONA.

  The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona, 
authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 303 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), section 302 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2600), and section 
3008 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1107), 
is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
at a total cost of $55,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$50,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,400,000.

SEC. 3003. RIO DE FLAG, ARIZONA.

  The project for flood damage reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, 
Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576) and modified by section 3007 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1107), is 
further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at 
a total cost of $77,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$50,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $27,000,000.

SEC. 3004. TRES RIOS, ARIZONA.

  The project for ecosystem restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, authorized 
by section 101(b)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct 
the project at a total cost of $230,000,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $149,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $80,500,000.

SEC. 3005. RUSSIAN RIVER PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for flood control, water conservation, and related 
purposes in the Russian River basin, California, authorized by section 
204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 177), and the project 
for Russian River, Dry Creek, California, authorized by section 203 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1192), are modified as follows:
          (1) The Secretary shall review the biological opinion on the 
        water supply, flood control, and channel maintenance operations 
        conducted by the Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County Water 
        Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control 
        District, as transmitted by the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration on September 24, 2008.
          (2) If the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, 
        the Secretary is authorized to construct the project at a total 
        cost of $92,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
        $59,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $32,200,000.

SEC. 3006. SOUTH SACRAMENTO COUNTY STREAMS, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for flood control, environmental restoration, and 
recreation, South Sacramento County streams, California, authorized by 
section 101(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 275), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
project at a total cost of $104,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
of $67,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,800,000.

SEC. 3007. CHATFIELD RESERVOIR, COLORADO.

  Section 116 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2009 (123 Stat. 608) is amended by striking 
``Colorado Department of Natural Resources is authorized'' and 
inserting ``Colorado Department of Natural Resources, or its assignee, 
is authorized''.

SEC. 3008. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEW 
                    MEXICO, AND TEXAS.

  Section 5056(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 
Stat. 1213) is amended by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``2015''.

SEC. 3009. POTOMAC RIVER, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

  The project for flood control, Potomac River, Washington, District of 
Columbia, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 
688; 49 Stat. 1574) and modified by section 301(a)(4) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3707) and section 309 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301), is further 
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a 
Federal cost of $8,100,000, in accordance with the post authorization 
change report dated June 29, 1998.

SEC. 3010. KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION, FLORIDA.

  The project for ecosystem restoration, Kissimmee River Restoration, 
Florida, authorized by section 101(8) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $852,000,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $426,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $426,000,000.

SEC. 3011. PONCE DE LEON INLET, FLORIDA.

  The project for navigation and related purposes, Ponce de Leon Inlet, 
Volusia County, Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(8) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
$15,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,500,000 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $6,500,000.

SEC. 3012. SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION, GEORGIA.

  The project for navigation, Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia, 
authorized by section 101(b)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
construct the project at a total cost of $675,000,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $405,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $270,000,000.

SEC. 3013. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS PROJECT, 
                    ILLINOIS.

  (a) Authorization.--Section 3061(b)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1121) is amended--
          (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
                  ``(A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I in its 
                current location or at an alternative location, as 
                determined appropriate by the Secretary;'';
          (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``June 14, 2005'' and 
        inserting ``November 21, 2003, as amended on July 14, 2005'';
          (3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as 
        subparagraphs (D), (E) and (F), respectively;
          (4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
                  ``(C) acquire real estate interests necessary for the 
                construction, operation, and maintenance of Barrier I 
                and Barrier II;'';
          (5) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E) (as 
        redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection);
          (6) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) (as 
        redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection) and inserting 
        ``; and''; and
          (7) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(G) construct additional barriers or other fish 
                deterrents at other locations in the vicinity of the 
                Chicago Area Waterway System, if determined appropriate 
                by the Secretary.''.
  (b) Use of Credit.--Section 3061(b)(2) of such Act (121 Stat. 1121) 
is amended by striking ``paragraph (1)(E)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
(1)(F)''.
  (c) Feasibility Study.--Section 3061(d) of such Act (121 Stat. 1121) 
is amended by adding the end the following: ``The study shall include a 
fully developed analysis of an alternative for hydrologic separation 
between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins. The 
hydrologic separation alternative shall include identification of 
measures to prevent the transfer of aquatic nuisance species between 
the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins through surface 
water.''.

SEC. 3014. LOWER OHIO RIVER, ILLINOIS AND KENTUCKY.

  The project for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks and Dams 52 and 
53, Illinois and Kentucky, authorized by section 3(a)(6) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4013), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
$1,991,000,000.

SEC. 3015. WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, MADISON COUNTY, 
                    ILLINOIS.

  The project for flood damage reduction, Wood River Levee System 
Reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois, authorized by section 
1001(20) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 
1053), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project 
at a total cost of $120,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$78,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $42,000,000.

SEC. 3016. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.

  The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, Indiana, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4115) and modified by section 127 of the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), is further modified to 
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
$275,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $206,000,000, and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $69,000,000.

SEC. 3017. RHODES POINT JETTY, SMITH ISLAND, MARYLAND.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for navigation, Rhodes Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland, 
being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 
(33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $7,000,000.

SEC. 3018. MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.

  Section 522 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
2656) is amended by striking ``draft evaluation report of the New 
England District Engineer entitled `Phase I Muddy River Master Plan', 
dated June 2000'' and inserting ``Final Decision Document and 
Environmental Assessment Report of the New England District Engineer 
entitled `Muddy River Flood Control and Ecosystem Restoration, Boston 
and Brookline, Massachusetts', dated September 2003, at a total cost of 
$79,200,000''.

SEC. 3019. ADA, MINNESOTA.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, 
being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
(33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $10,600,000.

SEC. 3020. MONTEVIDEO, MINNESOTA.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for flood damage reduction, Montevideo, Minnesota, being 
carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
U.S.C. 701s), shall be $10,000,000.

SEC. 3021. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.

  Section 3101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 
Stat. 1133) is amended by striking ``$7,000,000'' and inserting 
``$14,000,000''.

SEC. 3022. BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.

  The project for flood control, Blue River basin, Kansas City, 
Missouri, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to construct the project at a 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. 3023. LOWER ASSUNPINK CREEK, TRENTON, NEW JERSEY.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Lower 
Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey, being carried out under section 
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), 
shall be $10,000,000.

SEC. 3024. OCEAN GATE, OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for emergency streambank protection, Ocean Gate, Ocean County, 
New Jersey, being carried out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), shall be $4,500,000.

SEC. 3025. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

  Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3781), as amended by section 3122 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1139), is further amended by striking 
``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$27,000,000''.

SEC. 3026. SPRING CREEK, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 3027. HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OHIO.

  Section 1001(37)(B)(iii) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007 (121 Stat. 1055) is amended by striking ``$1,270,000'' and 
inserting ``$12,000,000''.

SEC. 3028. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER AND TILLAMOOK BAY ECOSYSTEM 
                    RESTORATION, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

  Section 536(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 
Stat. 2662) is amended by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting 
``$45,000,000''.

SEC. 3029. CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.

  The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi 
Ship Channel, Texas, authorized by section 1001(40) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1056) is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
$447,604,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $183,827,000 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $263,777,000.

SEC. 3030. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS.

  The project for flood control, Trinity River and tributaries, Texas, 
authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on 
rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'', approved March 2, 1945, 
and modified by section 5141 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007 (121 Stat. 1253), is further modified to authorize the Secretary 
to construct the project at a total cost of $882,000,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $573,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $308,700,000.

SEC. 3031. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TEXAS.

  The project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-
Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), is 
modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the boundaries of the 
Galveston channel approximately 2600 feet beyond Pier 38, if the 
Secretary determines that the extension is feasible.

SEC. 3032. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATION.

  The following project may be carried out by the Secretary and no 
construction on any such project may be initiated until the Secretary 
determines that the project is feasible: The Vincennes, Indiana portion 
of the project for flood control, Wabash River basin, Illinois and 
Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 
Stat. 649) and deauthorized by section 1002 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4209).

SEC. 3033. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) In General.--The following projects are not authorized after the 
date of enactment of this Act:
          (1) Potomac river, washington channel, district of 
        columbia.--The portion of the project for navigation, Potomac 
        River, Washington Channel, District of Columbia, authorized by 
        the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831; 49 Stat. 1028), 
        beginning at Washington Harbor Channel Geometry Centerline of 
        the 400-foot-wide main navigational ship channel, Centerline 
        Station No. 103+73.12, coordinates North 441,948.20, East 
        1,303,969.30, as stated and depicted on the Condition Survey 
        Anacostia, Virginia, Washington and Magazine Bar Shoal 
        Channels, Washington, D.C., Sheet 6 of 6, prepared by the 
        United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore district, July 
        2007; thence departing the aforementioned centerline traveling 
        the following courses and distances: N. 40 degrees 10 minutes 
        45 seconds E., 200.00 feet to a point, on the outline of said 
        400-foot-wide channel thence binding on said outline the 
        following three courses and distances: S. 49 degrees 49 minutes 
        15 seconds E., 1,507.86 feet to a point, thence; S. 29 degrees 
        44 minutes 42 seconds E., 2,083.17 feet to a point, thence; S. 
        11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds E., 363.00 feet to a point, 
        thence; S. 78 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds W., 200.00 feet to 
        a point binding on the centerline of the 400-foot-wide main 
        navigational channel at computed Centerline Station No. 
        65+54.31, coordinates North 438,923.9874, East 1,306,159.9738, 
        thence; continuing with the aforementioned centerline the 
        following courses and distances: N. 11 degrees 27 minutes 04 
        seconds W., 330.80 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 
        68+85.10, thence; N. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds W., 
        2,015.56 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 89+00.67, 
        thence; N. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds W., 1,472.26 feet 
        to the point of beginning.
          (2) Chicago harbor, illinois.--The portion of the project for 
        navigation, Chicago Harbor, authorized by the River and Harbor 
        Acts of March 3, 1899 and March 2, 1919, beginning at the 
        southwest corner of Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater 
        Chicago sluice gate that abuts the north wall of the Chicago 
        River Lock thence running north for approximately 290 feet, 
        thence running east approximately 1,000 feet, thence running 
        south approximately 290 feet, thence running west approximately 
        1,000 feet to the point of origin.
          (3) Ipswich river, massachusetts.--The portion of the project 
        for navigation, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, adopted by the 
        Rivers and Harbors Act of August 5, 1886, consisting of a 4-
        foot channel located at the entrance to the inner harbor at 
        Ipswich Harbor, lying northwesterly of a line commencing at: 
        N3,074,938.09, E837,154.87, thence running easterly 
        approximately 60 feet to a point with coordinates 
        N3,074,972.62, E837,203.93.
          (4) Menemsha creek, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
        project for navigation, Menemsha Creek, Massachusetts, 
        authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1945, consisting of 
        the following areas--
                  (A) beginning at a point, N129,112.54, E1,566,926.30, 
                running north 52 degrees 12 minutes 55.9 seconds east 
                208.68 feet to a point N129,240.39, E1,567,091.22, 
                running south 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds east 
                170.0 feet to a point N129,203.51, E1,567,257.17, 
                running south 37 degrees 25 minutes 45.4 seconds east 
                101.04 feet to a point N129,123.28, E1,567,318.58, 
                running north 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds west 
                223.32 feet to a point N129,171.72, E 1,567,100.58, 
                running south 52 degrees 12 minutes 55.9 seconds west 
                174.00 feet to a point N129,065.12, E1,566,963.06, 
                running north 37 degrees 47 minutes 04.1 seconds west 
                60.00 feet to the point of origin, and
                  (B) beginning at a point, N128,895.78, E1,566,940.39, 
                thence running north 52 degrees 31 minutes 25.8 seconds 
                east 135.91 feet to a point N128,978.47, E1,567,048.25, 
                thence running south 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds 
                east 80.63 feet to a point N128,960.98, E1,567,126.96, 
                thence running south 37 degrees 25 minutes 32.9 seconds 
                east 70.67 feet to a point N128,904.86, E1,567,169.91, 
                thence running north 73 degrees 59 minutes 15.6 seconds 
                west 139.90 feet to a point N128,943.45, E 
                1,567,035.44, thence running south 52 degrees 31 
                minutes 25.8 seconds west 103.96 feet to a point 
                N128,880.20, E1,566,952.94, thence running north 38 
                degrees 50 minutes 43.8 seconds west 20.01 feet to the 
                point of origin.
          (5) Block island harbor of refuge, rhode island.--The portion 
        of the project for navigation, Block Island Harbor of Refuge, 
        Rhode Island, adopted by the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 11, 
        1870, consisting of the cut-stone breakwater lining the west 
        side of the Inner Basin, beginning at a point, N32,179.55, 
        E312,625.53, thence running northerly approximately 76.59 feet 
        to a point with coordinates N326,655.92, E312,631.32, thence 
        running northerly approximately 206.81 feet to a point with 
        coordinates N32,858.33, E312,673.74, thence running easterly 
        approximately 109.00 feet to a point with coordinates 
        N32,832.15, E312,779.54.
  (b) Additional Deauthorizations.--The following projects are not 
authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, except with respect 
to any portion of such a project that has been completed before such 
date or is under construction on such date:
          (1) The project for flood protection and related purposes, 
        Cache River basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section 
        204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172).
          (2) The Lower White River, Big Creek and tributaries, 
        Arkansas, element of the project for flood control and 
        improvement of the Lower Mississippi River, authorized by 
        section 1 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534), and 
        modified by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 
        Stat. 1076).
          (3) The project for navigation, Noyo River and Harbor, 
        California, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
        Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176) and modified by section 146 of the 
        Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2931).
          (4) The project for navigation, Red River Waterway, 
        Shreveport, Louisiana, to Dangerfield, Texas, authorized by the 
        River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).
          (5) The project for flood control, Hocking River at Logan, 
        Ohio, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4122).
          (6) The Shipyard River Upper Channel and Upper Turning basin 
        elements of the project for navigation, Charleston Harbor, 
        South Carolina, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4096).
          (7) The environmental enhancements element of the project for 
        flood control, Nonconnah Creek and Johns Creek, Tennessee and 
        Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124).
          (8) The recreation element of the project for flood control, 
        Nonconnah Creek and Johns Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi, 
        authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 
        Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124).
          (9) The project for flood protection, Santa Barbara County 
        Coastal Streams and tributaries in the area of Goleta, 
        California, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act 
        of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826) and modified by section 102(b) of the 
        Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4804).
          (10) The project for flood control, Harris Fork Creek, 
        Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921).
          (11) The project for flood control, Buena Vista, Virginia, 
        authorized by section 101(a)(24) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610) and modified by 
        section 118(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
        (106 Stat. 4824).

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

SEC. 4001. HOLLIS, ALASKA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements, Hollis, Alaska.

SEC. 4002. BULLARD WASH, GOODYEAR, ARIZONA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Bullard Wash, 
Goodyear, Arizona.

SEC. 4003. LOWER SANTA CRUZ RIVER, CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and related water 
resource purposes for the Lower Santa Cruz River study area, Casa 
Grande, Arizona.

SEC. 4004. MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental 
restoration, recreation, and related water resource purposes, including 
nonstructural solutions, for Maricopa County, Arizona.

SEC. 4005. OUACHITA RIVER, OUACHITA, UNION, AND ASHLEY COUNTIES, 
                    ARKANSAS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigation, flood damage reduction, 
environmental restoration, bank stabilization, and related water 
resource purposes for the Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley 
Counties, Arkansas.

SEC. 4006. OIL TROUGH, ARKANSAS.

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

SEC. 4007. RANDOLPH COUNTY, ARKANSAS.

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

SEC. 4008. BERKELEY MARINA, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements for Berkeley 
Marina, Berkeley, California.

SEC. 4009. CHELSEA WETLANDS, HERCULES, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and flood damage 
reduction for Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California.

SEC. 4010. COLORADO LAGOON AND ALAMITOS BAY, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration between Colorado 
Lagoon and Alamitos Bay, Long Beach, California.

SEC. 4011. LODI LAKE, LODI, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and streambank 
stabilization for Lodi Lake, Lodi, California.

SEC. 4012. OAKLAND-INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigation improvements for the Oakland-
Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Oakland, California.

SEC. 4013. NOYO HARBOR DISTRICT, NOYO, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredge 
material disposal for Noyo Harbor District, Noyo, California.

SEC. 4014. PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements, flood damage 
reduction, shoreline protection, environmental restoration, and related 
water resource purposes for Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, 
California.

SEC. 4015. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredge 
material disposal for Redwood City Navigation Channel, California.

SEC. 4016. RIALTO CHANNEL AND CACTUS CHANNEL, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for 
Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto, California.

SEC. 4017. SACRAMENTO REGIONAL SANITATION DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO, 
                    CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction in the Sacramento 
Regional Sanitation District, Sacramento, California.

SEC. 4018. SAN PABLO BAY, HERCULES, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements for San Pablo Bay, 
Hercules, California.

SEC. 4019. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for navigation channel deepening for Stockton, 
California.

SEC. 4020. TIJUANA RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, SAN DIEGO, 
                    CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, environmental 
restoration, water supply, water quality, recreation, and other water-
related issues including the impacts of water flows from Mexico for the 
Tijuana River basin, San Diego, California.

SEC. 4021. TIJUANA RIVER WETLANDS RESTORATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, 
                    CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and wetland 
restoration along the Tijuana River, San Diego County, California.

SEC. 4022. VENTURA RIVER, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4023. WILLOWBROOK, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration for 
Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, California.

SEC. 4024. FOUNTAIN CREEK WATERSHED, PUEBLO, COLORADO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a sediment impact analysis study to 
determine the sediment transport parameters for Fountain Creek 
watershed, Pueblo, Colorado.

SEC. 4025. RALSTON CREEK, ARVADA, COLORADO.

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

SEC. 4026. HOLLY POND AND NOROTAN RIVER, STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for environmental restoration for Holly Pond and 
Norotan River, Stamford, Connecticut.

SEC. 4027. HOUSATONIC RIVER, NEW MILFORD, CONNECTICUT.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along the Housatonic 
River, New Milford, Connecticut.

SEC. 4028. LONG ISLAND SOUND AND MILL RIVER, STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements for Long Island 
Sound and Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut.

SEC. 4029. MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT.

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

SEC. 4030. SOUTH COVE, OLD SAYBROOK, CONNECTICUT.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for the South 
Cove, Old Saybrook, Connecticut.

SEC. 4031. WEST RIVER, NEW HAVEN HARBOR, WEST HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for shoreline protection, storm damage 
reduction, including a review of bulkhead condition for West River, New 
Haven Harbor, West Haven, Connecticut.

SEC. 4032. CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for enhanced public access and recreational 
opportunities on Army Corps of Engineers projects in the Chesapeake 
Bay, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

SEC. 4033. WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, including green 
technologies, for Washington, District of Columbia.

SEC. 4034. LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental 
protection, Lake County, Florida.

SEC. 4035. MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA.

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

SEC. 4036. MIAMI, FLORIDA.

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

SEC. 4037. OAKLAND PARK, FLORIDA.

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

SEC. 4038. RIVIERA BEACH, FLORIDA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and 
shoreline protection for Riviera Beach, Florida.

SEC. 4039. SOUTH DAYTONA, FLORIDA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental 
restoration, and related water resource purposes for South Daytona, 
Florida.

SEC. 4040. TAMPA, FLORIDA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental 
restoration for Tampa, Florida.

SEC. 4041. PEAVINE CREEK, DECATUR, GEORGIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental 
restoration, recreation, and related water resource purposes for 
Peavine Creek, Decatur, Georgia.

SEC. 4042. RICHLAND CREEK, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Richland 
Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia.

SEC. 4043. STUDY FOR WATER SUPPLY, GEORGIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of municipal and 
industrial water supply for the State of Georgia.
  (b) Study Components.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall 
review--
          (1) currently available water supplies;
          (2) expected future demand for potable water;
          (3) current water uses, including per capita use rates;
          (4) opportunities to augment existing supplies, including 
        through increased conservation and improved efficiencies;
          (5) the effect of water supply policies and uses on the 
        environment;
          (6) the effect of water supply policies on the economy;
          (7) the effect of water supply policies and uses on upstream 
        and downstream uses;
          (8) the impacts of water supply policies on threatened and 
        endangered species; and
          (9) the impacts of consumptive uses on instream uses.
  (c) Timing.--The Secretary shall complete the study not later than 2 
years following the first obligation of funds for the study.

SEC. 4044. SUWANNEE CREEK, LAWRENCEVILLE, GEORGIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Suwannee 
Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia.

SEC. 4045. AGAT AND MERIZO, GUAM.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline 
protection for Agat and Merizo, Guam.

SEC. 4046. WAIAKEA STREAM AND PALAI STREAM, HILO, HAWAII.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along 
Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii.
  (b) Prior Work.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall 
utilize, to the extent practicable, any work undertaken in the 
formulation of a project for flood damage reduction, Waiakea Stream and 
Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii, initiated under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

SEC. 4047. WAIALUA-KAIAKA WATERSHED, OAHU, HAWAII.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental 
restoration, water supply, and related water resource purposes for the 
Waialua-Kaiaka watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.

SEC. 4048. ALBANY PARK, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Albany Park, 
Chicago, Illinois.

SEC. 4049. CARPENTER CREEK, CARPENTERSVILLE, ILLINOIS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank 
stabilization for Carpenter Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois.

SEC. 4050. DES PLAINES RIVER, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank 
stabilization for the Des Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois.

SEC. 4051. FERSON-OTTER CREEK DAM, ST. CHARLES, ILLINOIS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank 
stabilization for Ferson-Otter Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois.

SEC. 4052. MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, ILLINOIS AND MISSOURI.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
developing a program for environmental restoration for the Middle 
Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri.

SEC. 4053. NORTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and related water 
resource purposes for the North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, 
Illinois.

SEC. 4054. RIVER PARK AND RONAN PARK, NORTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO 
                    RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and shoreline 
protection for River Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago 
River, Chicago, Illinois.

SEC. 4055. THILLENS PARK, NORTH BRANCH OF THE CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, 
                    ILLINOIS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental 
restoration, and shoreline protection for Thillens Park, North Branch 
of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.

SEC. 4056. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, ILLINOIS.

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

SEC. 4057. BOWMAN CREEK, SOUTH BEND, INDIANA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Bowman Creek, 
South Bend, Indiana.

SEC. 4058. LAKE MICHIGAN WATERSHED, INDIANA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, and related water 
resource purposes for the Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana.

SEC. 4059. BURLINGTON, IOWA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and stream bank 
stabilization for Burlington, Iowa.

SEC. 4060. BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL, LOUISIANA AND 
                    MISSISSIPPI.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
utilizing the Federal hopper dredge Wheeler, as part of routine testing 
and use under its ready reserve status pursuant to section 3 of the Act 
of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622(c); 110 Stat. 3705), for support of 
projects for the beneficial reuse of material dredged from federally 
maintained waterways at the following locations:
          (1) Projects in connection with the comprehensive plan for 
        protecting, preserving, and restoring the coastal Louisiana 
        ecosystem, pursuant to section 7002 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1270).
          (2) Projects in connection with the project for hurricane and 
        storm damage reduction, Mississippi Coastal Improvements 
        Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi, 
        authorized by section 1001 of this Act.

SEC. 4061. JESUIT BEND, PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LOUISIANA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for 
Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
  (b) Use of Local Report.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary 
may include elements of the report prepared by the non-Federal interest 
for Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, if the Secretary 
determines that such elements are feasible.

SEC. 4062. LABRANCHE WETLANDS, ST. CHARLES AND ST. JOHN COUNTIES, 
                    LOUISIANA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of modifying the project for flood control and improvement 
of the Lower Mississippi River, Bonnet Carre Spillway, authorized by 
section 1 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534), to add 
environmental restoration as a project purpose.
  (b) Review.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall review 
operational and structural changes to the project to restore the 
LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John Counties, Louisiana.

SEC. 4063. RUTH CANAL FRESHWATER DIVERSION, VERMILION, LOUISIANA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for the 
improvement of Bayou Teche and the Vermilion River, Louisiana, 
authorized by section 3 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 
Stat. 641), and the project for flood protection in the Teche-Vermilion 
basins, Louisiana, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420), to determine the feasibility of carrying out a 
project for environmental restoration and water supply, Ruth Canal, 
Vermilion, Louisiana.

SEC. 4064. ANACOSTIA RIVER WATERSHED, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Anacostia 
River watershed, Prince George's County, Maryland.

SEC. 4065. CHESAPEAKE BAY SHORELINE STUDY, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND 
                    VIRGINIA.

  In carrying out the study for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Maryland, 
Pennsylvania, and Virginia, being carried out under the Committee 
Resolution of the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
United States Senate, adopted May 23, 2001, the Secretary shall 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects on federally owned 
property for shoreline protection, environmental restoration, and 
improvement of water quality of the Chesapeake Bay.

SEC. 4066. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, BALTIMORE HARBOR, MARYLAND.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredged 
material disposal at Cox Creek Dredged Material Disposal Site for 
Baltimore Harbor, Maryland.

SEC. 4067. MID-CHESAPEAKE BAY ISLAND RECREATION AND PUBLIC ACCESS, 
                    MARYLAND.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
modifying the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project for enhanced public 
access and recreational opportunities on Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island, 
Maryland, as authorized by section 1001 of this Act.

SEC. 4068. CAPISIC BROOK, PORTLAND, MAINE.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for environmental restoration, flood damage 
reduction, and stormwater management for Capisic Brook, Portland, 
Maine.

SEC. 4069. FISHING AND GOOSEBERRY ISLANDS, KITTERY, MAINE.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for storm damage reduction and shoreline 
protection for Fishing and Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine.

SEC. 4070. SOUTHERN MAINE/NEW HAMPSHIRE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL 
                    STUDY, MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements and dredge 
material disposal for southern Maine and New Hampshire.

SEC. 4071. ASSABET, CHARLES, AND SUDBURY WATERSHEDS, MIDDLESEX AND 
                    ESSEX COUNTIES, MASSACHUSETTS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource 
purposes, Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds, Middlesex and Essex 
Counties, Massachusetts.

SEC. 4072. HOOSIC RIVER WATERSHED, NORTH ADAMS, MASSACHUSETTS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage 
reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource 
purposes for Hoosic River watershed, North Adams, Massachusetts.

SEC. 4073. MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED, MASSACHUSETTS.

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

SEC. 4074. QUEQUECHAN RIVER, FALL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration, recreation, and 
related water resource purposes for the Quequechan River, Fall River, 
Massachusetts.

SEC. 4075. CLINTON RIVER, CLINTON TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, environmental 
restoration, and related water resource purposes for Clinton River, 
Clinton Township, Michigan.

SEC. 4076. HAMILTON DAM, FLINT, MICHIGAN.

  In carrying out the review under the authority of section 216 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830) of the project for flood 
control, Flint River, Michigan, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311), the Secretary shall include a 
review of Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan.

SEC. 4077. UPPER PENINSULA FLOOD RECOVERY, MICHIGAN.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and related water 
resource purposes for Upper Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan.

SEC. 4078. AMORY, MISSISSIPPI.

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

SEC. 4079. COASTAL MISSISSIPPI ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, MISSISSIPPI.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for environmental restoration and related water 
resource purposes for coastal Mississippi.

SEC. 4080. FULTON, MISSISSIPPI.

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

SEC. 4081. GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements, Gulfport, 
Mississippi.

SEC. 4082. LUCEDALE, MISSISSIPPI.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, water supply, 
recreation, and related water resource purposes for Lucedale, 
Mississippi.

SEC. 4083. MAGBY CREEK AND VERNON BRANCH, LOWNDES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Magby Creek and 
Vernon Branch in Lowndes County, Mississippi.

SEC. 4084. BLUE RIVER BASIN, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
modifying the project for flood protection and other purposes in the 
Blue River basin, vicinity of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, 
authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (80 Stat. 
1409), to include additional flood damage reduction, environmental 
restoration, and recreational measures, Kansas City, Missouri.

SEC. 4085. LITTLE BLUE RIVER, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for stream bank stabilization for Little Blue 
River, Jackson County, Missouri.

SEC. 4086. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, especially examining 
the floodwall pump station, for St. Louis, Missouri.

SEC. 4087. LAS VEGAS WASH, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Las Vegas Wash, 
Las Vegas, Nevada.

SEC. 4088. NEW HAMPSHIRE.

  The Secretary, in collaboration with all relevant Federal and non-
Federal entities, including State and local governments, nonprofit 
organizations, academia, and the general public, shall conduct a 
comprehensive watershed study of all watersheds in New Hampshire for 
water quality, habitat degradation, environmental restoration, water 
supply, and potential impacts of climate change for New Hampshire.

SEC. 4089. PISCATAQUA RIVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to evaluate sediment and 
nutrient pollution in the Piscataqua River system to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and 
water quality for the Piscataqua River, New Hampshire.

SEC. 4090. BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED, OCEAN AND MONMOUTH COUNTIES, NEW 
                    JERSEY.

   The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage 
reduction, shoreline protection, environmental restoration, and related 
water resource purposes for Barnegat Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth 
Counties, New Jersey.

SEC. 4091. BEVERLY, NEW JERSEY.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for shoreline protection, including 
consideration of a gabion wall, for Beverly, New Jersey.

SEC. 4092. BOROUGH OF PINE BEACH, NEW JERSEY.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for shoreline protection, including 
consideration of floating wave attenuators off shore, for Borough of 
Pine Beach, New Jersey.

SEC. 4093. HADDON TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Haddon Township, 
New Jersey.

SEC. 4094. RAHWAY RIVER WATERSHED, NEW JERSEY.

   The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage 
reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource 
purposes for Rahway River watershed, New Jersey.

SEC. 4095. THIRD RIVER, BELLEVILLE, BLOOMFIELD, AND NUTLEY, NEW JERSEY.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction for Third River, 
Belleville, Bloomfield, and Nutley, New Jersey.

SEC. 4096. PASSAIC RIVER CHANNEL, NUTLEY, NEW JERSEY.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigation, environmental restoration, and 
recreation for the Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey.

SEC. 4097. TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN, NEW JERSEY.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline 
protection for the Township of Ocean, New Jersey.

SEC. 4098. PREAKNESS BROOK, WAYNE, NEW JERSEY.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Preakness Brook, 
Wayne, New Jersey.

SEC. 4099. DONA ANA, NEW MEXICO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
adding hydropower to existing irrigation canals for Dona Ana, New 
Mexico.

SEC. 4100. HIDALGO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.

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

SEC. 4101. OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.

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

SEC. 4102. VALENCIA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO.

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

SEC. 4103. GLEN COVE, NEW YORK.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and environmental 
restoration for Glen Cove, New York.

SEC. 4104. HAWTREE BASIN, HAMILTON BEACH, NEW YORK.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for storm damage reduction, shoreline protection, 
and environmental restoration for Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New 
York.

SEC. 4105. KILL VAN KULL, PORT RICHMOND, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for storm damage reduction, shoreline protection, 
and environmental restoration for Kill Van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten 
Island, New York.

SEC. 4106. MARINERS MARSH AND ARLINGTON MARSH, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Mariners Marsh 
and Arlington Marsh, Staten Island, New York.

SEC. 4107. NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

  (a) Inventory and Assessment of Bulkheads and Seawalls.--
          (1) Inventory.--The Secretary shall conduct an inventory of 
        bulkheads and seawalls constructed around the city of New York, 
        New York, including the boroughs of Brooklyn, the Bronx, 
        Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens.
          (2) Assessment of rehabilitation needs.--In conducting the 
        inventory required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
        assess the condition of the bulkheads and seawalls and the need 
        for rehabilitation or modification of the bulkheads and 
        seawalls.
  (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a 
report containing the inventory and assessment required by subsection 
(a).
  (c) Interim Actions.--If the Secretary determines that a bulkhead or 
seawall referred to in subsection (a) presents an imminent and 
substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary may carry out measures 
to prevent or mitigate that risk.
  (d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of assistance 
provided under this section shall be 65 percent.
  (e) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall 
coordinate with the appropriate officials of the city of New York and 
the State of New York.
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000, to remain available 
until expended.

SEC. 4108. NORTON BASIN INLET, FAR ROCKAWAY, NEW YORK.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for storm damage reduction and shoreline 
protection for Norton Basin Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York.

SEC. 4109. QUEENS, NEW YORK.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline 
protection, Queens, New York, between 116th and 156th Streets.

SEC. 4110. ROCKAWAY BEACH SEAWALL, ROCKAWAY, NEW YORK.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for storm damage reduction and shoreline 
protection for Rockaway Beach Seawall, Rockaway, New York.

SEC. 4111. ROOSEVELT ISLAND, EAST RIVER, NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and shoreline 
protection for Roosevelt Island, East River, New York, New York.

SEC. 4112. CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for environmental restoration in support of the 
Surface Water Improvement and Management Initiative for Charlotte, 
North Carolina.

SEC. 4113. NANTAHALA RIVER, SWAIN, NORTH CAROLINA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration, recreation, and 
related water resource purposes, Nantahala River, Swain, North 
Carolina.

SEC. 4114. MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, SOUTH AND CENTRAL NORTH 
                    DAKOTA, NORTH DAKOTA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Missouri 
River and tributaries, South and Central North Dakota, North Dakota.

SEC. 4115. BIG CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and 
environmental restoration for Big Creek watershed, Ohio.

SEC. 4116. BRANDYWINE CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage 
reduction and environmental restoration for Brandywine Creek watershed, 
Ohio.

SEC. 4117. CARLISLE TOWNSHIP, LORAIN COUNTY, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Carlisle 
Township, Lorain County, Ohio.

SEC. 4118. CUYAHOGA RIVER WATERSHED AND TUSCARAWAS RIVER WATERSHED, 
                    SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO.

  The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
reduction, environmental restoration, and related water resource 
purposes, Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas River watershed, 
Summit County, Ohio.

SEC. 4119. EUCLID CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and 
environmental restoration for Euclid Creek watershed, Ohio.

SEC. 4120. HEALY CREEK, BRUNSWICK, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration, streambank 
erosion, and sedimentation control for Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio.

SEC. 4121. LOWER MAUMEE RIVER, TOLEDO, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Lower Maumee 
River, Toledo, Ohio.

SEC. 4122. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.

  Section 4070 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 
Stat. 1183) is amended by striking ``Ohio River'' and inserting ``Ohio 
River and tributaries''.

SEC. 4123. SHAKER LAKES, SHAKER HEIGHTS AND CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Shaker Lakes, 
Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

SEC. 4124. STARK COUNTY, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental 
restoration for Stark County, Ohio.

SEC. 4125. TINKERS CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and 
environmental restoration for Tinkers Creek watershed, Ohio.

SEC. 4126. UPPER TUSCARAWAS RIVER, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Upper 
Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

SEC. 4127. WEST CREEK WATERSHED, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a watershed study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and 
environmental restoration for West Creek watershed, Ohio.

SEC. 4128. YELLOW CREEK AND SHORT CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental 
restoration for Yellow Creek and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio.

SEC. 4129. FERRY CREEK RESERVOIR, BROOKINGS, OREGON.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Ferry Creek 
Reservoir, Brookings, Oregon.

SEC. 4130. OREGON NAVIGATION JETTIES AND BREAKWATERS, OREGON.

  (a) Inventory and Assessment of Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters.--
          (1) Inventory.--The Secretary shall conduct an inventory of 
        federally constructed navigation jetties and breakwaters in the 
        State of Oregon.
          (2) Assessment of rehabilitation needs.--In conducting the 
        inventory required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
        assess the condition of the navigation jetties and breakwaters 
        and the need for rehabilitation or modification of the jetties 
        and breakwaters.
  (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a 
report containing the inventory and assessment required by subsection 
(a).
  (c) Interim Actions.--If the Secretary determines that a jetty or 
breakwater referred to in subsection (a) presents an imminent and 
substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary may carry out measures 
to prevent or mitigate that risk.
  (d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of assistance 
provided under this section shall be 65 percent.
  (e) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall 
coordinate with the appropriate officials of the State of Oregon.
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000, to remain available 
until expended.

SEC. 4131. PORT ORFORD, OREGON.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigational improvements with examination 
of navigational breakwaters for Port Orford, Oregon.

SEC. 4132. BUHL LAKE, SHARON, PENNSYLVANIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a multipurpose project for flood damage 
reduction and environmental restoration for Buhl Lake, Sharon, 
Pennsylvania.
  (b) Prior Work.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall 
utilize, to the extent practicable, any work undertaken in the 
formulation of a project for environmental restoration, Buhl Lake, 
Sharon, Pennsylvania, initiated under section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679).

SEC. 4133. DELAWARE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage 
reduction and environmental restoration for the Delaware River and 
tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 4134. ELK CREEK, MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and water quality 
for Elk Creek, Meadville, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 4135. MILL CREEK, ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, focusing on the Mill 
Creek Drift Catcher, for Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 4136. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

SEC. 4137. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

  Section 4077 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 
Stat. 1184) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Mahoning River basin, 
        Pennsylvania'' and inserting ``Mahoning River basin, 
        Pennsylvania, the Monongahela River basin, Pennsylvania''; and
          (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Shaler Township'' and 
        inserting ``Shaler Township, Hampton Township, Harmar 
        Township''.

SEC. 4138. GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction for 
Guayama, Puerto Rico.

SEC. 4139. RINCON, PUERTO RICO.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and shoreline 
protection for the Municipality of Rincon, Puerto Rico.

SEC. 4140. PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for flood damage reduction and related water 
resource purposes for the rivers in Providence, Rhode Island.

SEC. 4141. SOUTH CAROLINA.

  The Secretary, in collaboration with all relevant Federal and non-
Federal entities, including State and local governments, nonprofit 
organizations, academia, and the general public, shall conduct 
comprehensive watershed studies of all 8 watersheds in South Carolina 
for water quality, habitat condition, environmental restoration, water 
supply, and the potential impacts of climate change for South Carolina.

SEC. 4142. JAMES RIVER, SOUTH DAKOTA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
modifying the project for channel restoration and improvements on the 
James River, South Dakota, authorized by section 401(b) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) to add ecosystem 
restoration and watershed improvements as project purposes.

SEC. 4143. STATION CAMP CREEK, GALLATIN, TENNESSEE.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration for Station Camp 
Creek, Gallatin, Tennessee.

SEC. 4144. BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study assessing the long-term impacts 
of water use, withdrawal, recirculation, and downstream impacts on the 
Whitney Lake Reservoir, Texas.

SEC. 4145. HICKORY CREEK, CITY OF BALCH SPRINGS, TEXAS.

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

SEC. 4146. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS (BARBOURS CUT), TEXAS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of modifying 
the Barbours Cut element of the project for navigation and 
environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, 
Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), to a depth of 45 feet.

SEC. 4147. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

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

SEC. 4148. SIMSBORO AQUIFER, CITY OF BASTROP, TEXAS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
utilizing the Simsboro Aquifer for water supply for the City of 
Bastrop, Texas.

SEC. 4149. NAVASOTA RIVER WATERSHED, GRIMES COUNTY, TEXAS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental 
restoration, and related water resource purposes for the Navasota River 
watershed, Grimes County, Texas.

SEC. 4150. RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, environmental 
restoration, and water supply for the Rio Grande basin, Texas.

SEC. 4151. ROMA, TEXAS.

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

SEC. 4152. COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UTAH.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for streambank stabilization for Cottonwood 
Heights, Utah.

SEC. 4153. EMERY TOWN, UTAH.

   The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of existing water 
supply resources for Emery Town, Utah.

SEC. 4154. BIG SANDY RIVER REALLOCATION STUDY, VIRGINIA AND WEST 
                    VIRGINIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to 
determine the feasibility of reallocating water storage at 6 reservoirs 
to optimize benefits for multiple-purpose use in the Big Sandy River 
watershed, Virginia and West Virginia.

SEC. 4155. BUCKROE AND GRANDVIEW BEACHES, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for shoreline protection for Buckroe and 
Grandview Beaches, Hampton, Virginia.

SEC. 4156. FORT MONROE, HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
including offshore breakwaters, for Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia.

SEC. 4157. HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out projects for hurricane and storm damage reduction and 
shoreline protection for Hampton, Virginia.

SEC. 4158. JAMES RIVER WATERSHED, VIRGINIA.

   The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to 
determine the water resource needs, including current and projected 
future needs, for the James River watershed, Virginia.

SEC. 4159. ELLIOTT BAY, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for navigation channel deepening for Elliott 
Bay, Seattle, Washington.

SEC. 4160. GREEN RIVER, KENT, WASHINGTON.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for the Green River, 
Kent, Washington.

SEC. 4161. VANCOUVER LAKE WATERSHED, VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON.

   The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive watershed study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for environmental 
quality and environmental restoration, especially related to salmon and 
steelhead recovery issues, for the Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, 
Washington.

SEC. 4162. LAKE MICHIGAN SHORELINE, CITY OF CUDAHY, WISCONSIN.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for shoreline protection for the Lake Michigan 
shoreline, City of Cudahy, Wisconsin.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 5001. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION 
                    PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 1202) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``pilot'';
          (2) in subsection (d)(2) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(C) In-kind services.--In accordance with section 
                221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
                5b), the non-Federal interest may provide any portion 
                of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project 
                carried out under this section in the form of in-kind 
                services and materials.
                  ``(D) Treatment of certain funds.--In accordance with 
                section 2007 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
                2007 (33 U.S.C. 2222), funds provided by a Federal 
                department or agency other than the Corps of Engineers 
                for a project carried out under this section shall be 
                credited towards the non-Federal share of the cost of 
                project.'';
          (3) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) 
        as subsections (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j), respectively;
          (4) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
  ``(e) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal funds 
may be allotted under this section for a project at any single 
locality.'';
          (5) by striking subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph 
        (3) of this subsection) and inserting the following:
  ``(g) Projects.--The Secretary may carry out projects under this 
section in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with the goal of carrying out 
projects in each of the States of Delaware, New York, Maryland, 
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and the District of 
Columbia.''; and
          (6) in subsection (j) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of 
        this subsection) by striking ``$40,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$50,000,000''.
  (b) Restoration of Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop at Federal 
        expense and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to 
        prioritize projects within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 
        including projects in the Anacostia, Elizabeth, James, 
        Patapsco, Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock, Susquehanna, and 
        York River basins.
          (2) Requirements.--The Secretary shall ensure that the plan 
        developed under paragraph (1)--
                  (A) focuses on integrating existing and potential 
                future work of the Corps of Engineers;
                  (B) is developed in consultation with the Chesapeake 
                Bay Program maintained under section 117 of the Federal 
                Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1267)); and
                  (C) encompasses all actions of the Corps of Engineers 
                that are necessary to assist in the implementation of 
                the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, as defined 
                in section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
                Act (33 U.S.C. 1267)).
          (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to 
        be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000.

SEC. 5002. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY.

  Section 5015(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 
Stat. 1196) is amended by striking ``$134,650,000'' and inserting 
``$185,638,028''.

SEC. 5003. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

  Section 5002(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 
Stat. 1190) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (9) by striking ``Esopus, Plattekill, and 
        Rondout Creeks'' and inserting ``Esopus, Rondout, and Wallkill 
        watersheds''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(19) San Gabriel River watershed, California.
          ``(20) South Platte River watershed, Colorado.
          ``(21) Loxahatchee River watershed, Jupiter, Florida.
          ``(22) Hudson River watershed, Orange, Dutchess, and Ulster 
        Counties, New York.
          ``(23) Muskingum River basin, Ohio.''.

SEC. 5004. COMPREHENSIVE SHORELINE RESTORATION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem 
restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and emergency 
streambank protection components of projects at the locations described 
in subsection (b) if the Secretary determines that such component is 
feasible.
  (b) Project Locations.--The locations referred to in subsection (a) 
are as follows:
          (1) Miller Knox Shoreline, Richmond, California.
          (2) Mississippi River, Davenport, Iowa.
          (3) Lake Michigan (in the vicinity of the former USX Site), 
        Chicago, Illinois.
          (4) Pond and Mill Creek watershed, Louisville, Kentucky.
          (5) Massachusetts Bay (in the vicinity of Georges Island), 
        Boston, Massachusetts.
          (6) Mississippi River (in the vicinity of the lower St. 
        Anthony Falls), Minneapolis, Minnesota.
          (7) Brush Creek, Kansas City, Missouri.
          (8) Mississippi River, Kimmswick, Missouri.
          (9) Delaware River, Trenton, New Jersey.
          (10) East River, New York, New York.
          (11) Upper New York Bay, Staten Island, New York.
          (12) Abbott's Creek, Lexington, North Carolina.
          (13) Ohio River, Belpre, Ohio.
          (14) Schuylkill River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
          (15) Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela Rivers, Pittsburgh, 
        Pennsylvania.
          (16) Ohio River, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
          (17) Fields Point, Narragansett Bay, Providence, Rhode 
        Island.
          (18) Congaree River, Columbia, South Carolina.
          (19) Wolf Creek Harbor, Mississippi River, Tennessee.
          (20) Ruston Way Seawall, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, 
        Washington.
          (21) Lower Yahara River, McFarland, Wisconsin.
  (c) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds may 
be allotted under this section for a project at any single locality.
  (d) Recreation.--The Secretary may include recreational components as 
part of a project carried out under this section.
  (e) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
this section $25,000,000 for each fiscal years 2011 through 2016.

SEC. 5005. NORTHEAST COASTAL REGION ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct 
projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration within the coastal waters of 
the Northeastern United States from Virginia to Maine, including 
associated bays, estuaries, and critical riverine areas.
  (b) General Coastal Management Plan.--
          (1) Assessment.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the heads 
        of other appropriate Federal agencies, the Governors of the 
        coastal States from Virginia to Maine, nonprofit organizations, 
        and other interested parties, shall assess the needs regarding, 
        and opportunities for, aquatic ecosystem restoration within the 
        coastal waters of the Northeastern United States.
          (2) Plan.--The Secretary shall develop a general coastal 
        management plan based on the assessment carried out under 
        paragraph (1), maximizing the use of existing plans and 
        investigations. The Secretary shall include in the plan the 
        following:
                  (A) An inventory and evaluation of coastal habitats.
                  (B) Identification of aquatic resources in need of 
                improvement.
                  (C) Identification and prioritization of potential 
                aquatic habitat restoration projects.
                  (D) Identification of geographical and ecological 
                areas of concern, including--
                          (i) finfish habitats;
                          (ii) diadromous fisheries migratory 
                        corridors;
                          (iii) shellfish habitats;
                          (iv) submerged aquatic vegetation;
                          (v) wetlands; and
                          (vi) beach dune complexes and other similar 
                        habitats.
  (c) Eligible Projects.--The Secretary may carry out an aquatic 
ecosystem restoration project under this section if the project--
          (1) is consistent with the management plan developed under 
        subsection (b); and
          (2) provides for--
                  (A) the restoration of degraded aquatic habitat 
                (including coastal, saltmarsh, benthic, and riverine 
                habitat);
                  (B) the restoration of geographical or ecological 
                areas of concern, including the restoration of natural 
                river and stream characteristics;
                  (C) the improvement of water quality; or
                  (D) other projects or activities determined to be 
                appropriate by the Secretary.
  (d) Cost Sharing.--
          (1) Management plan.--The management plan developed under 
        subsection (b) shall be completed at Federal expense.
          (2) Restoration projects.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
        of a project carried out under this section shall be 35 
        percent.
  (e) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal funds may 
be allocated under this section for an eligible project.
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 
and each fiscal year thereafter, including funds for the completion of 
the management plan.

SEC. 5006. ANACOSTIA WATERSHED, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem 
restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, emergency streambank 
protection, and aquatic plant control components of the Anacostia River 
Watershed Restoration Plan, developed pursuant to section 5060 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1215), if the 
Secretary determines that such component is feasible.
  (b) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall 
consult with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership.
  (c) Federal Lands.--In carrying out a project component under 
subsection (a), the Secretary shall waive any cost share to be provided 
by non-Federal interests for any portion of the project component that 
benefits federally owned property.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000. Such sums shall 
remain available until expended.

SEC. 5007. EGMONT KEY, FLORIDA.

  The Secretary shall accept funds from the Director of the United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service to carry out those portions of the 
project for shoreline stabilization, Egmont Key, Florida, carried out 
under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal 
participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned 
property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), that benefit 
federally owned property.

SEC. 5008. CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND.

  The Secretary is authorized to carry out projects for environmental 
protection and restoration at the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, 
Cambridge, Maryland. In carrying out such projects, the Secretary shall 
accept funds from the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service.

SEC. 5009. HART-MILLER ISLAND, MARYLAND.

   After the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary may not 
consider the use or expansion of Hart-Miller Island, Maryland, in any 
dredged material management plan.

SEC. 5010. GALLOPS ISLAND, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.

  The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for the 
environmental remediation of Gallops Island, Boston, Massachusetts. In 
carrying out such project, the Secretary shall accept funds from the 
Director of the National Park Service.

SEC. 5011. SHARKEY COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

  Funding for the operation and maintenance of the multiagency wildlife 
and environmental interpretative and education center, authorized by 
section 145(f) of Division H of Public Law 108-199 (118 Stat. 443), 
shall be provided by the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 5012. CHARLESTON HARBOR POST 45 PROJECT, CHARLESTON, SOUTH 
                    CAROLINA.

  The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reconnaissance and 
feasibility studies for the Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project, 
Charleston, South Carolina, and if the Secretary determines that the 
project is feasible, shall proceed directly to project preconstruction, 
engineering, and design.

SEC. 5013. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROMOTION OF GENERAL MICHAEL J. 
                    WALSH TO MAJOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY.

  (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
          (1) Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh has had a 
        distinguished 30-year career with the United States Army Corps 
        of Engineers, including as--
                  (A) District Commander of the San Francisco District, 
                San Francisco, California, from 1994 to 1996;
                  (B) District Commander of the Sacramento District, 
                Sacramento, California, from 1998 to 2001;
                  (C) Executive Director of Civil Works, Corps 
                Headquarters, Washington, District of Columbia, from 
                2001 to 2003;
                  (D) Chief of Staff, Corps Headquarters, Washington, 
                District of Columbia, from 2003 to 2004;
                  (E) Commander of the South Atlantic Division, 
                Atlanta, Georgia, from 2004 to 2006;
                  (F) Commander for the Corps Gulf Region Division, 
                Baghdad, Iraq, from 2006 to 2008; and
                  (G) Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division, 
                Vicksburg, Mississippi, from 2008 to 2010.
          (2) General Walsh has held a wide variety of Army command and 
        staff assignments, including--
                  (A) project management officer for Engineer Branch, 
                Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe (SHAPE);
                  (B) Environmental Task Force Leader, Fort Stewart, 
                Georgia;
                  (C) Executive Officer, 92nd Engineer Battalion, Fort 
                Stewart, Georgia, and Saudi Arabia;
                  (D) Project Engineer and Assistant Area Engineer, 
                Baltimore District;
                  (E) Construction Officer, 18th Engineer Brigade, 
                Darmstadt, Germany; and
                  (F) Commander, Company B, 94th Engineer Battalion, 
                Darmstadt, Germany.
          (3) General Walsh has received several awards of the United 
        States Army, including 2 Bronze Stars, 4 Legions of Merit, and 
        numerous lesser awards.
          (4) On October 27, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services of 
        the Senate unanimously approved the nomination of General Walsh 
        to the rank of Major General, United States Army.
          (5) General Walsh's nomination was unreasonably delayed on 
        the floor of the Senate for 7 months.
          (6) On May 19, 2010, the nomination of General Walsh to Major 
        General of the United States Army was confirmed by the United 
        States Senate by unanimous consent.
          (7) On June 2, 2010, Brigadier General Walsh was formally 
        promoted to the rank of Major General.
  (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the Sense of Congress that General 
Walsh should be congratulated for his promotion to the rank of Major 
General, United States Army, and should be commended for his duty and 
dedication to the United States, to the United States Army, and to the 
Corps of Engineers.

                         Purpose of Legislation

    H.R. 5892, as amended, the ``Water Resources Development 
Act of 2010'', includes project authorizations, modifications, 
deauthorizations, studies, and policy initiatives for the Army 
Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Civil Works Program--the nation's 
largest water resources program. The bill authorizes and 
directs the Corps to carry out various studies, projects, and 
programmatic authorities relating to navigation, flood damage 
reduction, shoreline protection, water supply, recreation, 
environmental restoration and protection, and other water-
related activities.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    H.R. 5892, as amended, the ``Water Resources Development 
Act of 2010'', demonstrates the continuing commitment of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (Committee) to 
the nation's water resources infrastructure, and a regular 
authorization schedule for the Civil Works Program of the 
Corps, which was instituted by the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) (WRDA 1986). The Committee believes 
that passage of H.R. 5892 is vitally important to fulfill 
commitments to non-Federal sponsors, to be responsive to new 
and emerging water resources needs, and to fine-tune the Corps' 
missions and responsibilities.

                    Value of the Civil Works Program

    The Committee recognizes the value of the Corps and the 
Corps' Civil Works missions to the nation and the critical 
importance of maintaining these vital contributions. Over the 
years, the Corps has maintained flexibility in its Civil Works 
missions to meet the changing needs of the nation. The Corps 
has an impressive history of helping to meet the nation's water 
resources needs. For more than 175 years, the Corps has 
supported navigation needs by maintaining and improving the 
nation's waterways in 41 States. The Corps also maintains 300 
commercial harbors, through which more than two billion tons of 
cargo pass each year. With more than 13 million American jobs 
dependent on our import and export trade, these ports are vital 
to our economic security. The ports and waterways maintained by 
the Corps also play a vital role in our nation's defense.
    The Corps' flood damage reduction efforts range from small, 
local protection projects (levees or non-structural flood 
damage reduction measures) to major dams. Today, most Corps 
constructed flood damage reduction projects are owned by 
sponsoring cities, towns, and agricultural districts, but the 
Corps continues to maintain and operate 383 dams and reservoirs 
for flood damage reduction. These projects have prevented an 
estimated $706 billion in flood damage, most of that within the 
last 25 years. The cumulative cost for building and maintaining 
these projects is $119 billion. Thus, for every dollar 
invested, more than six dollars in potential damages have been 
saved.
    Legislation passed in 1990 established environmental 
protection as one of the primary missions of the Corps--
together with navigation and flood damage reduction. Since that 
time, ecosystem restoration projects have grown increasingly 
popular throughout the country, resulting in an annual 
investment of more than $1.3 billion in Federal support for 
environmental activities. The Corps has provided leadership on 
large-scale ecosystem restoration projects, including restoring 
the hydrologic regime for the Everglades in Florida, 
undertaking an ecosystem restoration project for the Upper 
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway system, and addressing 
wetland losses of catastrophic proportion in Coastal Louisiana. 
In addition, the Corps carries out environmental and natural 
resource management programs at its projects, manages thousands 
of square miles of forest and wildlife habitat, monitors water 
quality at its dams, and undertakes restoration activities to 
address ongoing adverse environmental impacts of existing 
Corps' projects and facilities.
    As the Corps' Civil Works program continues to evolve in 
its service to the nation, the Committee notes with interest 
the efforts of the Chief of Engineers to encourage a more 
holistic approach to water resources management. Over the past 
few years, the Committee has heard from numerous witnesses how 
an increased emphasis on watershed and basin-wide planning, 
conducted in conjunction with state and local governments and 
non-public stakeholders, can lead to a more sustainable use of 
water resources that integrates water development, protection, 
and restoration, as well as attempts to balance the often 
competing uses of water, both for human development activities 
and the natural system. This need for enhanced coordination on 
a watershed basis has taken on urgency with increased evidence 
of altered weather patterns and shifting hydrologic cycles in 
the nation, and the growing unpredictability of reliable 
sources of potable water. The Corps can play a particularly 
important role in facilitating planning when the issues 
affecting water resources concern multiple jurisdictions. The 
Corps is encouraged to pursue efforts to improve coordination 
and cooperation in the development of recommended approaches to 
address water resources problems and formulating plans to solve 
these problems.

                  Corps of Engineers Planning Process

    In recent years, there has been some controversy regarding 
the planning process used by the Corps to develop water 
resources projects. The Civil Works program is a $4.5 billion 
to $5.5 billion annual program. Of that amount, between $135 
million and $145 million is invested annually to study water 
resources needs, to determine if there is a Federal interest in 
meeting those needs, and to develop recommendations for water 
resources projects that are technically sound, environmentally 
acceptable, and economically justified.
    For certain small projects, Congress has authorized the 
Corps to participate in the development and construction under 
continuing authorities. The Federal participation in these 
small projects is limited to between $500,000 and $7 million 
per project, depending on the project type. For all other 
projects, the Corps must first receive authorization from 
Congress to proceed with a study, either by statute or, if the 
Corps previously has conducted a study in the same geographic 
area, in the form of a Committee resolution.
    Once authorized, a water resources study begins with a 
reconnaissance study. The reconnaissance phase is a relatively 
quick examination of the problem (generally costing no more 
than $100,000 and lasting 12 months) during which the Corps 
determines if there is a Federal interest and a potentially 
feasible project. If the Corps determines, based on the 
reconnaissance study, that there is a potentially feasible 
water resources project, it may seek the participation of a 
non-Federal interest willing to share in 50 percent of the 
study costs (for studies for projects other than inland 
navigation) and proceed to a full feasibility study. When 
funded at capability, a feasibility study generally takes about 
two years.
    To ensure that a project is technically sound, 
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified, the 
Corps must conduct a study in accordance with applicable laws, 
regulations, and policy, including the 1983 Principles and 
Guidelines issued by the Water Resources Council, Engineering 
Regulations issued by the Corps (and most recently 
comprehensively revised in 1999), and other guidance 
periodically issued by the Chief of Engineers. Studies for 
projects with an estimated total cost of more than $45 million 
are also subject to a peer review by an independent panel of 
experts, pursuant to section 2034 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114) (WRDA 2007). Studies 
that result in a report of the Chief of Engineers recommending 
a water resources project are submitted to Congress for 
authorization. Other than projects constructed under continuing 
authorities, the Corps may not proceed to construction of a 
project until it is specifically authorized by Congress. This 
authorization is traditionally undertaken in a water resources 
development bill.

                       Summary of the Legislation


Section 1. Short title; table of contents

    This section provides that the short title of this Act is 
the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2010'' and includes a 
table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations

    This section authorizes projects for water resources 
development and conservation to be carried out substantially in 
accordance with the reports of the Chief of Engineers cited for 
each project, except as otherwise provided.
            I. Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, 
                    Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County, Maryland
    Location of the Study Area: The study area is located in 
the Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County, Maryland.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Land 
subsidence, rising sea level, and wave action are causing 
valuable remote island habitats to be lost throughout the 
Chesapeake Bay. Approximately 10,500 acres of island habitat 
has been lost in the middle-eastern portion of Chesapeake Bay 
in the last 150 years, and should present island loss rates 
continue in the future, it is estimated that remote island 
habitats will disappear from the Mid-Chesapeake Bay region 
within 20 years. The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project would 
restore thousands of acres of lost wetland and upland island 
habitats. This restoration would provide critical regional 
habitats supporting resident fisheries and wildlife, while 
providing an environmentally sound method for the disposal of 
dredged material from the Chesapeake Bay approach channels to 
the Port of Baltimore.
    The Dredged Material Management Plan and Tiered 
Environmental Impact Statement (DMMP EIS) (USACE, 2005) 
concluded that there is insufficient capacity for dredged 
material placement to meet Federal and State of Maryland 
dredging needs in the next 20 years and that there is potential 
for overloading and subsequent loss of capacity at existing 
placement sites if new placement sites are not constructed. 
More than 130 miles of dredged shipping channels serve the Port 
of Baltimore, and annual channel maintenance and improvement 
projects require that approximately four to five million cubic 
yards of sediment be dredged from these Federal and State 
channels. In addition, the State of Maryland's Dredged Material 
Management Act of 2001 phases out open water placement of 
dredged material within Maryland waters by 2010, which will 
result in insufficient placement capacity to meet the annual 
need for maintenance dredging activity.
    The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project provides multiple 
opportunities to address the problems by:
           Restoring habitat that is used by many 
        species of migratory birds, as well as fish and other 
        wildlife species, as resting, nesting, foraging, and 
        production areas;
           Reducing the rate of island erosion, thereby 
        promoting conditions conducive to restoration and 
        protection of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) by 
        decreasing localized sediment inputs and improving 
        local water clarity;
           Providing spawning, nursery, and sheltered 
        habitat for juvenile and forage fish species, 
        epibenthic invertebrates, and benthic infauna by 
        restoring wetland and shallow water areas;
           Protecting shallow water areas from storm 
        and wave forces, providing suitable habitat for the 
        sustainable growth of SAV;
           Providing essential nursery and foraging 
        habitat for numerous fish in restored wetland and 
        shallow water habitats;
           Protecting shoreline for avian, reptilian, 
        and mammalian species resting, nesting, and foraging 
        areas;
           Meeting the dredged material capacity 
        shortfall as projected in the DMMP of 30 to 70 million 
        cubic yards of dredged material over the 20-year 
        planning period; and
           Providing shoreline protection and reducing 
        impacts from storms by reducing wave heights.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Plan formulation was 
conducted to determine a recommended plan that would provide 
ecosystem benefits within site-specific constraints and meet 
the long-term dredged material placement need of 3.2 million 
cubic yards per year (mcy/y). The plan formulation process had 
two primary phases, both of which included various ranking, 
scoring, and screening processes. First, potential locations 
suitable for a large island restoration project and meeting the 
project objectives of habitat restoration and dredged material 
capacity were identified. Second, feasible alternative 
alignments were then developed to meet the engineering and 
environmental design constraints for the potential site (or 
sites). Plan formulation activities were all done in 
collaboration with the Bay Enhancement Working Group (BEWG) as 
detailed below.
    Management Measures and Alternative Plans.
     Island Site Selection. The process to select a 
site for large island restoration had two components: (1) 
identify all potential locations for a large island restoration 
project within the study area (105 total existing or former 
island sites); and (2) rank these sites using engineering and 
environmental criteria and public input. Eight feasible island 
sites were carried forward for additional consideration using 
the ranking process developed by the BEWG as part of the State 
of Maryland's DMMP process. The process evaluated sites on the 
basis of 52 parameters to determine each site's environmental 
suitability as a dredged material placement site. Based on the 
results of the process, James and Barren Islands were selected 
for detailed alternatives development.
     Selection of Alternatives. Four Barren Island 
alignments, five James Island alignments, and 20 additional 
alignments that were combinations at both James Island and 
Barren Island were used to develop an array of 145 feasible 
alignment alternatives for evaluation. The screening of the 
alternatives involved multiple analysis tools, including: (1) 
geographic information system (GIS) analysis; (2) engineering 
and design suitability screening; (3) ecosystem benefits 
determination using Island Community Units (ICU) analysis; (4) 
cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis; and (5) input 
from resource agencies. Once feasible alignment alternatives 
were identified, these alignments were optimized to maximize 
ecosystem benefits and placement efficiency by evaluating 
multiple wetland and upland proportions in conjunction with 
variable upland dike heights, minimization of the project 
footprint, and resource agency input.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan 
consists of constructing James Island Alignment 5, with a 
habitat proportion of 45 percent upland to 55 percent wetland 
and an upland dike height of 20 feet Mean Lower Low Water 
(MLLW), in combination with protection and restoration at 
Barren Island through the construction of Alignment E. The 
recommended plan will restore 2,144 acres of remote island 
habitat (2,072 acres at James Island and 72 acres at Barren 
Island), while also protecting approximately 1,325 acres of 
potential SAV habitat adjacent to Barren Island and providing 
approximately 90 to 95 mcy, or approximately 28 to 30 years, of 
dredged material placement capacity.
    The recommended plan was chosen to minimize the project 
footprint and reduce overall project costs without 
significantly reducing the capacity or ecosystem benefits or 
dredged material capacity of the project. The recommended plan 
had fewer ICUs than the James Alignment 5/Barren Alignment D 
alternative mainly because the recommended plan has a smaller 
wetland habitat proportion in the James Island portion of the 
project, and a smaller Barren Island component of the project. 
The James Alignment 5/Barren Alignment E was also significantly 
less expensive.
    In response to an External Peer Review comment, an 
additional analysis was performed with the ICUs to incorporate 
the loss of open water habitat from island restoration. The re-
analysis did not result in a change in the selection of the 
recommended plan. Over its project life, the recommended plan 
provides a total of 22,045 net ICUs. The only alternative that 
provides a greater number of total net ICUs is the James 
Alignment 5/Barren protection alternative at 40 percent/60 
percent upland/wetland ratio which provides a net of 23,275 
ICU, but does so at a higher cost.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended project 
alternative fulfills the primary objective of the study 
authority; which is ecosystem restoration while simultaneously 
meeting a complimentary objective that is the beneficial use of 
dredged material. The plan will restore 2,144 acres of remote 
island habitat and protect 1,325 acres of SAV through the 
placement of 90 to 95 mcy over 28 to 30 years. Benefits for 
ecosystem restoration projects are not expressed in monetary 
terms, which preclude a benefit-to-cost ratio. The ecosystem 
restoration outputs for this study are expressed in ICUs based 
on complex metrics used to measure their significance. A 
rigorous Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analysis was 
conducted to support the selection of the recommended 
alternative. This alternative produces substantial ecological 
benefits, which exceed the Federal Standard, in the most 
efficient and cost effective manner. The recommended 
alternative will produce 813 total annual ICUs. The James 
Island component will produce 459 annual ICUs at an annual cost 
of $69,682 per ICU and the Barren Island component will produce 
354 annual ICUs at an annual cost of $4,702 per ICU. Federal 
interest is established for the recommended alternative based 
on the production of maximum ecosystem restoration benefits in 
the most cost effective manner. Total project cost is 
$1,612,000,000 of which $1,045,000,000 is at Federal expense 
and $567,000,000 is the responsibility of the non-Federal 
sponsor.
    Views of States and Non-Federal Interests: The State of 
Maryland responded via letter dated 19 September 2008, with no 
comment during the 30-day State and Federal agency review 
period, which began on 20 September 2008, and expired on 20 
October 2008.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Department 
of Interior (DOI) responded via letter dated 20 October 2008, 
with no comment. The Department of Commerce (DOC) responded via 
email dated 27 October 2008, with no comment. The Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) responded via letter dated 7 October 
2008, with no comment.
    Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact 
Statement/Report was completed for the project. The Notice of 
Availability for the Final SEIS/EIR was published in the 
Federal Register on 19 September 2008; the final date for 
comments was 20 October 2008. No significant comments have been 
received.

        Estimated Implementation Cost:
Corps of Engineers......................................  $1,045,000,000
Non-Federal Interest....................................     567,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................  $1,612,000,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: The Maryland Port 
Administration, under the auspices of the Maryland Department 
of Transportation is the non-Federal sponsor for the project. 
The estimated total first cost including contingencies for the 
Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project is 
$1.612 billion based on October 2008 price levels. The Federal 
share of the total project costs would be $1.045 billion for 
the Federal Government (65 percent) and $567 million for the 
non-Federal sponsor (35 percent). Operations, maintenance, 
repair, rehabilitation, and replacement (OMRR&R) costs for the 
completed project are projected to be less than two percent of 
the total project coast and would be a non-Federal 
responsibility. The first costs for the recommended recreation 
facilities are estimated at $210,000. The Federal Government 
and the non-Federal sponsor will each share 50 percent of the 
cost or $105,000. Since the recreation features are not planned 
to be constructed until the project is largely complete, OMRR&R 
costs would be incurred beyond the period of analysis for the 
project and so are not included in the project cost.
    Estimated Effects: The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project 
provides multiple opportunities to address the problems by:
           Restoring habitat that is used by many 
        species of migratory birds, as well as fish and other 
        wildlife species, as resting, nesting, foraging, and 
        production areas;
           Reducing the rate of island erosion, thereby 
        promoting conditions conducive to restoration and 
        protection of SAV by decreasing localized sediment 
        inputs and improving local water clarity;
           Providing spawning, nursery, and sheltered 
        habitat for juvenile and forage fish species, 
        epibenthic invertebrates, and benthic infauna by 
        restoring wetland and shallow water areas;
           Protecting shallow water areas from storm 
        and wave forces, providing suitable habitat for the 
        sustainable growth of SAV;
           Providing essential nursery and foraging 
        habitat for numerous fish in restored wetland and 
        shallow water habitats;
           Protecting shoreline for avian, reptilian, 
        and mammalian species resting/nesting/foraging areas;
           Meeting the dredged material capacity 
        shortfall as projected in the DMMP of 30 to 70 million 
        cubic yards of dredged material over the 20-year 
        planning period; and
           Providing shoreline protection and reducing 
        impacts from storms by reducing wave heights.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final 
Chief's report was signed on 24 August 2009.
            II. Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Mississippi
    Location of the Study Area: The Mississippi Coastal 
Improvements Program (MsCIP) Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive 
Plan) study area consists of the three Mississippi coastal 
counties: Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson.
    Problems and Opportunities: The problems identified by the 
study team, State, county, and city officials, residents, and 
agency staff, included Hurricane-induced:
           Storm surge caused significant damage to 
        structures and infrastructure within the three-county 
        (Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson) MsCIP study area;
           Storm surge caused significant damage to 
        coastal ecosystems and fish and wildlife resources 
        within the three-county study area;
           Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi 
        Sound ecosystem and associated coastal environments; 
        and
           Erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal 
        infrastructure within the three county MsCIP study 
        area.
    Comprehensive, system-wide opportunities were identified 
during the MsCIP planning process to guide the development and 
evaluation of solutions to the region's water resource 
problems. An overall theme of Comprehensive Plan opportunities 
is not merely to reverse the harm done by the storms of 2005 
hurricane season (e.g., Hurricanes Katrina and Rita), but, as 
importantly, to promote the long-term future sustainability of 
physical, human, and environmental resources within the study 
area.
    The comprehensive, system-wide opportunities include:
           Assisting in sustainable redevelopment of 
        hurricane damaged physical, environmental, and human 
        resources within the MsCIP study area;
           Reducing the susceptibility of residential, 
        commercial, and public structures and infrastructure to 
        hurricane induced storm damages within the three-county 
        (Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson) MsCIP study area;
           Assisting in the recovery and long-term 
        sustainability of coastal wetlands that support 
        important fish and wildlife resources within the study 
        area;
           Accelerating the recovery and assist in the 
        long-term sustainability of maritime forest 
        environments that suffered hurricane induced damages;
           Restoring barrier island environments that 
        suffered hurricane induced storm damages in a manner 
        that promotes long-term sustainability of their fish 
        and wildlife resources;
           Reducing saltwater intrusion within the 
        Mississippi Sound coastal environment; and
           Assisting in the recovery of coastal 
        ecosystems and infrastructure damaged by erosion during 
        the hurricane events of 2005 and support programs that 
        promote long-term erosion reduction and limit erosion 
        potential during future hurricane events.
    Alternative Plans Considered: A system-wide approach was 
used in formulating the MsCIP Comprehensive Plan to ensure that 
both the MsCIP and the Louisiana Coastal Protection and 
Restoration (LaCPR) efforts were fully coordinated and 
developed complementary plans for the restoration of the Gulf 
coastal region as an integrated system.
    In addition, the planning effort has taken a top-down, 
comprehensive planning approach, beginning with development of 
a Comprehensive Plan to address the overall water resources 
problems and opportunities of the region. Building off of the 
comprehensive identification of problems and opportunities, the 
planning effort then proceeded to develop site-specific 
problems, opportunities, and solutions that contribute to 
accomplishing the comprehensive vision for the restoration and 
protection of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The results of this 
effort led to a comprehensive regional plan that addresses 
hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental 
restoration needs, as well as recommending a variety of site-
specific projects either for immediate implementation or 
further investigation and subsequent implementation.
    The Draft MsCIP Comprehensive Plan Report and Integrated 
Environmental Impact Statement (Report) contain both a 
Comprehensive Plan and a variety of water resource development 
projects that were developed through the planning process. The 
Report also describes components of the Comprehensive Plan, 
which require additional investigations prior to identifying a 
specific recommendation for construction.
    The planning process utilized in the MsCIP study was a 
highly iterative process. Multiple iterations of the Corps' six 
planning steps were required due to the fact that new problems 
or data were constantly being identified. In addition, the 
development of large-scale plans, such as ``Lines of Defense'' 
(LOD), brought new problems and opportunities to light, which 
needed to be included in the planning process. The following 
sections describe the specific measures considered and the 
results of the screening and evaluation process.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The Comprehensive Plan has 
been developed in a progressive fashion with plan elements to 
be implemented: (1) in the short term (interim projects); (2) 
in the near term (recommended for construction); (3) following 
limited additional evaluation and documentation (AED); (4) 
following more detailed evaluation and documentation of a 
specific plan element (contingent authorization); and (5) those 
elements requiring significant study, design, and documentation 
(feasibility study). Each plan feature has been developed to be 
a cost-efficient feature with significant advancement toward 
the comprehensive goal of developing a resilient coastal zone; 
however, the synergistic benefits will accrue as more of the 
plan features are implemented. These synergistic benefits 
between plan features have not been estimated. Implementation 
of the comprehensive plan could ultimately result in the 
acquisition and/or flood-proofing of more than 58,000 parcels 
within the zone having a one percent chance of annual 
inundation (100-year floodplain), reduction of risk to areas 
considered to have moderately high risk from storm surge 
effects, restoration and/or enhancement of over 30,000 acres of 
coastal forest, wetland, estuarine, and beach and dune 
habitats, and the continued sustainability of the Mississippi 
Sound ecosystem.
    The Report supports the recommendation of the following 
tentatively selected features to Congress for authority to 
implement the MsCIP Comprehensive Plan:
    1. Construct the list of projects seeking a construction 
Record of Decision (ROD):
           Barrier Island Restoration;
           Turkey Creek Ecosystem Restoration;
           Bayou Cumbest Ecosystem Restoration;
           Dantzler Ecosystem Restoration;
           Admiral Island Ecosystem Restoration;
           Franklin Creek Ecosystem Restoration;
           High Hazard Area Risk Reduction Plan (HARP 
        Phase 1);
           Deer Island Ecosystem Restoration;
           Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration;
           Coast-wide Beach and Dune Restoration;
           Moss Point Municipal Structures Relocation;
           Waveland Residential Structure Flood 
        Proofing;
           Forrest (Forest) Heights Levee Elevation.
    2. Conduct feasibility level investigations for: 
investigations of:
           Long-term High Hazard Area Risk Reduction 
        Features;
           Escatawpa River Freshwater Diversion;
           Additional Environmental Restoration 
        Features; and
           Additional Structural Hurricane and Storm 
        Damage Risk Reduction Features.
    The Congressional authorization for this study mandated a 
comprehensive approach to solutions for water resource problems 
in coastal Mississippi. The comprehensive nature of the study 
team's approach included identifying solutions regardless of 
implementation authority or agency. Therefore, a number of 
tentatively selected plan features also include education and 
hurricane preparedness. These features include:
           Hurricane Risk Reduction Education;
           Hurricane and Storm Warning Systems;
           Hurricane Evacuation Planning Services 
        Floodplain Management;
           Building Codes;
           Zoning Codes; and
           Relocation of Critical Infrastructure and 
        Services (LOD 5).
    Feasibility level investigations concerning freshwater 
diversion at Violet, Louisiana, are authorized by Congress 
under WRDA 2007. Section 3083 of WRDA 2007 authorized the 
design and implementation of a project for diversion of 
freshwater at or near Violet, Louisiana, for the purposes of 
reducing salinity in the western Mississippi Sound, enhancing 
oyster production, and promoting the sustainability of coastal 
wetlands. The MsCIP supports this action as a critical element 
to sustain the ecosystems of coastal Mississippi. This Report 
supports a recommendation to Congress for funding this project 
in full coordination with the States of Mississippi and 
Louisiana, the appropriate entities within the Corps, and other 
interested stakeholders.
    The following table identifies how the tentatively 
recommended components of the Comprehensive Plan address the 
Congressional concerns identified in the authorization. These 
components are ``keystone'' pieces of the Comprehensive Plan on 
which later recommendations would build. These plan elements 
have been determined to be technically sound, environmentally 
acceptable, and economically justified. Each of these 
tentatively recommended components are designed to be 
implemented and function as stand alone units should additional 
time be required to design all plan components or additional 
plan components be determined to not be cost effective.

                                   TABLE 2--COMPONENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Areas of concern
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Recommendation              Storm damage                             Salt water
                                       reduction       Erosion reduction       intrusion       Fish and wildlife
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Hazard Area Risk Reduction               ..................  ..................           
 Plan...........................
Additional Damage Reduction                   ..................  ..................  ..................
 Alternatives...................
Additional Ecosystem Restoration                          ..................           
 Alternatives...................
Barrier Island Restoration......                                               
Violet, LA Fresh Water Diversion                                               
Escatawpa Fresh Water Diversion.  ..................  ..................                       
Beach and Dune Restoration......                          ..................           
SAV Restoration.................  ..................  ..................  ..................           
Moss Point Municipal Structure                ..................  ..................           
 Relocation.....................
Waveland Floodproofing..........              ..................  ..................  ..................
Forrest (Forest) Heights Levee..              ..................  ..................  ..................
Deer Island Restoration.........                          ..................           
Turkey Creek Restoration........              ..................  ..................           
Bayou Cumbest Restoration.......  ..................  ..................  ..................           
Dantzler Restoration............  ..................  ..................  ..................           
Admiral Island Restoration......              ..................  ..................           
Franklin Creek Restoration......              ..................  ..................           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The State of Mississippi Clearinghouse for Federal Programs 
responded by letter dated 31 August 2009. The letter states the 
following: ``None of the state agencies involved in the review 
had comments or recommendations at this time. This concludes 
the State Clearinghouse review, and we encourage appropriate 
action as soon as possible. A copy of this letter is to be 
attached to the application as evidence of compliance with 
Executive Order 12372 review requirements.''
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The DOI responded 
by letter dated 27 July 2009 with a request for a supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement prior to the Barrier Island 
construction and additional analysis to include a littoral zone 
deposition area near Cat Island. The DOC, responded by letter 
dated 5 August 2009, with no comment. The Department of 
Transportation (DOT) responded by phone on 10 August 2009, with 
no comment. The U.S. Coast Guard responded by letter dated 25 
September, with no comment. The U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services responded by letter dated 16 September 2009, 
with no comment. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development responded via telephone on 6 August 2009 with no 
comment. The EPA, Region 4, responded by letter dated 30 July 
2009 with no comment. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) responded via email on 2 September 2009, with no 
comment.
    Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact 
Statement/Report was completed for the project. The Notice of 
Availability for the Final SEIS/EIR was published in the 
Federal Register on 1 July 2009; the final date for comments 
was 3 August 2009.

        Estimated Implementation Cost:
Corps of Engineers......................................    $265,110,000
Non-Federal Interest....................................     142,750,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................    $407,860,000

    Estimated Effects of the Recommended Plan: The 
Comprehensive Plan provides integrated systems-based solutions 
and tentatively selected plans that address: hurricane and 
storm damage reduction, ecosystem and restoration and fish and 
wildlife preservation, reduction of damaging saltwater 
intrusion, and reduction of coastal erosion. The tentatively 
selected plans also provide measures that aid in: regional 
economic redevelopment, positive societal effects, and long-
term measures to reduce risk to the public and property.
    The benefits of the recommended MsCIP Comprehensive Plan 
are as follows:
    1. Construction projects:
     Barrier Island Restoration--Maintain and sustain 
the fragile Mississippi Sound ecosystem with its economic, 
recreational, environmental, and aesthetic benefits, provide 
for additional nesting habitat for threatened and endangered 
sea turtles and over wintering critical habitat for the piping 
plover, fishery losses avoided by restoration of the island 
equate to $43 million in average annual benefits.
     Turkey Creek Ecosystem Restoration--689 acres of 
wet pine savannah restoration.
     Bayou Cumbest Ecosystem Restoration--110 acres of 
tidal marsh and 38 acres of scrub shrub habitat restoration.
     Dantzler Ecosystem Restoration--385 acres of wet 
pine savannah restoration.
     Admiral Island Ecosystem Restoration--62 acres of 
tidal marsh and 61 acres of scrub shrub habitat restoration.
     Franklin Creek Ecosystem Restoration--149 acres of 
wet pine savannah restoration.
     Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration--
Additional study via an in-situ pilot project which will inform 
future restoration efforts.
     Coast-wide Beach and Dune Restoration--Restores 
piping plover habitat and habitat for other shorebirds, 
provides eco-tourism opportunities, and enhance overall quality 
of life in coastal Mississippi. The construction of elevated 
dunes, situated immediately seaward of developed areas, 
provides additional protection against smaller hurricanes.
     Moss Point Municipal Structures Relocation--The 
relocation of these facilities would greatly reduce future 
damages to the local infrastructure and provide a higher 
confidence in uninterrupted public service in future events.
     Waveland Residential Structure Flood Proofing--
Twenty-five structures in the Waveland area that would be 
safely elevated out of the one percent chance storm event. 
Future damages to these structures would be significantly 
reduced and the area would serve as an example of smart growth.
     Forrest (Forest) Heights Levee Improvements--
Equivalent annual damages reduced by the 21-foot levee are 
estimated to be $331,508. In addition, the levee improvement 
provide a significant boost to the cohesiveness of the 
historically significant community, preserve the culture and 
heritage of its predominantly minority residential population, 
and greatly improve their overall quality of life.
     High Hazard Area Risk Reduction Plan (HARP Phase 
1)--The average annual average damages avoided for the 2,000 
highest risk properties along the coastline were determined to 
be $33,000,000.
    2. Feasibility level investigations:
     Escatawpa River Diversion and Grand Bay Marsh 
Ecosystem Restoration--A freshwater diversion project in the 
area, if feasible, may serve to enhance the wildlife resources 
of the area. The need for freshwater diversion at the Grand Bay 
savannahs and marshes would help restore the predominant wet 
pine savannah habitat.
     Additional Damage Reduction Alternatives--A very 
preliminary estimate of annual without-project damages for 
these potential structural solutions totals well over $60 
million. The implementation of ring levees and/or other 
structural components in these areas would reduce a significant 
portion of storm-related damages and warrants further 
feasibility level consideration.
     Additional Coastal Mississippi Ecosystem 
Restoration Alternatives--This analysis identified 38 
additional potential restoration sites which would primarily 
restore the hydrology and natural landscape of the coastal 
counties with incidental risk reduction benefits, or which 
would primarily reduce the risk to life and property from 
future hurricane storm surge events and secondly provide for 
substantial environmental benefit. The total restoration 
potential for these 38 sites is 27,380 acres.
     Feasibility analysis of the Long-term HARP--The 
benefits of an ongoing acquisition and relocation program for 
coastal Mississippi could be tremendous taken into account the 
implications of sea level rise, continued development along the 
coast, and the frequency and magnitude of storms known to 
affect this area of the northern Gulf of Mexico. The additional 
study effort aimed at developing the framework and guidelines, 
detailed benefits, and costs would involve local and State 
interests as well as FEMA.
    3. Education and hurricane preparedness to be implemented 
by others:
     Hurricane Risk Reduction Education--Warn residents 
of coastal Mississippi as to the extreme hazard to all that 
reside in the area, from the dual hazards of wind and surge/
waves.
     Hurricane and Storm Warning Systems--Make all 
residents and visitors aware of the current hurricane threat.
     Hurricane Evacuation Planning--An evacuation plan, 
with preservation of life as the single most important goal, is 
an essential component of a comprehensive plan for ensuring the 
safety of residents of and visitors to the coast of 
Mississippi.
     Floodplain Management--Data and information 
developed in this analysis provides local government tools to 
be used in the determination of how to manage development or 
location of inhabited development, infrastructure, businesses, 
hazardous waste facilities, sites that contain large, un-
anchored structural components when developing Master Plans for 
their communities.
     Building Codes--Assure that the latest design and 
construction techniques are being used that apply to hurricane-
resistant construction.
     Zoning Codes--Counties and cities may make full 
use of the resources provided under this study to limit 
development in highest hazard areas to those uses that will 
incur lesser damage and risks to life and safety.
     Relocation of Critical Infrastructure and Services 
(LOD 5)--Relocation of critical infrastructure and services 
outside the Maximum Probable Intensity (MPI) boundary so that 
these facilities and structures are capable of surviving the 
event, so that they can function after recession of the surge, 
to provide services and protect lives and property.
    4. Feasibility level investigations concerning freshwater 
diversion at Violet, LA (authorized by Congress under WRDA 
2007):
     Achieve each State's goals of establishing and 
maintaining salinity regimes for oysters and introducing 
sediment into the eroding Biloxi marshes of Louisiana.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final 
Chief's report was signed on 25 September 2009.
            III. West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), 
                    North Carolina
    Location of the Study Area: Topsail Beach is located at the 
southern end of Topsail Island adjacent to New Topsail Inlet in 
Pender County on the central North Carolina coast.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Topsail 
Beach is subject to hurricanes and other tropical storms, and 
northeasters. The long-term erosion and short-term erosion from 
various storms erode the beach and undermine homes and other 
structures along the shoreline. A lesser amount of damage 
occurs from flooding and wave action. The average annual 
structural damage is estimated at $9,238,000 when evaluated at 
October 2006 levels and a 4\7/8\ percent interest rate. The 
loss of the beach between the shoreline and the existing 
structures reduces the area available for recreation and for 
natural habitat, such as sea turtle nesting.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Both nonstructural and 
structural measures were considered. Nonstructural measures 
considered are changes in regulations and physical 
modifications to reduce damages. Nonstructural regulatory 
measures are coastal building codes, building construction 
setbacks, and floodplain regulations. Most regulatory measures 
are no longer considered for potential in the alternative plans 
because these measures have already been implemented, they do 
not affect older structures, and there are few remaining vacant 
lots, suitable for development, which would benefit. These 
measures are considered as part of the existing and without-
project conditions. Another category of nonstructural measures 
is removal of beachfront structures from the threat. The three 
removal measures are: (1) retreat landward within the same 
property parcel; (2) relocation a longer distance to a vacant 
property; and (3) demolition. Acquisition of the vacated 
property is included in both the relocation and demolition 
measures. All of these removal measures were retained for 
consideration in the nonstructural alternative.
    Structural measures considered were beachfills and hard 
structures such as breakwaters, seawalls, revetments, 
bulkheads, groin fields and a terminal groin. Beachfill 
measures consist of berms, dunes, and terminal sections. The 
beachfill measures are considered some of the most appropriate, 
since they mimic the natural environment and can be shaped to 
maximize net storm damage reduction benefits. A terminal groin 
at New Topsail Inlet was included in the National Economic 
Development (NED) plan in the 1991 Chief of Engineers report, 
although it was not part of the authorized plan. This terminal 
groin was also retained for consideration in the general 
reevaluation report (GRR). The other types of hard structure 
measures were dropped from further consideration because, 
although they may reduce structural damages, each would have 
different potential adverse impacts to the beach.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The selected plan for 
recommendation is the locally-preferred plan (LPP), Plan 1250X. 
The NED Plan having the highest net benefits is Plan 1550. Both 
plans meet the project objectives and constraints. Table 1 
provides pertinent physical data on the Authorized Plan, the 
GRR LPP, and the GRR NED Plan.

                                           TABLE 1--TOPSAIL BEACH, NC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Plan dimensions
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Dimensions               Authorized  HD 393/102/
                                                  2               GRR, LPP, Plan 1250X     GRR, NED, Plan 1550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dune, topwidth.......................  25 feet................  25 feet................  25 feet
Dune, elevation, NGVD................  13.6 feet..............  12 feet................  15 feet
Dune, landward slope.................  5H:1V..................  5H:1V..................  5H:1V
Dune, seaward slope..................  5H:1V..................  10H:1V.................  10H:1V
Dune and storm berm, width...........  35 feet................  None...................  None
Dune and storm berm, elevation, NGVD.  9.6 feet...............  None...................
Dune and storm berm, seaward slope...  5H:1V..................  None...................  None
Beach berm, width....................  40 feet................  50 feet................  50 feet
Beach berm, elevation, NGVD..........  7.6 feet...............  7 feet.................  7 feet
Beach berm, seaward slope............  12H:1V.................  15H:1V.................  15H:1V
Dune and berm fill, length...........  10,250 feet............  23,200 feet............  22,800 feet
North transition section, length.....  7,150 feet.............  2,000 feet.............  2,000 feet
South transition section, length.....  1,800 feet.............  1,000 feet.............  1,400 feet
Total Length.........................  19,200 feet............  26,200 feet............  26,200 feet
Volume, initial, in-place............  *4,566,000 CY..........  2,387,000 CY...........  3,420,000 CY
Volume, renourishment, in place......  644,000 CY.............  690,000 CY.............  690,000 CY
Renourishment interval...............  2 years................  25 feet................  4 years
Borrow source........................  Banks Channel..........  12 feet................  Off Shore
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The project sponsor supports for Plan 1250X as the LPP. 
During completion of the Draft GRR, the sponsor indicated that 
some of the reasons for preferring Plan 1250X over NED Plan 
1550 are:
          Both plans move the shoreline significantly 
        seaward;
          Plan 1250X costs 24.1 percent less, but 
        reduces net benefits 2.3 percent;
          Plan 1250X has the greatest HSDR benefit-to-
        cost ratio, and the second highest total benefit-to-
        cost ratio;
          Plan 1250X has a lower cost to the Town;
          Plan 1250X will have lower Congressional 
        appropriation requirements; and
          Plan 1250X provides better protection to the 
        Godwin Avenue area.
    Other common features of both plans are dune vegetation and 
construction of dune walkover structures. The real estate to be 
acquired for the project will be a Perpetual Beach Storm Damage 
Reduction Easement for approximately 397 parcels. Based on 
project maps and ground examination, no structures appear to be 
impacted. There is no separable recreation feature, however 
incidental recreation benefits will be gained from the wider 
beach.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The State of North Carolina responded via letter dated 15 
September 2008, with comment during the 30-day State and 
Federal agency review period, which began on 16 August 2008 and 
expired on 16 September 2008. The State requested that the 
Corps coordinate with the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping 
Program to support revisions to the Digital Flood Insurance 
Rate Maps. The State also requested the Corps to fully support 
the local officials in communicating risks, both with and 
without the project and coastal flood hazard to the public.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The DOI responded 
via letter dated 12 September 2008, with comment on the sea 
level rise in decision making and the Corps explained that sea 
level rise are unlikely to affect the plan selection, the 
projects compliance with Executive Order 11988, and wise 
floodplain development that the Corps discussed in the report. 
The DOC responded via letter dated 30 September 2008, with no 
comment. The Mineral Management Services responded via letter 
dated 2 September 2008, with many comments pertaining to plan 
formulation, environmental effects to plans considered, models 
used to evaluate offshore sediment transport, impacts to sea 
turtles, and mitigation measures. EPA responded via letter 
dated 12 September 2008, with comments on shortening the 50-
year project life, the use of the Generalized Risk and 
Uncertainty Coastal Plan (GRANDUC) coastal response model 
relating to modeling hurricanes, and possible erosion of 
deposited fill material. FEMA responded via email 25 September 
2008, with no comment.
    Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact 
Statement/Report was completed for the project. The Notice of 
Availability for the Final SEIS/EIR was published in the 
Federal Register on 15 August 2008; the final date for comments 
was 16 September 2008. No significant comments have been 
received.

        Estimated Implementation Cost:
Corps of Engineers......................................     $91,192,000
Non-Federal Interest....................................      78,840,000
    Total...............................................    $170,032,000

    Estimated Annual O&M Costs: There are no Federal annual 
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs. The local sponsor, Town 
of Topsail Beach, North Carolina, will be responsible for all 
O&M costs for the recommended plan estimated at $22,000 
annually.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M Cost: Estimated OMRR&R 
annual costs are $22,000. The non-Federal sponsor for project 
implementation is the Town of Topsail Beach, North Carolina. 
The Town of Topsail Beach is the non-Federal cost-sharing 
sponsor for all features and is responsible for the OMRR&R of 
the project after construction.
    Relationship to Other Plans: The original project was 
authorized in section 101(15) of the Water Resources 
Development Act 1992 (P.L. 102-580) (WRDA 1992) at a total cost 
of $14,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,600,000, 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,500,000. The authorized 
project was never constructed.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final 
Chief's report was signed on 28 September 2009.

Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction

    This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out 
projects for flood damage reduction under the authority of 
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-858), 
which authorizes $55,000,000 a year for Federal participation 
in small flood damage reduction projects up to $7,000,000 per 
project, with a minimum 35 percent non-Federal cost-share, at 
the following locations:
    1. Del Rosa Channel, San Bernadino, California.
    2. Laguna Creek, Vacaville, California.
    3. Ulatis Creek, Vacaville, California.
    4. Sanderson Gulch, Denver, Colorado.
    5. Willow Creek, Creede, Colorado.
    6. Big Econ River, Orange, Florida.
    7. Bay Gall Creek, Warner Robbins, Georgia.
    8. Des Plaines, Park Ridge, Illinois.
    9. Kishwaukee River, Dekalb, Illinois.
    10. Navajo Creek, Palos Heights, Illinois.
    11. Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois.
    12. Vicinity of the 71st Street Ditch, Justice, Illinois.
    13. West Branch of Mill Creek, Palos Park, Illinois.
    14. Dry Run Creek, Waterloo, Iowa.
    15. Louisville, Kentucky.
    16. Baltimore City, Maryland.
    17. Pine Tree Brook, Avon, Massachusetts.
    18. Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts.
    19. Harding Canal Seawall, Detroit, Michigan.
    20. Big River, High Ridge, Missouri.
    21. Saw Mill River basin, Greehburgh, New York.
    22. Sparkill Creek, Orangetown, New York.
    23. Independence, Ohio.
    24. Valley View, Ohio.
    25. Winyeh Bay, Georgetown, South Carolina.
    26. Del Rio, Val Verde, Texas.
    27. Craford Bay Seawall, Portsmouth, Virginia.
    28. Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth, 
Virginia.
    29. Roxbury and Westpoint Townships, Wisconsin.

Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection

    This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out 
projects for streambank erosion control under section 14 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-525), which authorizes 
$15,000,000 a year for Federal participation in projects up to 
$1,500,000 per project, with a 35 percent non-Federal cost-
share, at the following locations:
    1. Naknek River, Naknek, Alaska.
    2. Quinnipiac River, New Haven, Connecticut.
    3. Biscayne Bay, North Bay Village, Florida.
    4. Bronx River, New York, New York.
    5. Ohio River, Ironton, Ohio.
    6. Newport, Rhode Island.
    7. Tiverton, Rhode Island.

Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation

    This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out 
projects for navigation, under the authority of section 107 of 
the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645), which 
authorizes $35,000,000 a year for Federal participation in 
small navigation projects up to $7,000,000 per project with 
non-Federal cost-sharing as determined under the WRDA of 1986, 
at the following locations:
    1. Detroit River, Wyandotte, Michigan.
    2. Stouts Creek, Lacey Township, New Jersey.
    3. Brown's River, Nassau County, New York.
    4. Detroit Harbor, Wisconsin.

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

    This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out a 
project for improvement of the environment, under the authority 
of section 1135 of WRDA 1986, which authorizes $40,000,000 a 
year for Federal participation in projects up to $5,000,000 per 
project, with a 25 percent non-Federal cost-share, at the 
following locations:
    1. Rheem Creek, Contra Costa County, California.
    2. Rodeo Creek, Contra Costa County, California.

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration

    This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out 
projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration under the authority 
of section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
(P.L. 104-303) (WRDA 1996), which authorizes $50,000,000 a year 
for Federal participation in small ecosystem restoration and 
protection projects up to $5,000,000 per project, with a 35 
percent non-Federal cost-share, at the following locations:
    1. Emeryville Harbor, Emeryville, California.
    2. Los Angeles River, Cudahy, California.
    3. Laguna Salada, Pacifica, California.
    4. Animas River, La Plata, Colorado.
    5. North Fork of the Gunnison River, Delta, Colorado.
    6. Line and Cane Creeks, Henry County, Georgia.
    7. Bremme Creek, Dupage, Illinois.
    8. Blackberry Creek, Kendall, Illinois.
    9. Gompers Park, North Branch Chicago River, Illinois.
    10. Kankakee River, Will County, Illinois.
    11. Prairie Creek Watershed, Will County, Illinois.
    12. West Branch of the Dupage River, Dupage, Illinois.
    13. Long Creek Watershed, Cumberland, Maine.
    14. Cabin Branch Watershed, Prince George's County, 
Maryland.
    15. Little Paint Branch Stream, Prince George's County, 
Maryland.
    16. Lower Beaverdam Creek, Prince George's County, 
Maryland.
    17. Northeast Anacostia River, Prince George's County, 
Maryland.
    18. Northwest Anacostia River, Prince George's County, 
Maryland.
    19. Assabet River, Middlesex and Worcester, Massachusetts.
    20. Lewis Bay, Yarmouth, Massachusetts.
    21. Pig's Eye Lake, St. Paul, Minnesota.
    22. Barnegat Bay, Ocean County, New Jersey.
    23. Branchport Creek, Oceanport Borough, New Jersey.
    24. Hackensack River, Hudson County, New Jersey.
    25. Lake Topanemus, Freehold, New Jersey.
    26. Las Cruces Dam, Dona Ana, New Mexico.
    27. Pugsley Creek, Castle Hill, New York.
    28. Olentangy River, Franklin, Ohio.
    29. Scioto River, Franklin, Ohio.
    30. Woonasquatucket River, Providence, Rhode Island.
    31. Claytor Lake, Pulaski, Virginia.

Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection

    This section directs the Secretary to study and carry out 
projects under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
authorizing the Federal participation in the cost of protecting 
the shores of publicly owned property,'' approved August 13, 
1946, which authorizes $30,000,000 a year for Federal 
participation in small shoreline protection projects, up to 
$5,000,000 per project, with a 35 percent non-Federal cost-
share, at the following locations:
    1. Deerfield Beach, Broward County, Florida.
    2. Barnegat, Ocean County, New Jersey.
    3. Manhasset Bay, Port Washington, New York.

Sec. 1008. Small projects for aquatic plant control

    Subsection (a) directs the Secretary to study and carry out 
a project for aquatic nuisance plant control under section 104 
of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610) at 
Republican River basin, Colorado.
    Subsection (b) establishes a special rule for the project 
at Republican River basin, Colorado, that the Secretary may 
control and eradicate riverine nuisance plants.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions

    This section amends section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 
1970 (P.L. 91-611) (1970 Act) to clarify language that was 
added to that section by WRDA 2007.
    In the years prior to WRDA 2007, the Committee received an 
increasing number of requests from non-Federal interests for 
credit for work undertaken by the non-Federal interest and 
associated with a Federal project. In the absence of a general 
authority, the Committee was accommodating these requests by 
individual provisions in WRDA bills.
    Section 2003 of WRDA 2007 amended section 221 of the 1970 
Act to provide general authority to the Secretary to provide 
credit for work undertaken by non-Federal interests without 
project-specific legislative authority. In providing the 
credit, certain conditions of eligibility would need to be met. 
Because the WRDA 2007 amendments included preconditions for 
eligibility, WRDA 2007 retained the project-specific credit 
provisions that were requested prior to WRDA 2007's enactment.
    To accommodate both the general provision being added to 
section 221 and the project-specific provisions in the Act, 
WRDA 2007 included language that allowed the project-specific 
provision to apply rather than the general provision. 
Subsequent implementation of amended section 221 by the Corps 
has resulted in consequences contrary to the intent of the 
amendment. For example, where the project language allows for 
credit for work done prior to the date of enactment of the Act, 
the Corps interpreted the current language in section 221 to 
preclude credit for any work undertaken following the date of 
enactment of WRDA 2007.
    This amendment addresses those contrary consequences.
    Subsection (a) of the bill amends section 221(a)(4)(E) by 
replacing the current language in clause (ii) with language 
making it clear that the intent of the credit provision in 
section 221 is to allow the non-Federal interest to receive the 
benefits of the project-specific provision for credit as that 
project-specific provision is written, and to allow the non-
Federal interest to receive the benefits of the general 
provision for credit where the non-Federal interest meets the 
eligibility conditions of the law.
    For example, where a specific provision of law allows for 
credit for work undertaken prior to the execution of the 
project partnership agreement, the non-Federal interest can 
receive the benefits of that provision of law. If the work 
meets the eligibility requirements (typically that the work be 
integral to the project), the Secretary is to afford credit for 
the cost of that work against the non-Federal share. Moreover, 
if the non-Federal interest seeks to conduct additional work 
beyond the scope of the project specific credit language and 
with the intent of receiving credit, the Secretary is to give 
credit to the non-Federal sponsor for the Federal share of that 
work using the general credit authority in section 221.
    Receiving the benefits of project specific credit language 
should not preclude the application of the general credit 
language. The amendment in this section clarifies this 
authority. The amendment also provides that the choice of which 
one or both authorities to apply is that of the non-Federal 
interest. The Secretary is directed to accommodate the non-
Federal interest's choice. The Committee intends that the non-
Federal interest have the fullest opportunity to receive credit 
under the project specific authority and under the general 
credit authority, consistent with any requirements in the law.
    Subsection (b) of the bill establishes a definition of 
``water resources project'', as used in section 221. Section 
221 of the 1970 Act uses the term water resources project, but 
it is not defined. The Committee proposes to add a definition 
because the Corps has taken a narrow view of what constitutes a 
water resources project and does not include certain types of 
projects currently being carried out in its civil works program 
as water resources projects. This narrow interpretation by the 
Corps precludes the application of the terms of section 221, 
including the general credit authority, from being applied to 
projects that the Corps does not include in its definition.
    The Committee is particularly concerned that the Corps 
specifically excludes environmental infrastructure programs or 
projects from being considered water resources projects. 
However, the Corps offers no explanation why such programs and 
projects are not water resources projects in the context of 
section 221. The environmental infrastructure programmatic 
authorizations refer to ``water-related environmental 
infrastructure and resource protection and development 
projects''. Similar language appears in section 219 of WRDA 
1992. These projects should fall under the broad concept of 
``water resources projects''. The Corps' narrow interpretation 
is inconsistent with Congressional intent and will be changed 
by adding the definition.
    Subsection (c) is a technical amendment to update language 
in section 221.

Sec. 2002. Fish and wildlife mitigation

    Section 2002 makes clarifying changes to section 906 of 
WRDA 1986, as amended by WRDA 2007.
    Subsection (a) conforms the mitigation requirements 
contained in section 906 to Corps' policy guidance. Current 
Corps policy requires mitigation for impacts to ecological 
resources, including both aquatic and terrestrial resources. 
The amendment would place the broad policy statement in 
statute.
    Subsection (a) also clarifies that the determination of 
whether a proposed project will have negligible adverse impacts 
on fish and wildlife is to be made without consideration of 
proposed mitigation. Section 906 of WRDA 1986 requires that any 
proposal for authorization of a water resources project must 
contain either a specific plan to mitigate fish and wildlife 
losses created by such project, or a determination that the 
project will have negligible adverse impact on fish and 
wildlife. The Corps' current interpretation of that requirement 
can lead to less than full mitigation. The Corps conducts 
mitigation ``to the extent incrementally justified'', or 
sufficient such that ``only negligible adverse impacts 
remain.''
    Section 906 does not permit the implementation that the 
Corps seeks. In the implementation guidance mitigation planning 
statement, the Corps states that it will use the mitigation 
planning process to ``compensate for non-negligible impacts to 
aquatic and terrestrial resources to the extent incrementally 
justified and to ensure that the recommended project will not 
have more than negligible adverse impacts on ecological 
resources.''
    The Corps is correct that mitigation planning is to 
compensate for ``non-negligible impacts''. If impacts are 
negligible, no mitigation is required. The second part of the 
policy is flawed in that there is no authority in section 906 
to apply an incremental cost analysis that results in adverse 
impacts remaining unmitigated. The third part of the policy is 
also flawed in that the Corps misinterprets section 906 to 
require mitigation up to the point that only non-negligible 
impacts remain following compensatory measures.
    Section 906 does not require a mitigation plan such that 
only non-negligible impacts remain. Section 906 requires that 
every water resources project contain either, ``(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.'' These clauses are written in the 
disjunctive for a purpose--impacts are mitigated, or the 
impacts are negligible. The clauses were not written such that 
mitigation should occur until the impacts are negligible. By 
definition, and the Corp's implicit acknowledgement, the 
impacts are not negligible or the Corps would not have 
developed a mitigation plan. The content of the mitigation plan 
is dictated by other provision of section 906 and other laws, 
but the requirements of 906(d) are clear as to the preparation 
of a mitigation plan.
    Subsection (b) clarifies that the requirement that 
mitigation plans for Corps projects comply with mitigation 
requirements under the regulatory programs administered by the 
Secretary is a minimum requirement. This conforms to Corps 
policies to include a broader analysis of ecological impacts, 
not only aquatic impacts, in developing mitigation plans.

Sec. 2003. Remote and subsistence harbors

    This section modifies section 2006 of WRDA 2007 to correct 
the current interpretation of that provision by the Corps. 
Section 2006 of WRDA 2007 allowed for the selection of a harbor 
and navigation project that is remote or provides subsistence 
services without justifying the project solely on NED benefits.
    In its implementation of section 2006, the Corps has 
precluded its applicability to navigation projects being 
studied and carried out under the authority of section 107 of 
the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645). This 
interpretation is contrary to the intent of section 2006, and 
is an unnecessarily narrow interpretation. In fact, many of the 
navigation projects that were intended to be beneficiaries of 
section 2006 are projects that would have been carried out 
under section 107. Therefore, the Committee included language 
to change the Corps' interpretation.

Sec. 2004. Revision of project partnership agreement

    This section modifies section 2008 of WRDA 2007 to correct 
the interpretation of that provision by the Corps of Engineers 
as applied to the continuing authorities program.
    Section 2008 provides that upon the increase in the maximum 
amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a water 
resources project or the total cost of a water resources 
project, the Secretary is to revise the project partnership 
agreement to take into account the change in Federal 
participation.
    However, while WRDA 2007 increased the per project limits 
for section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 and section 
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, the Corps is not applying 
section 2008 and adjusting Federal participation in ongoing 
projects being carried out under those authorities. In its 
implementation guidance for the increased per-project limits, 
the guidance states, ``The increased per-project limits only 
apply to section 107 and section 14 projects that do not have 
an executed PPA as of 7 November 2007.''
    This guidance is directly contrary to the language in 
section 2008. The amendment in section 2004 makes it clear that 
the Corps' interpretation must be changed to conform to the 
language in the law.

Sec. 2005. Independent peer review

    This section amends section 2034 of WRDA 2007 to increase 
transparency in the independent review process, and make 
adjustments based on experience to date.
    Subsection (a) adds a new paragraph to section 2034(b) to 
increase public disclosure concerning the decision of the Chief 
of Engineers to not conduct an independent review. Section 2034 
requires independent reviews of certain types of project 
studies. To date, the Corps has shown a tendency to have 
independent review occur late in the study process for draft 
feasibility reports. However, restricting reviews to decision 
documents--such as draft or final feasibility reports--can 
perpetuate deficiencies in the planning process that the 
independent review process was intended to ameliorate.
    Section 2034 allows the Chief of Engineers wide discretion 
in when to conduct the review, but to avoid ``gotcha'' issues 
arising for the first time at the end of the study process, 
Congress included language calling for the Chief to make a 
determination as to whether to conduct an independent review at 
three specific times during the study. These times are: (1) 
when the without-project conditions are identified (status 
quo); (2) when the array of alternatives to be considered is 
identified (i.e., what options will the Corps explore); and (3) 
when the preferred alternative is identified (i.e., the likely 
recommended project). The implementing guidance for section 
2034 does not include these references. It does not appear that 
responsible officials are making these deliberations. The 
result can be that review comes too late in the process and 
results in wasted time and money.
    The significance of looking at whether an independent 
review is called for earlier in the study process is 
demonstrated by the ongoing study to deepen Boston Harbor, 
Massachusetts.
    The Final External Peer Review Report for Boston Harbor 
Navigation Improvement identified significant issues with 
certain economic assumptions contained in the Corps' report. 
Earlier review of underlying economic assumptions could have 
allowed for corrections before the report was completed, and 
saved many months and millions of dollars in conducting the 
study. Because the review came near the end of the study, the 
Corps and the project sponsor incurred costs and delays 
unnecessarily.
    The Committee intends that by requiring public disclosure 
of the reasons for not conducting a review at the three 
decision points required by law, the decision to conduct or 
delay review until a time later in the study process will be a 
deliberative one, rather than one by default.
    Subsection (b) is intended to increase transparency in the 
process. Section 2034(c) currently requires the Chief of 
Engineers to notify the committees of jurisdiction of an 
upcoming review prior to initiating the review. In all but a 
very few instances, the Committee has not received these 
notices. The intent of the requirement was to ensure that 
Congressional supporters of the study under review were aware 
of the review, and that information could be publicly 
disclosed.
    The failure to adhere to this simple notification 
requirement is unacceptable. The amendment proposed by 
subsection (b) reinforces the requirement that the committees 
of jurisdiction be notified of upcoming reviews being conducted 
under section 2034. In addition, the Chief of Engineers would 
be required to make publicly available, including on the 
Internet, information on the upcoming review. Information 
provided to the Committee indicates that the public and in some 
instances project sponsors are completely unaware of ongoing 
reviews. This also is unacceptable. This lack of transparency 
undercuts the credibility of the review process.
    Subsection (c) adds transparency requirements for review 
documents after they are completed. The Corps currently does 
not routinely make completed independent review documents 
publicly available. These are public documents paid for with 
public funds. Therefore, subsection (c) amends section 2034 to 
require the completed reviews to be provided to the committees 
of jurisdiction and the public, including on the Internet, 
within three days of the Chief of Engineers receiving the 
report. Any responses to the review are also subject to the 
same three-day availability requirement.

Sec. 2006. Safety assurance review

    This section adds language to section 2035 of WRDA 2007 
providing that the panels established to conduct safety 
assurance reviews are not subject to the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act.

Sec. 2007. Funding for harbor maintenance program

    O&M costs for general navigation features (e.g., navigation 
channels) are 100 percent Federal for work associated with 
depths not greater than 45 feet and 50 percent Federal for 
additional costs of maintaining depths greater than 45 feet.
    The Federal share of operation and maintenance is 
appropriated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (Trust 
Fund). The Trust Fund was created in 1986 and consists of 
receipts from a 0.125 percent tax imposed on the value of cargo 
loaded or unloaded at U.S. ports. On March 31, 1998, the 
Supreme Court ruled that the tax on cargo that supports the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is unconstitutional insofar as it 
applies to exports. The tax on imports continues to be 
collected.
    In the Committee's fiscal year (FY) 2011 views and 
estimates, the Committee expressed its ongoing concern about 
the growing surplus in the Trust Fund. At the end of FY 2010, 
the estimated surplus in this fund is expected to be $6.347 
billion. This fund is supplied by taxes paid by users of ports 
and is meant to pay for harbor maintenance projects.
    For years, more funds have been collected than have been 
appropriated and a large surplus in the Trust Fund has 
accumulated. For example, the FY 2011 President's Budget 
proposes to transfer $764 million from the Trust Fund to the 
Corps' O&M account. This problem has not been caused by a lack 
of needed port maintenance dredging. To the contrary, the Corps 
has had the capability to execute a far greater amount of work 
on nationally significant water projects authorized by 
Congress. The constraint on the performance of this valuable 
work has been the limited level of funding appropriated from 
the Trust Fund. The result has been unnecessary cost increases, 
significantly delayed completion dates, and delays in realizing 
transportation savings. At a minimum, the Committee supports 
annual appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
for authorized purposes consistent with annual collections to 
the Trust Fund.
    Section 2007 directs that the total budget resources made 
available from the Trust Fund each fiscal year pursuant to 
section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
to expenditures from the Trust Fund) be equal to the level of 
receipts plus interest credited to the Trust Fund for that 
fiscal year. Such amounts may be used only for harbor 
maintenance programs described in section 9505(c) of such Code. 
The intent of this section is to ensure that funds collected on 
an annual basis from the users of the nation's ports be fully 
utilized to meet the purposes for which they were collected--
addressing the nation's backlog of harbor maintenance projects, 
including maintenance dredging needs.

Sec. 2008. Funding to process permits

    This section amends section 214 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541) (WRDA 2000), as amended, 
to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept 
funds from non-Federal public entities for the consideration of 
permits under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors 
Appropriation Act of 1899.
    Since its enactment, the Committee has been carefully 
monitoring the implementation of the section 214 authority. 
While this authority is very popular for those public entities 
that have used it, the Committee has expressed concern that 
allowing a regulated entity to contribute to the cost of its 
regulator has the potential to affect the objectivity of that 
regulatory. This would be contrary to the intent of the Clean 
Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and contrary 
to the intent of Congress in enacting the section 214 
authority. In recognition of this concern, Chairman James L. 
Oberstar requested the U.S. Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to review the Corps' implementation of the section 214 
program. In May, 2007, GAO released a report, entitled ``Waters 
and Wetlands, Corps of Engineers Needs to Ensure that Permit 
Decisions Made Using Funds from Nonfederal Public Entities Are 
Transparent and Impartial'' (GAO-07-478) that demonstrated 
significant variability on the implementation of the section 
214 program among the Corps District offices that had 
experience with the program, and recommended a series of 
measures that should be implemented by Corps District offices 
to avoid any potential conflict of interests in carrying out 
its responsibilities. Several of the concerns raised by GAO are 
addressed in the amendments to section 214 made by this 
section.
    First, this section amends section 214(a) to clarify that 
the Secretary may only utilize this authority for the 
consideration and review of permits related to projects for a 
public purpose. The May 2007 GAO report noted that one Corps 
District had allowed a public entity to request the Corps 
review a private company's permit application under section 
214. This is contrary to the intent of the section 214 program, 
which was created to allow non-Federal public entities to 
utilize the program to expedite the review of permits for 
projects for a public purpose (e.g., the construction of port 
facilities or public water supply projects). This provision 
clarifies that the Corps may not utilize the section 214 
authority to consider and review permit applications for 
projects or activities that primarily benefit private 
individuals or companies.
    Second, this section adds a new subsection (b) to implement 
a ``higher-order review'' authority under the section 214 
program to require the Corps to have all permits considered and 
reviewed under this authority reviewed by a more senior Corps 
official. This recommendation is consistent with the findings 
of the May 2007 GAO report, and consistent with the Corps' 
implementation guidance for the section 214 program. The Corps 
is directed to include a notation that a higher order review 
was undertaken in its public disclosure of permits reviewed 
under this authority. In addition, funds contributed under 
section 214 by non-Federal public entities cannot be used to 
carry out the higher-order review requirements of this 
subsection.
    In addition, this section adds a new subsection (d) that 
directs the Secretary to make all final permit decisions 
carried out using section 214 funds available to the public, 
including on the Internet. This recommendation is consistent 
with the findings of the May 2007 GAO report; however, in a 
subsequent report, dated February 19, 2010 (GAO-10-385R), GAO 
noted that the Corps had ``fallen short in two significant 
oversight areas'', including improving the transparency of 
decision making to the public by clearly posting public notices 
of funding decisions on district Internet sites.
    Finally, this section extends the authority for the 
Secretary to utilize the section 214 program through December 
31, 2016. The Committee will continue to oversee the 
implementation of the accountability measures called for by the 
GAO and others to ensure that use of the section 214 program 
does not compromise the integrity of the regulatory process, 
and achieves the goals of expediting the permitting review 
process for both those parties that utilize the 214 authority, 
and those that do not.

Sec. 2009. Project modifications for improvement of environment

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

Sec. 2010. Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration

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

Sec. 2011. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric 
        facilities

    Section 2011 amends section 314 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640) (WRDA 1990) to designate 
all activities performed by personnel under the direction of 
the Secretary in connection with the operation and maintenance 
of navigation projects or navigational infrastructure, 
including floodgates, locks, and dams, at Corps water resources 
projects, as inherently governmental functions.
    In 2008, the Committee received testimony describing a 
failed effort by the previous administration to privatize 
approximately 2,000 full-time positions at more than 230 locks 
and dams, at an estimated cost of tens of millions of dollars. 
The Committee recognizes the importance of the nation's 12,000 
miles of commercially navigable channels across the United 
States to its economy, homeland security, and national 
security, as well as the unnecessary risks in moving operation 
and maintenance activities at such facilities to outside 
contractors. Any accident or incident at a lock or dam 
structure on the nation's inland system could seriously 
jeopardize the nation's economy or its ability to quickly 
respond to threats to homeland or national security. To 
preserve the operation of these vital transportation corridors, 
the Committee strongly supports designation of personnel under 
the direction of the Secretary in connection with the operation 
and maintenance of such projects and infrastructure as 
inherently governmental.

Sec. 2012. Repeal

    This section repeals section 211 of WRDA 2000 (31 U.S.C. 
6505 note; 114 Stat. 2592).

Sec. 2013. Cost estimates for feasibility reports

    This section amends section 905(a) of WRDA 1986 to require 
the Secretary to provide additional information to Congress on 
the estimated costs of recommended projects based on three 
potential construction and funding scenarios--construction 
under optimal funding levels, a 50 percent delay in 
construction of the project, and a 100 percent delay in the 
construction of the project.
    In recent years, the Committee has become concerned with 
the frequency and scope of proposed increases for the maximum 
costs of authorized water resources projects. Section 902 of 
WRDA 1986 provides statutory authority for the Secretary to 
increase the maximum cost of a project for: (1) modifications 
which do not materially alter the scope or functions of the 
project as authorized (up to 20 percent of the statutory total 
cost of the project) and (2) changes in construction costs 
applied to unconstructed features as indicated by engineering 
or other appropriate cost indexes. However, in recent years, 
the Committee has learned of, or has received requests to raise 
the maximum cost of authorized projects well in excess of the 
statutory ``20 percent plus inflation'' adjustment currently 
authorized in law.
    The Corps has stated that a reason for many of these cost 
increases is that projects often do not receive annual 
appropriations for construction consistent with the capability 
of the Corps to carry out a project, and this lack of 
predicable funding has caused construction delays and 
inefficiencies and a corresponding increase in the cost of 
projects. The Committee recognizes that a lack of predicable 
funding at capability can increase the total cost of a project; 
however, this reason does not adequately address similar 
requests for cost increases (in excess of the 20 percent plus 
inflation) for projects that have only recently initiated 
construction, such as projects that were authorized in WRDA 
2007.
    The Committee believes that additional information on the 
short-term and long-term construction costs of recommended 
projects will benefit Congress. For example, by providing clear 
information on the potential impacts that funding project 
construction at below capability will have on the total cost of 
a project, Congress will be more informed about current and 
future funding needs necessary to carry out ongoing and future 
water resource development projects.
    The Committee intends that the Corps' estimates of the cost 
of a project, based on either a 50 percent or 100 percent 
increase in the period for implementation of the recommended 
plan, be provided solely for informational purposes. The 
Committee does not intend for this information to affect the 
economic justification of a recommended project, including any 
potential modification of the benefit-cost analysis currently 
undertaken by the Corps in recommending a project to Congress 
for authorization.

Sec. 2014. Mitigation Status Report

    This section amends section 2036(b) of WRDA 2007. Section 
2036 requires an annual report to the committees of 
jurisdiction on the status of mitigation required for projects 
of the Corps. The report is also to include information on the 
required consultations among the Corps, Federal agencies, and 
the States on the success of mitigation efforts.
    The report was not submitted for 2008; and the reports 
submitted for 2009 and 2010 were late and not fully responsive 
to the requirements of section 2036. The 2010 status report, 
while improved, did not fulfill the statutory requirements. The 
reports continue a deficiency of the first report in that the 
Corps acknowledges that ``there are different methodologies 
utilized by Corps districts to calculate percent of mitigation 
complete.'' The Corps does not identify the specific method 
used for any of the projects.
    Using differing methods to determine the amount of 
mitigation completed eliminates the ability to compare the 
relative progress of the Corps in meeting its mitigation 
requirements, and greatly diminishes the usefulness of the 
information. Section 2014 would require the Corps to use 
uniform methods for determining mitigation status that include 
both qualitative and quantitative analysis.
    It is also of note that the status reports submitted to 
date do not include information on the required consultations. 
The information provided to the Committee raises serious 
questions about whether the consultations required under 
section 906(d)(4)(B) of WRDA 1986 are in fact occurring. 
Section 2014 addresses this concern by requiring that the 
status report include the specific dates and participants in 
these consultation meetings.

Sec. 2015. Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods

    This section addresses the use of American-made iron, 
steel, and manufactured goods in civil works construction 
projects.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska

    This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure 
for the project for navigation, Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska, 
being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1960 (33 U.S.C. Sec. 577), shall be $7,000,000.

Sec. 3002. Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, Arizona

    This section modifies the project for flood control, 
Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona, authorized by section 
101(a)(4) of WRDA 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 
303 of the WRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 3711), section 302 of WRDA 2000 
(114 Stat. 2600), and section 3008 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 
1107), to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a 
total cost of $55,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$50,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,400,000.

Sec. 3003. Rio de Flag, Arizona

    This section modifies the project for flood damage 
reduction, Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona, authorized by 
section 101(b)(3) of WRDA 2000 (114 Stat. 2576) and modified by 
section 3007 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 1107), to authorize the 
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
$77,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $50,000,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $27,000,000.

Sec. 3004. Tres Rios, Arizona

    This section modifies the project for ecosystem 
restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, authorized by section 
101(b)(4) of WRDA 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), to authorize the 
Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
$230,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $149,500,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $80,500,000.

Sec. 3005. Russian River project, Sonoma County, California

    This section modifies the project for flood control, water 
conservation, and related purposes in the Russian River basin, 
California, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1950 (64 Stat. 177), and the project for Russian River, Dry 
Creek, California, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1192), to: (1) require that the 
Secretary review the biological opinion on the water supply, 
flood control, and channel maintenance operations conducted by 
the Corps, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Mendocino 
County Russian River Flood Control District, as transmitted by 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 
September 24, 2008; and (2) if the Secretary determines that 
the project is feasible, to authorize the Secretary to 
construct the project at a total cost of $92,000,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $59,800,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $32,200,000.

Sec. 3006. South Sacramento County streams, California

    This section modifies the project for flood control, 
environmental restoration, and recreation, South Sacramento 
County streams, California, authorized by section 101(a)(8) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) (WRDA 
1999), to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a 
total cost of $104,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$67,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,800,000.

Sec. 3007. Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado

    This section modifies section 116 of the Energy and Water 
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (123 
Stat. 608) by striking ``Colorado Department of Natural 
Resources is authorized'' and inserting ``Colorado Department 
of Natural Resources, or its assignee, is authorized''.

Sec. 3008. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New 
        Mexico, and Texas

    This section modifies section 5056(f) of WRDA 2007 (121 
Stat. 1213) to authorize appropriations for this program 
through 2015.

Sec. 3009. Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia

    This section modifies the project for flood control, 
Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia, authorized by 
section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936 (chapter 688; 49 Stat. 
1574) and modified by section 301(a)(4) of WRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 
3707) and section 309 of WRDA 1999 (113 Stat. 301), to 
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a Federal 
cost of $8,100,000, in accordance with the post authorization 
change report dated June 29, 1998.

Sec. 3010. Kissimmee River restoration, Florida

    This section modifies the project for ecosystem 
restoration, Kissimmee River Restoration, Florida, authorized 
by section 101(8) of WRDA 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), to authorize 
the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
$852,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $426,000,000 
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $426,000,000.

Sec. 3011. Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida

    This section modifies the project for navigation and 
related purposes, Ponce de Leon Inlet, Volusia County, Florida, 
authorized by section 101(b)(8) of WRDA 1999 (113 Stat. 279), 
to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total 
cost of $15,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$8,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,500,000.

Sec. 3012. Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia

    This section modifies the project for navigation, Savannah 
Harbor expansion, Georgia, authorized by section 101(b)(9) of 
WRDA 1999 (113 Stat. 279), to authorize the Secretary to 
construct the project at a total cost of $675,000,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $405,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $270,000,000.

Sec. 3013. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, 
        Illinois

    Subsection (a) provides additional authority to the 
Secretary for the implementation of the projects for control of 
aquatic invasive species in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship 
Canal, Illinois, authorized by section 3061 of WRDA 2007 (121 
Stat. 1121).
    Subsection (b) amends section 3061(d) of WRDA 2007 (121 
Stat. 1121) by directing the Secretary, in carrying out the 
ongoing feasibility study to prevent the spread of aquatic 
nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 
Basins, to include a fully developed analysis of hydrologic 
separation of the basins, with a focus on the potential issues, 
costs, and benefits associated with hydrologic separation in 
the vicinity of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The intent 
of this language is: (1) to direct the Corps to prioritize 
completion of an initial phase of this study that focuses on 
the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal as a potential pathway for 
the movement of aquatic invasive species, such as the bighead 
and silver carp, between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River 
Basins; and (2) to direct the Corps to include in its 
recommendation to Congress information on the potential costs, 
benefits, and other associated issues that would result from 
undertaking a hydrologic separation of the Basins in the 
vicinity of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.

Sec. 3014. Lower Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky

    This section modifies the project for navigation, Lower 
Ohio River, Locks and Dams 52 and 53, Illinois and Kentucky, 
authorized by section 3(a)(6) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-676) (WRDA 1988), to 
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total 
cost of $1,991,000,000.

Sec. 3015. Wood River levee system reconstruction, Madison County, 
        Illinois

    This section modifies the project for flood damage 
reduction, Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison 
County, Illinois, authorized by section 1001(20) of WRDA 2007 
(121 Stat. 1053), to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
project at a total cost of $120,000,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $78,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $42,000,000.

Sec. 3016. Little Calumet River, Indiana

    This section modifies the project for flood control, Little 
Calumet River, Indiana, authorized by section 401(a) of WRDA 
1986 (100 Stat. 4115) and modified by section 127 of the Energy 
and Water Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), to 
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total 
cost of $275,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$206,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $69,000,000.

Sec. 3017. Rhodes Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland

    This section modifies the project for navigation, Rhodes 
Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland, being carried out under 
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
577), to increase the maximum amount of the Federal share to 
$7,000,000.

Sec. 3018. Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts

    This section modifies section 522 of WRDA 2000 (114 Stat. 
2656) by striking ``draft evaluation report of the New England 
District Engineer entitled `Phase I Muddy River Master Plan', 
dated June 2000'' and inserting ``Final Decision Document and 
Environmental Assessment Report of the New England District 
Engineer entitled `Muddy River Flood Control and Ecosystem 
Restoration, Boston and Brookline, Massachusetts', dated 
September 2003, at a total cost of $79,200,000''.

Sec. 3019. Ada, Minnesota

    This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure 
for the project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice River, 
Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be 
$10,600,000.

Sec. 3020. Montevideo, Minnesota

    This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure 
for the project for flood damage reduction, Montevideo, 
Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $10,000,000.

Sec. 3021. Two Harbors, Minnesota

    This section modifies section 3101(b) of WRDA 2007 (121 
Stat. 1133) by striking ``$7,000,000'' and inserting 
``$14,000,000''.

Sec. 3022. Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri

    This section modifies the project for flood control, Blue 
River basin, Kansas City, Missouri, authorized by section 
101(a)(18) of WRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), to authorize the 
Secretary to construct the project at a 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. 3023. Lower Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey

    This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure 
for the project for improvement of the quality of the 
environment, Lower Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey, being 
carried out under section 1135 of WRDA 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), 
shall be $10,000,000.

Sec. 3024. Ocean Gate, Ocean County, New Jersey

    This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure 
for the project for emergency streambank protection, Ocean 
Gate, Ocean County, New Jersey, being carried out under section 
14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), shall be 
$4,500,000.

Sec. 3025. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York

    This section modifies the project for shoreline protection, 
authorized by section 554 of WRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 3781), as 
amended by section 3122 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 1139), to 
increase the project authorization to $27,000,000.

Sec. 3026. Spring Creek, New York

    This section provides that the maximum Federal expenditure 
for the project for improvement of the quality of the 
environment, Spring Creek, New York, being carried out under 
section 1135 of WRDA 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be 
$6,000,000.

Sec. 3027. Hocking River basin, Monday Creek, Ohio

    This section modifies section 1001(37)(B)(iii) of WRDA 2007 
(121 Stat. 1055) by striking ``$1,270,000'' and inserting 
``$12,000,000''.

Sec. 3028. Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem 
        restoration, Oregon and Washington

    This section modifies section 536(g) of the WRDA of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2662) to increase the authorization of 
appropriations for this authority to $45,000,000.

Sec. 3029. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas

    This section modifies the project for navigation and 
ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, 
authorized by section 1001(40) of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 1056) to 
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total 
cost of $447,604,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$183,827,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $263,777,000.

Sec. 3030. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas

    This section modifies the project for flood control, 
Trinity River and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 2 
of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction, 
repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and 
harbors, and for other purposes'', approved March 2, 1945, and 
modified by section 5141 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 1253), to 
authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total 
cost of $882,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$573,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $308,700,000.

Sec. 3031. Houston-Galveston navigation channels, Texas

    This section modifies the project for navigation and 
environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation 
Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of WRDA 1996 
(110 Stat. 3666), to authorize the Secretary to extend the 
boundaries of the Galveston channel approximately 2600 feet 
beyond Pier 38, if the Secretary determines that the extension 
is feasible.

Sec. 3032. Project reauthorization

    This section renews the authorization for the Vincennes, 
Indiana portion of the project for flood control, Wabash River 
basin, Illinois and Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 649).

Sec. 3033. Project deauthorizations

    Subsection (a) deauthorizes a portion of the following 
projects for navigation: Potomac River, Washington Channel, 
District of Columbia; Chicago Harbor, Illinois; Ipswich River, 
Massachusetts; Menemsha Creek, Massachusetts; and Block Island 
Harbor of Refuge, Rhode Island.
    Subsection (b) deauthorizes 12 specific, currently 
authorized but unconstructed projects or elements of projects, 
which were identified as eligible for deauthorization by the 
Corps, pursuant to section 1001 of WRDA 1986, as amended. 
Section 1001 of WRDA 1986 directs the Corps to provide Congress 
with a list of unconstructed projects, or unconstructed 
separable elements of projects, which have been authorized, but 
have not received obligation of Federal funding for the full 
five fiscal years preceding the transmittal of the list. All 12 
projects identified in this subsection meet these criteria, and 
were identified as eligible for deauthorization by the Corps. 
The budgetary impact, according to the Corps, of deauthorizing 
and not constructing the 12 projects in subsection (b) is a 
reduction of future Federal spending of $871.8 million.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. Hollis, Alaska

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements, Hollis, Alaska.

Sec. 4002. Bullard Wash, Goodyear, Arizona

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Bullard Wash, Goodyear, Arizona.

Sec. 4003. Lower Santa Cruz River, Casa Grande, Arizona

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction and related water resource purposes for the 
Lower Santa Cruz River study area, Casa Grande, Arizona.

Sec. 4004. Maricopa County, Arizona

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, recreation, and 
related water resource purposes, including nonstructural 
solutions, for Maricopa County, Arizona.

Sec. 4005. Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley Counties, 
        Arkansas

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigation, flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, 
bank stabilization, and related water resource purposes for the 
Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley Counties, Arkansas.

Sec. 4006. Oil Trough, Arkansas

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

Sec. 4007. Randolph County, Arkansas

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

Sec. 4008. Berkeley Marina, Berkeley, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements for Berkeley Marina, Berkeley, 
California.

Sec. 4009. Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration and flood damage reduction for 
Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California.

Sec. 4010. Colorado Lagoon and Alamitos Bay, Long Beach, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration between Colorado Lagoon and Alamitos 
Bay, Long Beach, California.

Sec. 4011. Lodi Lake, Lodi, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and streambank stabilization for Lodi Lake, 
Lodi, California.

Sec. 4012. Oakland-Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Oakland, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigation improvements for the Oakland-Inner Harbor Tidal 
Canal, Oakland, California.

Sec. 4013. Noyo Harbor District, Noyo, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements and dredge material disposal for Noyo 
Harbor District, Noyo, California.

Sec. 4014. Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements, flood damage reduction, shoreline 
protection, environmental restoration, and related water 
resource purposes for Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, 
California.

Sec. 4015. Redwood City Navigation Channel, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements and dredge material disposal for 
Redwood City Navigation Channel, California.

Sec. 4016. Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto, 
California. In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall 
review the feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on 
a watershed basis.

Sec. 4017. Sacramento Regional Sanitation District, Sacramento, 
        California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction in the Sacramento Regional Sanitation 
District, Sacramento, California.

Sec. 4018. San Pablo Bay, Hercules, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements for San Pablo Bay, Hercules, 
California.

Sec. 4019. Stockton, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for 
navigation channel deepening for Stockton, California.

Sec. 4020. Tijuana River environmental restoration, San Diego, 
        California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, water supply, 
water quality, recreation, and other water-related issues 
including the impacts of water flows from Mexico for the 
Tijuana River basin, San Diego, California.

Sec. 4021. Tijuana River wetlands restoration, San Diego County, 
        California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration and wetland restoration along the 
Tijuana River, San Diego County, California.

Sec. 4022. Ventura River, Ventura County, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Ventura River, Ventura County, California.

Sec. 4023. Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, California

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, 
California. In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall 
review the feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on 
a watershed basis.

Sec. 4024. Fountain Creek watershed, Pueblo, Colorado

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a sediment 
impact analysis study to determine the sediment transport 
parameters for Fountain Creek watershed, Pueblo, Colorado.

Sec. 4025. Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado. In 
carrying out this study, the Secretary shall review the 
feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on a 
watershed basis.

Sec. 4026. Holly Pond and Norotan River, Stamford, Connecticut

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for 
environmental restoration for Holly Pond and Norotan River, 
Stamford, Connecticut.

Sec. 4027. Housatonic River, New Milford, Connecticut

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction along the Housatonic River, New Milford, 
Connecticut.

Sec. 4028. Long Island Sound and Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements for Long Island Sound and Mill River, 
Stamford, Connecticut.

Sec. 4029. Meriden, Connecticut

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Meriden, Connecticut. In carrying out this 
study, the Secretary shall review the feasibility of carrying 
out a project or projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4030. South Cove, Old Saybrook, Connecticut

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for the South Cove, Old Saybrook, 
Connecticut.

Sec. 4031. West River, New Haven Harbor, West Haven, Connecticut

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
shoreline protection, storm damage reduction, including a 
review of bulkhead condition for West River, New Haven Harbor, 
West Haven, Connecticut.

Sec. 4032. Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for enhanced 
public access and recreational opportunities on Army Corps of 
Engineers projects in the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, Maryland, 
and Virginia.

Sec. 4033. Washington, District of Columbia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction, including green or low-impact development 
technologies, for Washington, District of Columbia.

Sec. 4034. Lake County, Florida

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and environmental protection, Lake County, 
Florida.

Sec. 4035. Marion County, Florida

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

Sec. 4036. Miami, Florida

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

Sec. 4037. Oakland Park, Florida

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

Sec. 4038. Riviera Beach, Florida

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
hurricane and storm damage reduction and shoreline protection 
for Riviera Beach, Florida.

Sec. 4039. South Daytona, Florida

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water 
resource purposes for South Daytona, Florida.

Sec. 4040. Tampa, Florida

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Tampa, 
Florida.

Sec. 4041. Peavine Creek, Decatur, Georgia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restoration, recreation, and 
related water resource purposes for Peavine Creek, Decatur, 
Georgia.

Sec. 4042. Richland Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for Richland Creek, Lawrenceville, 
Georgia.

Sec. 4043. Study for water supply, Georgia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study of 
municipal and industrial water supply for the State of Georgia. 
The Secretary shall complete the study not later than two years 
following the first obligation of funds for the study.

Sec. 4044. Suwannee Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for Suwannee Creek, Lawrenceville, 
Georgia.

Sec. 4045. Agat and Merizo, Guam

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm 
damage reduction and shoreline protection for Agat and Merizo, 
Guam.

Sec. 4046. Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction along Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, 
Hawaii. In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall utilize, 
to the extent practicable, any work undertaken in the 
formulation of the project for flood damage reduction, Waiakea 
Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii, previously initiated 
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
701s).

Sec. 4047. Waialua-Kaiaka watershed, Oahu, Hawaii

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, water supply, and 
related water resource purposes for the Waialua-Kaiaka 
watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.

Sec. 4048. Albany Park, Chicago, Illinois

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Albany Park, Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 4049. Carpenter Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for Carpenter 
Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois.

Sec. 4050. Des Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for the Des 
Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois.

Sec. 4051. Ferson-Otter Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for Ferson-Otter 
Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois.

Sec. 4052. Middle Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of developing a program for 
environmental restoration for the Middle Mississippi River, 
Illinois and Missouri.

Sec. 4053. North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration and related water resource purposes 
for the North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 4054. River Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago 
        River, Chicago, Illinois

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration and shoreline protection for River 
Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, 
Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 4055. Thillens Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, 
        Illinois

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and shoreline 
protection for Thillens Park, North Branch of the Chicago 
River, Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 4056. Village of Skokie, Illinois

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

Sec. 4057. Bowman Creek, South Bend, Indiana

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for Bowman Creek, South Bend, 
Indiana.

Sec. 4058. Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction, and related water resource purposes for the 
Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana.

Sec. 4059. Burlington, Iowa

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and stream bank stabilization for Burlington, 
Iowa.

Sec. 4060. Beneficial use of dredged material, Louisiana and 
        Mississippi

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of utilizing the Federal hopper 
dredge Wheeler, as part of routine testing and use under its 
ready reserve status, to support projects for the beneficial 
reuse of material dredged from federally maintained waterways 
in connection with the project for protecting, preserving, and 
restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem and the project for 
hurricane and storm damage reduction, Mississippi Coastal 
Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, 
Mississippi.

Sec. 4061. Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, 
Louisiana. In carrying out the study, the Secretary may include 
elements of the report prepared by the non-Federal interest for 
Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, if the Secretary 
determines that such elements are feasible.

Sec. 4062. LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John Counties, 
        Louisiana

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood 
control and improvement of the Lower Mississippi River, Bonnet 
Carre Spillway, authorized by section 1 of the Act of May 15, 
1928 (45 Stat. 534), to add environmental restoration as a 
project purpose. In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall 
review operational and structural changes to the project to 
restore the LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John 
Counties, Louisiana.

Sec. 4063. Ruth Canal freshwater diversion, Vermilion, Louisiana

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study of 
the project for the improvement of Bayou Teche and the 
Vermilion River, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the 
Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 641), and the 
project for flood protection in the Teche-Vermilion basins, 
Louisiana, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420), to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for environmental restoration and water 
supply, Ruth Canal, Vermilion, Louisiana.

Sec. 4064. Anacostia River watershed, Prince George's County, Maryland

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for the Anacostia River watershed, Prince 
George's County, Maryland.

Sec. 4065. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline study, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 
        Virginia

    This section directs the Secretary, in conducting the study 
for the Chesapeake Bay Shoreline, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and 
Virginia, being carried out under the Committee Resolution of 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the United 
States Senate, adopted May 23, 2001, to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out projects on Federally-owned 
property for shoreline protection, environmental restoration, 
and improvement of water quality of the Chesapeake Bay.

Sec. 4066. Dredged material disposal, Baltimore Harbor, Maryland

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements and dredged material disposal at Cox 
Creek Dredged Material Disposal Site for Baltimore Harbor, 
Maryland.

Sec. 4067. Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island recreation and public access, 
        Maryland

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of modifying the Mid-Chesapeake Bay 
Island project for enhanced public access and recreational 
opportunities on Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island, Maryland, as 
authorized by section 1001 of this Act.

Sec. 4068. Capisic Brook, Portland, Maine

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for 
environmental restoration, flood damage reduction, and 
stormwater management for Capisic Brook, Portland, Maine.

Sec. 4069. Fishing and Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm 
damage reduction and shoreline protection for Fishing and 
Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine.

Sec. 4070. Southern Maine/New Hampshire dredged material disposal 
        study, Maine and New Hampshire

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements and dredge material disposal for 
southern Maine and New Hampshire.

Sec. 4071. Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds, Middlesex and 
        Essex Counties, Massachusetts

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water 
resource purposes, Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds, 
Middlesex and Essex Counties, Massachusetts. In carrying out 
this study, the Secretary shall review the feasibility of 
carrying out a project or projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4072. Hoosic River watershed, North Adams, Massachusetts

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water 
resource purposes for Hoosic River watershed, North Adams, 
Massachusetts. In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall 
review the feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on 
a watershed basis.

Sec. 4073. Mystic River watershed, Massachusetts

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for the Mystic River watershed, 
Massachusetts.

Sec. 4074. Quequechan River, Fall River, Massachusetts

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration, recreation, and related water 
resource purposes for the Quequechan River, Fall River, 
Massachusetts.

Sec. 4075. Clinton River, Clinton Township, Michigan

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water 
resource purposes for Clinton River, Clinton Township, 
Michigan.

Sec. 4076. Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan

    This section directs the Secretary, in carrying out the 
review under the authority of section 216 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830) of the project for flood control, 
Flint River, Michigan, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 311), to include a review of 
Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan.

Sec. 4077. Upper Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction and related water resource purposes for Upper 
Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan.

Sec. 4078. Amory, Mississippi

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

Sec. 4079. Coastal Mississippi ecosystem restoration, Mississippi

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for 
environmental restoration and related water resource purposes 
for coastal Mississippi. In carrying out this study, the 
Secretary shall review the feasibility of carrying out a 
project or projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4080. Fulton, Mississippi

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

Sec. 4081. Gulfport, Mississippi

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements, Gulfport, Mississippi.

Sec. 4082. Lucedale, Mississippi

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction, water supply, recreation, and related water 
resource purposes for Lucedale, Mississippi.

Sec. 4083. Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes County, Mississippi

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Magby Creek and Vernon Branch in Lowndes 
County, Mississippi.

Sec. 4084. Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood 
protection and other purposes in the Blue River basin, vicinity 
of Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas, authorized by section 201 
of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (80 Stat. 1409), to include 
additional flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, 
and recreational measures, Kansas City, Missouri.

Sec. 4085. Little Blue River, Jackson County, Missouri

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for stream 
bank stabilization for Little Blue River, Jackson County, 
Missouri.

Sec. 4086. St. Louis, Missouri

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction, especially examining the floodwall pump 
station, for St. Louis, Missouri.

Sec. 4087. Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas, Nevada

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Sec. 4088. New Hampshire

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for 
improvement of water quality, restoration of degraded habitat, 
environmental restoration, water supply, and remediation of 
potential impacts of climate change located within the State of 
New Hampshire. In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall 
review the feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on 
a watershed basis and is directed to work in collaboration with 
all relevant Federal and non-Federal entities, including State 
and local governments, nonprofit organizations, academia, and 
the general public interested in participating in this study.

Sec. 4089. Piscataqua River, New Hampshire

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
evaluate sediment and nutrient pollution in the Piscataqua 
River system to determine the feasibility of carrying out a 
project for environmental restoration and water quality for the 
Piscataqua River, New Hampshire.

Sec. 4090. Barnegat Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth Counties, New 
        Jersey

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction, shoreline protection, environmental 
restoration, and related water resource purposes for Barnegat 
Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey. In 
carrying out this study, the Secretary shall review the 
feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on a 
watershed basis.

Sec. 4091. Beverly, New Jersey

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
shoreline protection, including consideration of a gabion wall, 
for Beverly, New Jersey.

Sec. 4092. Borough of Pine Beach, New Jersey

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
shoreline protection, including consideration of floating wave 
attenuators, for Borough of Pine Beach, New Jersey.

Sec. 4093. Haddon Township, New Jersey

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Haddon Township, New Jersey.

Sec. 4094. Rahway River watershed, New Jersey

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water 
resource purposes for Rahway River watershed, New Jersey. In 
carrying out this study, the Secretary shall review the 
feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on a 
watershed basis.

Sec. 4095. Third River, Belleville, Bloomfield, and Nutley, New Jersey

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction for Third River, Belleville, Bloomfield, and 
Nutley, New Jersey.

Sec. 4096. Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigation, environmental restoration, and recreation for the 
Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey.

Sec. 4097. Township of Ocean, New Jersey

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm 
damage reduction and shoreline protection for the Township of 
Ocean, New Jersey.

Sec. 4098. Preakness Brook, Wayne, New Jersey

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Preakness Brook, Wayne, New Jersey.

Sec. 4099. Dona Ana, New Mexico

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of adding hydropower to existing 
irrigation canals for Dona Ana, New Mexico.

Sec. 4100. Hidalgo County, New Mexico

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Hidalgo County, New Mexico.

Sec. 4101. Otero County, New Mexico

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Otero County, New Mexico.

Sec. 4102. Valencia County, New Mexico

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Valencia County, New Mexico.

Sec. 4103. Glen Cove, New York

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm 
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Glen Cove, 
New York.

Sec. 4104. Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New York

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm 
damage reduction, shoreline protection, and environmental 
restoration for Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New York.

Sec. 4105. Kill van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten Island, New York

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm 
damage reduction, shoreline protection, and environmental 
restoration for Kill Van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten Island, 
New York.

Sec. 4106. Mariners Marsh and Arlington Marsh, Staten Island, New York

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for Mariners Marsh and Arlington 
Marsh, Staten Island, New York.

Sec. 4107. New York, New York

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct an inventory 
of bulkheads and seawalls constructed around the city of New 
York, New York, including the boroughs of Brooklyn, the Bronx, 
Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens. In conducting the 
inventory, the Secretary shall assess the condition of the 
bulkheads and seawalls and the need for rehabilitation or 
modification of the bulkheads and seawalls. If the Secretary 
determines that an assessed bulkhead or seawall presents an 
imminent and substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary 
may carry out measures to prevent or mitigate that risk. 
Subsection (f) authorizes $7,000,000 to carry out this section.

Sec. 4108. Norton Basin Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm 
damage reduction and shoreline protection for Norton Basin 
Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York.

Sec. 4109. Queens, New York

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for storm 
damage reduction and shoreline protection, Queens, New York, 
between 116th and 156th Streets.

Sec. 4110. Rockaway Beach Seawall, Rockaway, New York

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for storm 
damage reduction and shoreline protection for Rockaway Beach 
Seawall, Rockaway, New York.

Sec. 4111. Roosevelt Island, East River, New York, New York

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction and shoreline protection for Roosevelt Island, 
East River, New York, New York.

Sec. 4112. Charlotte, North Carolina

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for 
environmental restoration in support of the Surface Water 
Improvement and Management Initiative for Charlotte, North 
Carolina.

Sec. 4113. Nantahala River, Swain, North Carolina

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration, recreation, and related water 
resource purposes, Nantahala River, Swain, North Carolina.

Sec. 4114. Missouri River and tributaries, South and Central North 
        Dakota, North Dakota

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for the Missouri River and tributaries, South 
and Central North Dakota, North Dakota.

Sec. 4115. Big Creek watershed, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Big Creek 
watershed, Ohio. In carrying out this study, the Secretary 
shall review the feasibility of carrying out a project or 
projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4116. Brandywine Creek watershed, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Brandywine 
Creek watershed, Ohio. In carrying out this study, the 
Secretary shall review the feasibility of carrying out a 
project or projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4117. Carlisle Township, Lorain County, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Carlisle Township, Lorain County, Ohio.

Sec. 4118. Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas River watershed, 
        Summit County, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water 
resource purposes, Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas 
River watershed, Summit County, Ohio. In carrying out this 
study, the Secretary shall review the feasibility of carrying 
out a project or projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4119. Euclid Creek watershed, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Euclid Creek 
watershed, Ohio. In carrying out this study, the Secretary 
shall review the feasibility of carrying out a project or 
projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4120. Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration, streambank erosion, and 
sedimentation control for Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio.

Sec. 4121. Lower Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for the Lower Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio.

Sec. 4122. Ohio River, Ohio

    This section amends section 4070 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 
1183) by striking ``Ohio River'' and inserting ``Ohio River and 
tributaries''.

Sec. 4123. Shaker Lakes, Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for Shaker Lakes, Shaker Heights and 
Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

Sec. 4124. Stark County, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Stark 
County, Ohio.

Sec. 4125. Tinkers Creek watershed, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Tinkers 
Creek watershed, Ohio. In carrying out this study, the 
Secretary shall review the feasibility of carrying out a 
project or projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4126. Upper Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga County, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for the Upper Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga 
County, Ohio.

Sec. 4127. West Creek watershed, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restoration for West Creek 
watershed, Ohio. In carrying out this study, the Secretary 
shall review the feasibility of carrying out a project or 
projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4128. Yellow Creek and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restoration for Yellow Creek 
and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio.

Sec. 4129. Ferry Creek Reservoir, Brookings, Oregon

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for Ferry Creek Reservoir, Brookings, 
Oregon.

Sec. 4130. Oregon Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters, Oregon

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct an inventory 
of federally constructed navigation jetties and breakwaters in 
the State of Oregon. In conducting the inventory, the Secretary 
shall assess the condition of the navigation jetties and 
breakwaters and the need for rehabilitation or modification of 
the jetties and breakwaters. If the Secretary determines that 
an assessed jetty or breakwater presents an imminent and 
substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary may carry out 
measures to prevent or mitigate that risk. Subsection (f) 
authorizes $7,000,000 to carry out this section.

Sec. 4131. Port Orford, Oregon

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigational improvements with examination of navigational 
breakwaters for Port Orford, Oregon.

Sec. 4132. Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a multipurpose 
project for flood damage reduction and environmental 
restoration for Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania. In carrying 
out the study, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent 
practicable, any work undertaken in the formulation of a 
project for environmental restoration, Buhl Lake, Sharon, 
Pennsylvania, previously initiated under section 206 of WRDA 
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679).

Sec. 4133. Delaware River and tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restoration for the Delaware 
River and tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In carrying 
out this study, the Secretary shall review the feasibility of 
carrying out a project or projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4134. Elk Creek, Meadville, Pennsylvania

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration and water quality for Elk Creek, 
Meadville, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4135. Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction, focusing on the Mill Creek Drift Catcher, for 
Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4136. Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for the Susquehanna River, 
Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4137. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction

    This section amends section 4077 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 
1184) in subsection (a) by striking ``Mahoning River basin, 
Pennsylvania'' and inserting ``Mahoning River basin, 
Pennsylvania, the Monongahela River basin, Pennsylvania''; and 
in subsection (b), by striking ``Shaler Township'' and 
inserting ``Shaler Township, Hampton Township, Harmar 
Township''.

Sec. 4138. Guayama, Puerto Rico

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
hurricane and storm damage reduction for Guayama, Puerto Rico.

Sec. 4139. Rincon, Puerto Rico

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction and shoreline protection for the Municipality 
of Rincon, Puerto Rico.

Sec. 4140. Providence, Rhode Island

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 
damage reduction and related water resource purposes for the 
rivers in Providence, Rhode Island.

Sec. 4141. South Carolina

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for 
improvement of water quality, restoration of degraded habitat, 
environmental restoration, water supply, and remediation of 
potential impacts of climate change located within the eight 
watersheds located within the State of South Carolina. In 
carrying out this study, the Secretary shall review the 
feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on a 
watershed basis and is directed to work in collaboration with 
all relevant Federal and non-Federal entities, including State 
and local governments, nonprofit organizations, academia, and 
the general public interested in participating in this study.

Sec. 4142. James River, South Dakota

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of modifying the project for channel 
restoration and improvements on the James River, South Dakota, 
authorized by section 401(b) of WRDA 1986 (100 Stat. 4128) to 
add ecosystem restoration and watershed improvements as project 
purposes.

Sec. 4143. Station Camp Creek, Gallatin, Tennessee

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
environmental restoration for Station Camp Creek, Gallatin, 
Tennessee.

Sec. 4144. Brazos River, Texas

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study 
assessing the long-term impacts of water use, withdrawal, 
recirculation, and downstream impacts on the Whitney Lake 
Reservoir, Texas.

Sec. 4145. Hickory Creek, City of Balch Springs, Texas

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for Hickory Creek, City of Balch Springs, 
Texas.

Sec. 4146. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (Barbours Cut), Texas

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study of 
the feasibility of modifying the Barbours Cut element of the 
project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-
Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 
101(a)(30) of WRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), to a depth of 45 
feet.

Sec. 4147. Port of Galveston, Texas

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study of 
the feasibility of carrying out a project for dredged material 
disposal in the vicinity of the project for navigation and 
environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation 
Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) of WRDA 1996 
(110 Stat. 3666).

Sec. 4148. Simsboro Aquifer, City of Bastrop, Texas

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of utilizing the Simsboro Aquifer for 
water supply for the City of Bastrop, Texas.

Sec. 4149. Navasota River watershed, Grimes County, Texas

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and related water 
resource purposes for the Navasota River watershed, Grimes 
County, Texas.

Sec. 4150. Rio Grande basin, Texas

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction, environmental restoration, and water supply 
for the Rio Grande basin, Texas.

Sec. 4151. Roma, Texas

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

Sec. 4152. Cottonwood Heights, Utah

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
streambank stabilization for Cottonwood Heights, Utah.

Sec. 4153. Emery Town, Utah

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a 
comprehensive study of existing water supply resources for 
Emery Town, Utah.

Sec. 4154. Big Sandy River reallocation study, Virginia and West 
        Virginia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of reallocating water storage at 6 
reservoirs to optimize benefits for multiple-purpose use in the 
Big Sandy River watershed, Virginia and West Virginia.

Sec. 4155. Buckroe and Grandview Beaches, Hampton, Virginia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
shoreline protection for Buckroe and Grandview Beaches, 
Hampton, Virginia.

Sec. 4156. Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
hurricane and storm damage reduction, including offshore 
breakwaters, for Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia.

Sec. 4157. Hampton, Virginia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for 
hurricane and storm damage reduction and shoreline protection 
for Hampton, Virginia.

Sec. 4158. James River watershed, Virginia

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the water resource needs, including current and 
projected future needs, for the James River watershed, 
Virginia. In carrying out this study, the Secretary shall 
review the feasibility of carrying out a project or projects on 
a watershed basis.

Sec. 4159. Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
navigation channel deepening for Elliott Bay, Seattle, 
Washington.

Sec. 4160. Green River, Kent, Washington

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
damage reduction for the Green River, Kent, Washington.

Sec. 4161. Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, Washington

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for 
environmental quality and environmental restoration, especially 
related to salmon and steelhead recovery issues, for the 
Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, Washington. In carrying 
out this study, the Secretary shall review the feasibility of 
carrying out a project or projects on a watershed basis.

Sec. 4162. Lake Michigan shoreline, City of Cudahy, Wisconsin

    This section directs the Secretary to conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
shoreline protection for the Lake Michigan shoreline, City of 
Cudahy, Wisconsin.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 5001. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection 
        program

    This section amends section 510 of WRDA 1996, as amended, 
to explicitly provide for in-kind credit, to authorize certain 
Federal funds (not provided by the Secretary) be credited 
towards the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, to 
limit the maximum Federal expenditure for any individual 
project at a single locality to $10,000,000, and to expand the 
geographic scope of this authority to include the States of 
Delaware, New York, and West Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia. This section increases the authorization of 
appropriations for this section by $10,000,000 to a total of 
$50,000,000.
    Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to develop, at Federal 
expense, and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to 
prioritize projects to be carried out by the Secretary within 
the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In carrying out this authority, 
the Secretary shall ensure that the plan: (1) focuses on 
integrating existing and potential future work of the Corps; 
(2) is developed in consultation with the EPA's Chesapeake Bay 
program office; and (3) encompasses all actions necessary to 
assist in the implementation of the goals of the Chesapeake Bay 
Agreement, including any projects or authorities under the 
jurisdiction of the Corps that are necessary for implementation 
of Executive Order 13508.

Sec. 5002. Saint Lawrence Seaway

    This section modifies section 5015(a) of WRDA 2007 (121 
Stat. 1196) by striking ``$134,650,000'' and inserting 
``$185,638,028''.

Sec. 5003. Watershed management

    The section adds the following projects to the list of 
watershed management, restoration, and development projects 
under section 5002(d) of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 1190): Esopus, 
Rondout, and Wallkill watersheds, New York; San Gabriel River 
watershed, California; South Platte River watershed, Colorado; 
Loxahatchee River watershed, Jupiter, Florida; Hudson River 
watershed, Orange, Dutchess, and Ulster Counties, New York; and 
Muskingum River basin, Ohio.

Sec. 5004. Comprehensive shoreline restoration

    This section authorizes $25,000,000 for each of the FY 2011 
through 2016 for the Secretary to participate in the ecosystem 
restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and emergency 
streambank protection component of a project at designated 
locations if the Secretary determines that any such component 
is feasible. Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds may be 
allotted under this section for a project at any single 
location.
    Subsection (b) designates the following locations as 
eligible for this authority: Miller Knox Shoreline, Richmond, 
California; Mississippi River, Davenport, Iowa; Lake Michigan 
(in the vicinity of the former USX Site), Chicago, Illinois, 
Pond and Mill Creek watershed, Louisville, Kentucky; 
Massachusetts Bay (in the vicinity of Georges Island), Boston, 
Massachusetts; Mississippi River (in the vicinity of the lower 
St. Anthony Falls), Minneapolis, Minnesota; Brush Creek, Kansas 
City, Missouri; Mississippi River, Kimmswick, Missouri; 
Delaware River, Trenton, New Jersey; East River, New York, New 
York; Upper New York Bay, Staten Island, New York; Abbott's 
Creek, Lexington, North Carolina; Ohio River, Belpre, Ohio; 
Schuylkill River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ohio, Allegheny, 
and Monongahela Rivers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Ohio River, 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Fields Point, Narragansett Bay, 
Providence, Rhode Island; Congaree River, Columbia, South 
Carolina; Wolf Creek Harbor, Mississippi River, Tennessee; 
Ruston Way Seawall, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington; and 
Lower Yahara River, McFarland, Wisconsin.

Sec. 5005. Northeast Coastal Region ecosystem restoration

    This section directs the Secretary to plan, design, and 
construct projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration within the 
coastal waters of the Northeastern United States from Virginia 
to Maine, including associated bays, estuaries, and critical 
riverine areas. The Secretary, in coordination with the 
Administrator of EPA, the heads of other appropriate Federal 
agencies, the Governors of the coastal States from Virginia to 
Maine, nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties, 
shall develop a general coastal management plan for aquatic 
ecosystem restoration within the coastal waters of the 
Northeastern United States. The Secretary is authorized to 
carry out aquatic ecosystem restoration projects pursuant to 
the general coastal management plan. Subsection (d) authorizes 
an annual appropriation of $25,000,000 to carry out this 
section, including the completion of the general coastal 
management plan. Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal funds may 
be allocated under this section for any single eligible 
project.

Sec. 5006. Anacostia watershed, District of Columbia and Maryland

    Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary to participate in 
the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, 
emergency streambank protection, and aquatic plant control 
components of the Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan, 
developed pursuant to section 5060 of WRDA 2007 (121 Stat. 
1215), if the Secretary determines that such component is 
feasible. In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall 
consult with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership. 
In carrying out a project component under subsection (a), the 
Secretary is directed to waive the cost share to be provided by 
a non-Federal interest for any portion of the project that 
benefits Federally-owned property. Subsection (d) authorizes an 
appropriation of $25,000,000 to carry out this section.

Sec. 5007. Egmont Key, Florida

    This section directs the Secretary to accept funds from the 
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to 
carry out those portions of the project for shoreline 
stabilization, Egmont Key, Florida, carried out under section 3 
of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal participation 
in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned 
property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), that 
benefit Federally-owned property.

Sec. 5008. Cambridge, Maryland

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out projects 
for environmental protection and restoration at the Blackwater 
Wildlife Refuge, Cambridge, Maryland. In carrying out such 
projects, the Secretary shall accept funds from the Director of 
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Sec. 5009. Hart-Miller Island, Maryland

    This section prohibits the Secretary from consideration of 
the use or expansion of Hart-Miller Island, Maryland, in any 
dredged material management plan.

Sec. 5010. Gallops Island, Boston, Massachusetts

    This section authorizes the Secretary to carry out a 
project for the environmental remediation of Gallops Island, 
Boston, Massachusetts. In carrying out such project, the 
Secretary shall accept funds from the Director of the National 
Park Service.

Sec. 5011. Sharkey County, Mississippi

    This section provides that funding for the operation and 
maintenance of the multiagency wildlife and environmental 
interpretative and education center, authorized by section 
145(f) of Division H of Public Law 108-199 (118 Stat. 443), 
shall be provided by the Secretary of the Interior.

Sec. 5012. Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project, Charleston, South 
        Carolina

    This section directs the Secretary to expedite completion 
of the reconnaissance and feasibility studies for the 
Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project, Charleston, South Carolina, 
and if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, 
authorizes the Secretary to undertake project preconstruction, 
engineering, and design.

Sec. 5013. Sense of Congress on the promotion of General Michael J. 
        Walsh to Major General, United States Army

    This section expresses the Sense of the Congress on the 
promotion of General Michael J. Walsh, U.S. Army.

                           Additional Matters

    The Committee received a request to direct the Corps of 
Engineers to budget for the construction of the recycled water 
pipeline extending from the Sonoma Valley Country Sanitation 
District Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation 
District Waste Water Treatment Plant to the project for 
environmental restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, 
California, authorized by section 1001(12) of the WRDA 2007 
(121 Stat. 1051). In its implementation of section 1001(12), 
the Corps has taken the position that the construction of the 
recycled water pipeline and restoration or enhancement of Salt 
Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3 (lower ponds) are not part of the 
authorized Federal project. This interpretation is contrary to 
the intent and the plain reading of section 1001(12). In the 
Corps' own implementation guidance, dated March 24, 2008, it 
recognizes that the ``project costs identified in Section 
1001(12) are the costs associated with the combination of the 
recommended Federal project and the additional features.'' 
Accordingly, when Congress authorized this combination, its 
intent was that both the recommended Federal project and the 
recycled water pipeline and restoration and enhancement of 
additional Salt Ponds be implemented in tandem. The Committee 
directs the Corps to execute work on the combined Napa River 
Salt Marsh Restoration project and the recycled water pipelines 
and additional Salt Ponds as a single project, without the need 
for additional statutory language. The Committee also directs 
the Corps to include funding for the recycled pipelines as part 
of this single project in any budgetary request for the Napa 
River Salt Marsh Restoration, California project.

            Legislative History and Committee Consideration

    In the 110th Congress, on April 30, 2008, the Subcommittee 
on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing entitled: 
``Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2008''. 
The Subcommittee received testimony from the Department of the 
Army (Civil Works), and representatives of industry, 
conservation organizations, and other stakeholders. No further 
action was taken on this legislation in the 110th Congress.
    In the 111th Congress, on November 18, 2009, the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing 
entitled: ``Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 
2010''. The Subcommittee received testimony from Members of 
Congress on issues and proposals for consideration in the 
``Water Resources Development Act of 2010''.
    On April 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment held a hearing entitled: ``Proposals for a Water 
Resources Development Act of 2010 Part II''. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from the Department of the Army (Civil 
Works), and representatives concerned with the flood damage 
reduction, inland and coastal navigation, and environmental 
restoration missions of the Corps of Engineers.
    On July 28, 2010, Chairman James L. Oberstar and introduced 
H.R. 5892, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2010''. On 
July 29, 2010, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure met in open session to consider H.R. 5892. The 
Committee adopted two amendments to the bill by voice vote. The 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ordered H.R. 
5892, as amended, reported favorably to the House by voice vote 
with a quorum present.

                              Record Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report to include the 
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote 
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the 
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for 
and against. There were no recorded votes taken in connection 
with consideration of H.R. 5892 or ordering the bill, as 
amended, reported. A motion to order H.R. 5892, as amended, 
reported favorably to the House was agreed to by voice vote 
with a quorum present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

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

                          Cost of Legislation

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

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee references the report of the Congressional Budget 
Office included in the report.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are the 
improvement of navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline 
protection, water supply, and recreation, and environmental 
restoration and protection.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 
5892, as amended, from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office.
                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 23, 2010.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5892, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2010.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Aurora 
Swanson.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 5892--Water Resources Development Act of 2010

    Summary: H.R. 5892 would authorize the Army Corps of 
Engineers to study and participate in the construction of more 
than 200 new water projects. Assuming appropriation of the 
authorized and necessary amounts, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 5892 would cost $1.3 billion over the 2011-
2015 period.
    The bill also would allow the Corps to collect and spend 
funds contributed by private firms to expedite the evaluation 
of permit applications. Because the legislation would affect 
direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, based 
on information from the Corps, CBO estimates that amounts 
collected and spent for such purposes would total less than 
$500,000 annually and that the net budgetary impact would be 
negligible. Enacting the legislation would not affect revenues.
    H.R. 5892 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Any costs to state, 
local, or tribal governments to comply with conditions of 
federal assistance would be incurred voluntarily.
    H.R. 5892 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined 
in UMRA if the Army Corps of Engineers acquires any real estate 
interests by means of condemnation. CBO estimates that the cost 
of the mandate, if imposed, would fall well below the annual 
threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($141 
million in 2010, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government:
    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5892 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2011      2012      2013      2014      2015    2011-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Title I--Water Resource Projects:
    Estimated Authorization Level..................        55        56        46        47        51        255
    Estimated Outlays..............................        17        31        34        38        42        162
Title III--Project-related Provisions:
    Estimated Authorization Level..................       280       291       285       288       286      1,430
    Estimated Outlays..............................        84       157       192       221       241        895
Title IV--Studies:
    Estimated Authorization Level..................        26         5         5         0         0         36
    Estimated Outlays..............................        16        13         5         2         0         36
Title V--Miscellaneous:
    Estimated Authorization Level..................        63        63        64        65        67        322
    Estimated Outlays..............................        18        35        43        49        55        200
    Total Changes:
    Estimated Authorization Level..................       424       415       400       400       404      2,043
    Estimated Outlays..............................       135       236       274       310       338     1,293
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
5892 will be enacted in 2010 and that the necessary amounts 
will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimated outlays 
are based on information from the Corps of Engineers and 
historical spending patterns for similar water resource 
projects.
    H.R. 5892 would authorize the Corps to conduct about 240 
new studies to determine the feasibility of specific projects. 
Those individual projects are related to reducing damage from 
floods, protecting streambanks and shorelines, improving 
navigation, restoring aquatic ecosystems, controlling aquatic 
plants, and conserving water. The bill also would authorize the 
Corps to participate in the construction of several new 
projects as well as increase the federal cost-share for about 
30 construction and resource projects authorized in previous 
legislation. Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 5892 would cost $1.3 billion 
over the 2011-2015 period and an additional $2.2 billion in the 
decade following 2015.

Water Resource Projects

    Title I would authorize appropriations for three new 
projects aimed at ecosystem restoration, coastal improvements, 
and shoreline restoration. Those authorizations include just 
over $1 billion for the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem 
Restoration Project in Maryland and $747 million for the 
Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program. To protect the coasts 
of the West Onslow Beach and the New River Inlet in North 
Carolina from future hurricanes and storms, the bill would 
authorize the appropriation of $21 million for construction of 
a beach berm, with an additional $57 million for beach 
nourishment over the 50-year life of the North Carolina 
projects. CEO expects that the amounts authorized for those 
projects would be appropriated as needed. (The Corps expects 
that those large projects would be implemented over the next 40 
to 50 years.) CBO estimates that implementing those projects 
would cost about $160 million over the 2011-2015 period, 
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
    Title I also would direct the Corps to prepare 80 studies 
on specific water projects. If the Corps determines that those 
projects are feasible, the legislation would authorize them to 
be implemented. No costs are included in this estimate for 
those studies or construction activities because Corps already 
has specific authority to study and implement those types of 
projects.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Several provisions of current law (the Flood Control Act of 1946 
and 1948, the River and Harbor Act of 1958 and 1960, an act authorizing 
federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly 
owned property, and the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and 
1996) authorize appropriations totalling $240 million a year to pursue 
projects for reducing flood damage, navigation, streambank and 
shoreline protection, aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, and 
aquatic plant control. In fiscal year 2010, more than $100 million was 
appropriated for such projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project-related Provisions

    Title III would increase the federal share of costs for 
about 30 water resource projects authorized under current law. 
The projects focus on flood control and reducing damage from 
floods, navigation, water conservation, and ecosystem and 
environmental restoration.
    CEO estimates that implementing those provisions would 
increase federal costs for those projects by about $900 million 
over the 2011-2015 period, assuming appropriation of the 
necessary amounts.
    Title III also would withdraw the authority of the Corps to 
build 16 projects authorized in previous legislation. Based on 
information from the Corps, CBO does not expect that the agency 
would begin work on those projects over the next five years, 
either because they do not have a local sponsor, do not meet 
certain criteria for economic viability, or do not pass certain 
environmental tests. Consequently, CBO estimates that 
cancelling the authority to build those projects would not 
yield significant savings over the next several years.

Studies

    Title IV would authorize the Corps to prepare approximately 
160 studies that focus on reducing damages from floods, 
hurricanes, and storms, environmental restoration, shoreline 
protection, and streambank stabilization. Based on information 
from the Corps, CBO estimates that carrying out such studies 
would cost $36 million over the 2011-2015 period.

Miscellaneous

    Title V would authorize the appropriation of $25 million a 
year for ecosystem restoration projects in the Northeast 
coastal region. Under the bill, the Corps would develop a 
general coastal management plan in coordination with the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Governors of the coastal 
states, nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties. 
Individual projects carried out under the plan would focus on 
the restoration of aquatic habitats, wetlands, migratory fish 
corridors, natural rivers and streams, and improving water 
quality. The nonfederal share for each project's cost would be 
35 percent, with the federal share limited to $10 million for 
individual projects. CBO estimates that implementing this 
provision would cost $80 million over the 2011-2015 period.
    This title also would authorize the appropriation of $25 
million a year over the 2011-2015 period for the Corps to 
participate in comprehensive shoreline restoration projects and 
an additional $50 million for operation, maintenance, repair, 
and rehabilitation of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. In addition, 
smaller amounts would be authorized to implement the Anacostia 
River Restoration Plan and Chesapeake Bay Environmental and 
Ecosystem Restoration. CBO expects that amounts authorized 
under the title would be appropriated in the year they are 
needed, and CBO estimates that implementing those projects 
would cost $120 million over the 2011-2015 period.

General Provisions

    H.R. 5892 also would require that funds appropriated from 
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) each year be equal to 
the level of receipts plus the interest credited to the fund 
for that fiscal year. Over the past five years, appropriations 
from the HMTF have averaged around $800 million a year--or 
about $600 million a year less than the revenues and interest 
credited to the fund. Because current law authorizes the 
appropriation of such sums as are necessary from the HMTF, CBO 
assumes that enacting this bill would not effectively increase 
the amounts authorized to be appropriated.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 5892 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA. Water resource projects and activities authorized in the 
bill would benefit state, local, and tribal governments. 
Governments that choose to participate in the projects would 
incur costs, including cost-sharing requirements, but those 
costs would be incurred voluntarily as conditions of federal 
assistance.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 5892 would 
authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to acquire any real 
estate interests necessary for the construction, operation, and 
maintenance of fish dispersal barriers in the Chicago Sanitary 
and Ship Canal. If the Corps acquires any of those real estate 
interests by means of condemnation, H.R. 5892 would impose a 
private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA on owners of those 
real estate interests. The cost of the mandate would be equal 
to the fair-market value of those interests. CBO estimates that 
the cost of the mandate, if imposed, would be small and would 
fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for 
private-sector mandates ($141 million in 2010, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Aurora Swanson; Impact 
on state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell; 
Impact on the private sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                     Compliance With House Rule XXI

    Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list 
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 
tariff benefits, as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of 
rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The 
Committee has required Members of Congress to comply with all 
the requirements of clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI. 
H.R. 5892 does not include any limited tax benefits or limited 
tariff benefits. The following table provides the list of 
congressional earmarks in H.R. 5892:


                   Constitutional Authority Statement

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

                       Federal Mandates Statement

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

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, 
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 5892, as amended, 
does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

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

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

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

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

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

              SECTION 221 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970


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

  (a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (E) Applicability.--
                          (i) * * *
                          [(ii) Limitation.--In any case in 
                        which a specific provision of law 
                        provides for a non-Federal interest to 
                        receive credit toward the non-Federal 
                        share of the cost of a study for, or 
                        construction or operation and 
                        maintenance of, a water resources 
                        project, the specific provision of law 
                        shall apply instead of this paragraph.]
                          (ii) Limitation.--In any case in 
                        which a specific provision of law 
                        provides for a non-Federal interest to 
                        receive credit toward the non-Federal 
                        share of the cost of a study for, or 
                        construction or operation and 
                        maintenance of, a water resources 
                        project, the Secretary shall apply--
                                  (I) the specific provision of 
                                law instead of this paragraph; 
                                or
                                  (II) at the request of the 
                                non-Federal interest, the 
                                specific provision of law and 
                                such provisions of this 
                                paragraph as the non-Federal 
                                interest may request.
                          (iii) Savings provision.--Nothing in 
                        this subparagraph affects the 
                        applicability of subsection (a)(4)(C).
  [(b) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--The term]
  (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions 
apply:
          (1) Non-federal interest.--The term ``non-Federal 
        interest'' means--
                  [(1)] (A) a legally constituted public body 
                (including a federally recognized Indian 
                tribe); or
                  [(2)] (B) a nonprofit entity with the consent 
                of the affected local government,
        that has full authority and capability to perform the 
        terms of its agreement and to pay damages, if 
        necessary, in the event of failure to perform.
          (2) Water resources project.--The term ``water 
        resources project'' includes projects studied, 
        reviewed, designed, constructed, operated and 
        maintained, or otherwise subject to Federal 
        participation under the authority of the civil works 
        program of the Secretary of the Army for the purposes 
        of navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem 
        restoration, hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
        water supply, recreation, hydroelectric power, fish and 
        wildlife conservation, water quality, environmental 
        infrastructure, resource protection and development, 
        and related purposes.
  (c) Every agreement entered into pursuant to this section 
shall be [enforcible] enforceable in the appropriate district 
court of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 905. FEASIBILITY REPORTS.

  (a) Preparation of Reports.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Cost estimates for feasibility reports.--In 
        preparing a feasibility report under this subsection, 
        the Secretary shall include in the report, and any 
        budget documents (including justification materials) 
        submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, 
        United States Code, an accounting of the total cost of 
        the recommended plan and an estimate of the Federal and 
        non-Federal participation in the plan based on the 
        following scenarios:
                  (A) The cost of the project based on optimal 
                levels of Federal funding for the recommended 
                plan.
                  (B) The estimated cost of the project, based 
                on a 50 percent increase in the period for 
                implementation of the recommended plan.
                  (C) The estimated cost of the project, based 
                on a 100 percent increase in the period for 
                implementation of the recommended plan.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 906. FISH AND WILDLIFE MITIGATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (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 
        Congress in any report, and shall not select a project 
        alternative in any report, unless such report contains 
        (A) a recommendation with a specific plan to mitigate 
        for damages to ecological resources, including 
        terrestrial and aquatic resources, and fish and 
        wildlife losses created by such project, or (B) a 
        determination by the Secretary that such project will 
        have negligible adverse impact on ecological resources 
        and fish and wildlife without the implementation of 
        mitigation measures. 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. If the Secretary determines that 
        mitigation to in-kind conditions is not possible, the 
        Secretary shall identify in the report the basis for 
        that determination. In carrying out this subsection, 
        the Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal 
        and non-Federal agencies.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (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 with, at a minimum, the 
                mitigation standards and policies established 
                pursuant to the regulatory programs 
                administered by the Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE XI--MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1135. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Non-Federal Share; Limitation on Maximum Federal 
Expenditure.--The non-Federal share of the cost of any 
modifications or measures carried out or undertaken pursuant to 
subsection (b) or (c) shall be 25 percent. Not more than 80 
percent of the non-Federal share may be in kind, including a 
facility, supply, or service that is necessary to carry out the 
modification or measure. Not more than [$5,000,000] $10,000,000 
in Federal funds may be expended on any single modification or 
measure carried out or undertaken pursuant to this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following 
projects for water resources development and conservation and 
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the 
Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and 
subject to the conditions, described in the respective reports 
designated in this section:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (37) Hocking river basin, monday creek, ohio.--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) Wayne national forest.--
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          (iii) Authorization of 
                        appropriations.--There is authorized to 
                        be appropriated to the Secretary of 
                        Agriculture to carry out this 
                        subparagraph [$1,270,000] $12,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2006. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Applicability.--This section shall apply to project 
studies that include--
          (1) a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d) 
        of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
        U.S.C. 2215(d)); or
          (2) a detailed project report, as defined in such 
        section 105(d) and carried out under section 107(a) of 
        the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2008. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT; COST SHARING.

  (a) Federal Allocation.--Upon authorization by law of an 
increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
allocated for a water resources project or an increase in the 
total cost of a water resources project authorized to be 
carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall enter into a 
revised partnership agreement for the project to take into 
account the change in Federal participation in the project. 
This subsection shall apply without regard to whether the 
original partnership agreement was entered into before, on, or 
after the date of enactment of this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2034. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Timing of Peer Review.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Reasons for timing.--If the Chief of Engineers 
        does not initiate a peer review for a project study at 
        a time described in paragraph (2), the Chief shall make 
        publicly available, including on the Internet, for each 
        of such times the reasons for not conducting the 
        review, and shall include the reasons in the decision 
        document for the project study.
          [(3)] (4) Limitation on multiple peer review.--
        Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
        require the Chief of Engineers to conduct multiple peer 
        reviews for a project study.
  (c) Establishment of Panels.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          [(4) Congressional notification.-- Upon 
        identification of a project study for peer review under 
        this section, but prior to initiation of the review, 
        the Chief of Engineers shall notify the Committee on 
        Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
        House of Representatives of the review.]
          (4) Congressional and public notification.--Upon 
        identification of a project study for peer review under 
        this section, but prior to initiation of the review by 
        the panel of experts, the Chief of Engineers shall--
                  (A) notify the Committee on Environment and 
                Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
                Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
                of Representatives of the review; and
                  (B) make publicly available, including on the 
                Internet, information on--
                          (i) the dates scheduled for beginning 
                        and ending the review;
                          (ii) the entity that has the contract 
                        for the review; and
                          (iii) the names and qualifications of 
                        the panel of experts.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Recommendations of Panel.--
          (1) * * *
          [(2) Public availability and transmittal to 
        congress.-- After receiving a report on a project study 
        from a panel of experts under this section, the Chief 
        of Engineers shall--
                  [(A) make a copy of the report and any 
                written response of the Chief of Engineers on 
                recommendations contained in the report 
                available to the public by electronic means, 
                including the Internet; and
                  [(B) transmit to the Committee on Environment 
                and Public Works of the Senate and the 
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
                of the House of Representatives a copy of the 
                report, together with any such written 
                response, on the date of a final report of the 
                Chief of Engineers or other final decision 
                document for the project study.]
          (2) Public availability and transmittal to 
        congress.--After receiving a report on a project study 
        from a panel of experts under this section, the Chief 
        of Engineers shall make available to the public, 
        including on the Internet, and transmit to the 
        Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
        and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
        of the House of Representatives--
                  (A) a copy of the report within 3 days of 
                receiving the report; and
                  (B) a copy of any written response of the 
                Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained 
                in the report within 3 days of the date of the 
                response.
          (3) Inclusion in project study.--A report on a 
        project study from a panel of experts under this 
        section and the written response of the Chief of 
        Engineers shall be included in the final decision 
        document for the project study.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2035. SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (i) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a safety assurance 
review conducted under this section.

SEC. 2036. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND WETLANDS LOSSES.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Status Report.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Information included.--In reporting the status of 
        all projects included in the report, the Secretary 
        shall--
                  (A) use a uniform methodology for determining 
                the status of all projects included in the 
                report;
                  (B) use a methodology that describes both a 
                qualitative and quantitative status for all 
                projects in the report; and
                  (C) provide specific dates for and 
                participants in the consultations required 
                under section 906(d)(4)(B) of the Water 
                Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
                2283(d)(4)(B)).
          [(3)] (4) Availability of information.--The Secretary 
        shall make information contained in the status report 
        available to the public, including on the Internet.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3061. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS PROJECT, 
                    ILLINOIS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Authorization.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, at Federal expense, 
        shall--
                  [(A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I;]
                  (A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I in 
                its current location or at an alternative 
                location, as determined appropriate by the 
                Secretary;
                  (B) construct Barrier II, notwithstanding the 
                project cooperation agreement with the State of 
                Illinois dated [June 14, 2005] November 21, 
                2003, as amended on July 14, 2005;
                  (C) acquire real estate interests necessary 
                for the construction, operation, and 
                maintenance of Barrier I and Barrier II;
                  [(C)] (D) operate and maintain Barrier I and 
                Barrier II as a system to optimize 
                effectiveness;
                  [(D)] (E) conduct, in consultation with 
                appropriate Federal, State, local, and 
                nongovernmental entities, a study of a range of 
                options and technologies for reducing impacts 
                of hazards that may reduce the efficacy of the 
                Barriers; [and]
                  [(E)] (F) provide to each State a credit in 
                an amount equal to the amount of funds 
                contributed by the State toward Barrier II[.]; 
                and
                  (G) construct additional barriers or other 
                fish deterrents at other locations in the 
                vicinity of the Chicago Area Waterway System, 
                if determined appropriate by the Secretary.
          (2) Use of credit.--A State may apply a credit 
        provided to the State under [paragraph (1)(E)] 
        paragraph (1)(F) to any cost sharing responsibility for 
        an existing or future Federal project carried out by 
        the Secretary in the State.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Feasibility Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental 
entities, shall conduct, at Federal expense, a feasibility 
study of the range of options and technologies available to 
prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the 
Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago 
Sanitary and Ship Canal and other aquatic pathways. The study 
shall include a fully developed analysis of an alternative for 
hydrologic separation between the Great Lakes and the 
Mississippi River basins. The hydrologic separation alternative 
shall include identification of measures to prevent the 
transfer of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes 
and the Mississippi River basins through surface water.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3101. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Maximum Federal Expenditures.--The maximum amount of 
Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
[$7,000,000] $14,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE IV--STUDIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4070. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4077. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Project Locations.--The locations referred to in 
subsection (a) are the following:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (9) [Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks] Esopus, 
        Rondout, and Wallkill watersheds, Greene, Sullivan, and 
        Ulster Counties, New York.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (19) San Gabriel River watershed, California.
          (20) South Platte River watershed, Colorado.
          (21) Loxahatchee River watershed, Jupiter, Florida.
          (22) Hudson River watershed, Orange, Dutchess, and 
        Ulster Counties, New York.
          (23) Muskingum River basin, Ohio.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 5015. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, using amounts 
contributed by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation under subsection (b), to carry out projects for 
operations, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation, including 
associated maintenance dredging, of the Eisenhower and Snell 
lock facilities and related navigational infrastructure for the 
Saint Lawrence Seaway, at a total cost of [$134,650,000] 
$185,638,028.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 5056. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, COLORADO, NEW 
                    MEXICO, AND TEXAS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through [2011] 2015.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
     * * * * * * *

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     * * * * * * *
[Sec. 211. Performance of specialized or technical services.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 211. PERFORMANCE OF SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.

  [(a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term 
``State'' has the meaning given the term in section 6501 of 
title 31, United States Code.
  [(b) Authority.--The Corps of Engineers may provide 
specialized or technical services to a Federal agency (other 
than an agency of the Department of Defense) or a State or 
local government under section 6505 of title 31, United States 
Code, only if the chief executive of the requesting entity 
submits to the Secretary--
          [(1) a written request describing the scope of the 
        services to be performed and agreeing to reimburse the 
        Corps for all costs associated with the performance of 
        the services; and
          [(2) a certification that includes adequate facts to 
        establish that the services requested are not 
        reasonably and quickly available through ordinary 
        business channels.
  [(c) Corps Agreement To Perform Services.--The Secretary, 
after receiving a request described in subsection (b) to 
provide specialized or technical services, shall, before 
entering into an agreement to perform the services--
          [(1) ensure that the requirements of subsection (b) 
        are met with regard to the request for services; and
          [(2) execute a certification that includes adequate 
        facts to establish that the Corps is uniquely equipped 
        to perform such services.
  [(d) Annual Report to Congress.--
          [(1) In general.--Not later than the last day of each 
        calendar year, the Secretary shall provide to the 
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report 
        identifying any request submitted by a Federal agency 
        (other than an agency of the Department of Defense) or 
        a State or local government to the Corps to provide 
        specialized or technical services.
          [(2) Contents of report.--The report shall include, 
        with respect to each request described in paragraph 
        (1)--
                  [(A) a description of the scope of services 
                requested;
                  [(B) the certifications required under 
                subsection (b) and (c);
                  [(C) the status of the request;
                  [(D) the estimated and final cost of the 
                services;
                  [(E) the status of reimbursement;
                  [(F) a description of the scope of services 
                performed; and
                  [(G) copies of all certifications in support 
                of the request.
  [(e) Engineering Research and Development Center.--The 
Engineering Research and Development Center is exempt from the 
requirements of this section.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

  (a) In General.--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] permits of such entities related to projects for 
a public purpose under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
the Army.
  [(b) Effect on Permitting.--In carrying out this section, the 
Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under 
subsection (a) will not impact impartial decisionmaking with 
respect to permits, either substantively or procedurally.]
  (b) Effect on Permitting.--
          (1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
        Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted 
        under subsection (a) will not impact impartial 
        decision-making with respect to permits, either 
        substantively or procedurally.
          (2) Impartial decisionmaking.--In carrying out this 
        section, the Secretary shall ensure that the evaluation 
        of permits carried out using funds accepted under this 
        section shall--
                  (A) be reviewed by the District Commander of 
                the Corps District in which the project or 
                activity is located, unless the evaluation of 
                the permit is initially conducted by the 
                District Commander whereby the review shall be 
                conducted by the Commander of the Corps 
                Division in which the District is located; and
                  (B) utilize the same procedures for decisions 
                that would otherwise be required for the 
                evaluation of permits for similar projects or 
                activities not carried out using funds 
                authorized under this section.
  (c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds accepted 
under this section shall be used to carry out a review of the 
evaluation of permits required under subsection (b)(2)(A).
  (d) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall ensure that all 
final permit decisions carried out using funds authorized under 
this section are made available to the public, including on the 
Internet.
  [(c)] (e) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided 
under this section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000, 
through December 31, [2010] 2016.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 522. MUDDY RIVER, BROOKLINE AND BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.

  The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage 
reduction and environmental restoration, Muddy River, Brookline 
and Boston, Massachusetts, substantially in accordance with the 
plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the [draft 
evaluation report of the New England District Engineer entitled 
``Phase I Muddy River Master Plan'', dated June 2000] Final 
Decision Document and Environmental Assessment Report of the 
New England District Engineer entitled ``Muddy River Flood 
Control and Ecosystem Restoration, Boston and Brookline, 
Massachusetts'', dated September 2003, at a total cost of 
$79,200,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 536. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER AND TILLAMOOK BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 
                    OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to carry out this section [$30,000,000] 
$45,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 206. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Cost Limitation.--Not more than [$5,000,000] $10,000,000 
in Federal funds may be allotted under this section for a 
project at any single locality.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

  (a) Establishment.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
        [pilot] program to provide environmental assistance to 
        non-Federal interests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) Cost Sharing.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Non-federal share.--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) In-kind services.--In accordance with 
                section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
                (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), the non-Federal interest 
                may provide any portion of the non-Federal 
                share of the costs of the project carried out 
                under this section in the form of in-kind 
                services and materials.
                  (D) Treatment of certain funds.--In 
                accordance with section 2007 of the Water 
                Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 
                2222), funds provided by a Federal department 
                or agency other than the Corps of Engineers for 
                a project carried out under this section shall 
                be credited towards the non-Federal share of 
                the cost of project.
  (e) Cost Limitation.--Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal 
funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any 
single locality.
  [(e)] (f) Cooperation.--In carrying out this section, the 
Secretary shall cooperate with the heads of appropriate Federal 
agencies, including--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(f) Project.--The Secretary shall establish at least 1 
project under this section in each of the States of Maryland, 
Virginia, and Pennsylvania.]
  (g) Projects.--The Secretary may carry out projects under 
this section in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with the goal of 
carrying out projects in each of the States of Delaware, New 
York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and 
the District of Columbia.
  [(g)] (h) Protection of Resources.--A project established 
under this section shall be carried out using such measures as 
are necessary to protect environmental, historic, and cultural 
resources.
  [(h)] (i) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1998, the 
Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results of 
the program carried out under this section, together with a 
recommendation concerning whether or not the program should be 
implemented on a national basis.
  [(i)] (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
[$40,000,000] $50,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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 total cost of [$20,000,000] 
$27,000,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
     * * * * * * *

               TITLE III--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

     * * * * * * *
[Sec. 314. Operation and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities.]
Sec. 314. Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric 
          facilities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE III--GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 314. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC FACILITIES.

  [Activities currently performed by personnel under the 
direction of the Secretary in connection with the operation and 
maintenance of hydroelectric power generating facilities at 
Corps of Engineers water resources projects are to be 
considered as inherently governmental functions and not 
commercial activities. This section does not prohibit 
contracting out major maintenance or other functions which are 
currently contracted out or studying services not directly 
connected with project maintenance and operations.]

SEC. 314. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION AND HYDROELECTRIC 
                    FACILITIES.

  Activities currently performed by personnel under the 
direction of the Secretary in connection with the operation and 
maintenance of navigation or hydroelectric power generating 
facilities, including all personnel under the direction of the 
Secretary in connection with the operation and maintenance of 
navigational infrastructure such as floodgates, locks, and 
dams, at Corps of Engineers water resources projects, are 
considered to be inherently governmental functions and not 
commercial activities. This section does not prohibit 
contracting out major maintenance or other functions that are 
currently contracted out or studying services not directly 
connected with project maintenance and operations.
                              ----------                              


 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2009

                    (division C of Public Law 111-8)

     DIVISION C--ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 116. The [Colorado Department of Natural Resources is 
authorized] Colorado Department of Natural Resources, or its 
assignee, is authorized to perform modifications of the 
facility (Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado), and any required 
mitigation which results from implementation of the project: 
Provided, That in carrying out the reassignment of storage 
space provided for in this section, the Secretary shall 
collaborate with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources 
and local interests to determine costs to be repaid for storage 
that reflects the limited reliability of the resources and the 
capability of non-Federal interests to make use of the 
reallocated storage space in Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS

    The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2010 must be 
viewed in the context of the extraordinary economic conditions 
that currently face the Nation. Although we strongly support 
investment in our national infrastructure, we have serious 
issues with the scope and timing of this bill.
    The Obama stimulus bill of last year was supposed to put 
people to work and help us grow out of this recession; but it 
hasn't worked. The reason it hasn't worked is because only a 
small fraction of the money was spent on job producing 
investments. Americans were assured by the Administration that 
the Obama stimulus bill would halt the climbing unemployment 
rate at 8%. Today, the unemployment rate is close to 10%. This 
bill represents another empty promise to the taxpayers, because 
here is no money in the system to fund the projects this bill 
claims to move forward.
    The national debt has grown at an alarming rate due to the 
economic downturn, the bank bailouts, and the economic 
stimulus. According to the Treasury Department, the U.S. debt 
will exceed $13.6 trillion this year. That is 93 percent of the 
expected gross domestic product, or GDP. By 2012, according to 
Bloomberg.com, the total U.S. debt will exceed the value of the 
nation's annual economic output. Financing that debt is taking 
an ever increasing portion of the Nation's wealth. This year, 
it will cost 32 percent of GDP to finance our debt, and this is 
while interest rates are low. When interest rates rise, as they 
eventually will, financing the debt will be even harder to 
manage. The effect of all of this is a further slowing of 
economic growth.
    In the past, Republicans have been consistent advocates for 
Corps of Engineers projects, and this will one day continue. 
But now, times are different, and we must, unfortunately, delay 
even the authorization of good projects. Even wise investments 
in navigation and flood protection infrastructure should 
receive careful scrutiny right now.
    Republicans support common sense approaches to protecting 
our environment and investments in water infrastructure. We 
believe that providing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers an 
opportunity to relieve the current authorization list of water 
infrastructure projects is prudent at this time.

    The Water Resources Development Act of 2010 also contains 
some troubling provisions.
    Section 2012 would repeal a provision of law that prohibits 
the Corps of Engineers from performing activities that compete 
directly with the private sector. While the intent of this 
provision is to ensure levee inspections are handled quickly by 
the most qualified entity, in many cases the Corps of 
Engineers, the language is overly broad and will cause 
unintended consequences. An amendment that was offered by the 
Minority was withdrawn at the request of the majority that 
would have clarified the intent of Section 2012. The Chairman 
admitted at the Full Committee Markup on July 29, 2010 that 
this section was overly broad and he stated his intent to work 
with the Minority to correct this deficiency. To date, this has 
not happened.
    Section 2013 requires the Corps of Engineers to assume the 
funds will be spent over an extended period rather than as 
efficiently as possible. If the Corps has to assume the funds 
will be spent over an extended period rather than as 
efficiently as possible, projects will cost more. The effect of 
this provision would be to cause alternative Benefit-Cost 
ratios for projects to be calculated with less favorable 
outcomes. It would apply to feasibility studies as well as 
budget documents. The provision diminishes further the 
likelihood that projects will get authorized or funded. This 
provision will impact all provisions in Title IV of WRDA 2010 
and all studies currently underway.
    We hope that we will soon see the day when we can work 
together to produce a WRDA bill with real promises attached. 
However, when faced with the partisan approach taken in this 
Act and the current economic conditions, the prospect of a 
successful WRDA bill certainly appears to be a hope for future 
years. For the reasons stated above, we cannot support a WRDA 
bill at this time.

                                                      John L. Mica.

                                  
