Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
 
   110th Congress 1st 
         Session        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        Report
                                                        110-80
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        [to accompany h.r. 1495]




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

                                     


                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        [to accompany h.r. 1495]




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

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




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

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

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1495]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for the 
conservation and development of water and related resources, to 
authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various 
projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United 
States, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

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

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 2001. Non-Federal contributions.
Sec. 2002. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 2003. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 2004. National shoreline erosion control development and 
demonstration program.
Sec. 2005. Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects.
Sec. 2006. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 2007. Small flood damage reduction projects.
Sec. 2008. Modification of projects for improvement of the quality of 
the environment.
Sec. 2009. Written agreement for water resources projects.
Sec. 2010. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.
Sec. 2011. Compilation of laws.
Sec. 2012. Dredged material disposal.
Sec. 2013. Wetlands mitigation.
Sec. 2014. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2015. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 2016. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 2017. Cost-sharing provisions for certain areas.
Sec. 2018. Use of other Federal funds.
Sec. 2019. Revision of project partnership agreement.
Sec. 2020. Cost sharing.
Sec. 2021. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction.
Sec. 2022. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 2023. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 2024. Wildfire firefighting.
Sec. 2025. Technical assistance.
Sec. 2026. Lakes program.
Sec. 2027. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local 
actions.
Sec. 2028. Project streamlining.
Sec. 2029. Cooperative agreements.
Sec. 2030. Training funds.
Sec. 2031. Access to water resource data.
Sec. 2032. Shore protection projects.
Sec. 2033. Ability to pay.
Sec. 2034. Leasing authority.
Sec. 2035. Cost estimates.
Sec. 2036. Project planning.
Sec. 2037. Independent peer review.
Sec. 2038. Studies and reports for water resources projects.
Sec. 2039. Offshore oil and gas fabrication port.
Sec. 2040. Use of firms employing local residents.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3004. Tatitlek, Alaska.
Sec. 3005. Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Sec. 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.
Sec. 3007. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.
Sec. 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.
Sec. 3009. Compton Creek, California.
Sec. 3010. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.
Sec. 3011. Hamilton Airfield, California.
Sec. 3012. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, 
California.
Sec. 3013. Kaweah River, California.
Sec. 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.
Sec. 3015. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. 3016. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.
Sec. 3018. Pinole Creek, California.
Sec. 3019. Prado Dam, California.
Sec. 3020. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.
Sec. 3021. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 3022. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
Sec. 3023. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
Sec. 3024. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3025. Walnut Creek Channel, California.
Sec. 3026. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.
Sec. 3027. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.
Sec. 3028. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. 3029. South Platte River Basin, Colorado.
Sec. 3030. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, 
Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 3031. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3032. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 3033. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3034. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 3035. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3036. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.
Sec. 3037. Miami Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3038. Peanut Island, Florida.
Sec. 3039. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.
Sec. 3040. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida.
Sec. 3041. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. 3042. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.
Sec. 3043. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. 3044. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.
Sec. 3045. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3046. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3047. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, 
Illinois.
Sec. 3048. Emiquon, Illinois.
Sec. 3049. Lasalle, Illinois.
Sec. 3050. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
Sec. 3051. Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana.
Sec. 3052. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 3053. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 3054. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.
Sec. 3055. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 3056. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge 
Parish Watershed.
Sec. 3057. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 3058. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3059. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.
Sec. 3060. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to 
Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 3061. Melville, Louisiana.
Sec. 3062. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 3063. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 3064. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), 
Louisiana.
Sec. 3065. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3066. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.
Sec. 3067. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 3068. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 3069. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 3070. Ada, Minnesota.
Sec. 3071. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.
Sec. 3072. Grand Marais, Minnesota.
Sec. 3073. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3074. Granite Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 3075. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3076. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3077. Silver Bay, Minnesota.
Sec. 3078. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3079. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Sec. 3080. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.
Sec. 3081. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.
Sec. 3082. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.
Sec. 3083. L-15 levee, Missouri.
Sec. 3084. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.
Sec. 3085. River Des Peres, Missouri.
Sec. 3086. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Sec. 3087. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.
Sec. 3088. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.
Sec. 3089. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 3090. Buffalo Harbor, New York.
Sec. 3091. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3092. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 3093. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 3094. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.
Sec. 3095. Mahoning River, Ohio.
Sec. 3096. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
Sec. 3097. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3098. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3099. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3100. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3101. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3102. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3103. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. 3104. Lake Kemp, Texas.
Sec. 3105. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
Sec. 3106. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
Sec. 3107. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3108. Proctor Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3109. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 3110. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties, 
Virginia.
Sec. 3111. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. 3112. Duwamish/Green, Washington.
Sec. 3113. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.
Sec. 3114. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 3115. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 3116. Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 3117. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3118. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. 3119. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 3120. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 3121. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 3122. Land conveyances.
Sec. 3123. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use 
restrictions.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program.
Sec. 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 4003. Southwestern United States drought study.
Sec. 4004. Delaware River.
Sec. 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Sec. 4006. Kuskokwim River, Alaska.
Sec. 4007. St. George Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 4008. Susitna River, Alaska.
Sec. 4009. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.
Sec. 4010. Searcy County, Arkansas.
Sec. 4011. Elkhorn Slough Estuary, California.
Sec. 4012. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.
Sec. 4013. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California.
Sec. 4014. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.
Sec. 4015. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 4016. Napa River, St. Helena, California.
Sec. 4017. Orick, California.
Sec. 4018. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.
Sec. 4019. Sacramento River, California.
Sec. 4020. San Diego County, California.
Sec. 4021. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 4022. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
Sec. 4023. Twentynine Palms, California.
Sec. 4024. Yucca Valley, California.
Sec. 4025. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.
Sec. 4026. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, 
Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. 4027. Collier County Beaches, Florida.
Sec. 4028. Lower St. Johns River, Florida.
Sec. 4029. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.
Sec. 4030. Meriwether County, Georgia.
Sec. 4031. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 4032. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 4033. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois.
Sec. 4034. Salem, Indiana.
Sec. 4035. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4036. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4037. Louisville, Kentucky.
Sec. 4038. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. 4039. Clinton River, Michigan.
Sec. 4040. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.
Sec. 4041. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Sec. 4042. Northeast Mississippi.
Sec. 4043. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 4044. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.
Sec. 4045. Bayonne, New Jersey.
Sec. 4046. Carteret, New Jersey.
Sec. 4047. Gloucester County, New Jersey.
Sec. 4048. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
Sec. 4049. Batavia, New York.
Sec. 4050. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
Sec. 4051. Finger Lakes, New York.
Sec. 4052. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 4053. Newtown Creek, New York.
Sec. 4054. Niagara River, New York.
Sec. 4055. Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.
Sec. 4056. Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York.
Sec. 4057. Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4058. Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4059. Yadkinville, North Carolina.
Sec. 4060. Lake Erie, Ohio.
Sec. 4061. Ohio River, Ohio.
Sec. 4062. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.
Sec. 4063. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon.
Sec. 4064. Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4065. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4066. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4067. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4068. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4069. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4070. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.
Sec. 4071. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.
Sec. 4072. Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Sec. 4073. Cleveland, Tennessee.
Sec. 4074. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
Sec. 4075. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.
Sec. 4076. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee.
Sec. 4077. Abilene, Texas.
Sec. 4078. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.
Sec. 4079. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
Sec. 4080. Port of Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 4081. Grand County and Moab, Utah.
Sec. 4082. Southwestern Utah.
Sec. 4083. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina.
Sec. 4084. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.
Sec. 4085. Monongahela River Basin, northern West Virginia.
Sec. 4086. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 4087. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.
Sec. 4088. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 5002. Watershed management.
Sec. 5003. Dam safety.
Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations.
Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas.
Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects.
Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain 
projects.
Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.
Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment.
Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.
Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi River enhancement project.
Sec. 5012. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 5014. Great Lakes tributary models.
Sec. 5015. Great Lakes navigation.
Sec. 5016. Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project.
Sec. 5017. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, 
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. 5018. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection 
program.
Sec. 5019. Hypoxia assessment.
Sec. 5020. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy 
evaluation and monitoring program.
Sec. 5021. Lock and dam security.
Sec. 5022. Rehabilitation.
Sec. 5023. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake 
River salmon survival.
Sec. 5024. Auburn, Alabama.
Sec. 5025. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.
Sec. 5026. Alaska.
Sec. 5027. Barrow, Alaska.
Sec. 5028. Coffman Cove, Alaska.
Sec. 5029. Fire Island, Alaska.
Sec. 5030. Fort Yukon, Alaska.
Sec. 5031. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5032. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 5033. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 5034. Tanana River, Alaska.
Sec. 5035. Valdez, Alaska.
Sec. 5036. Whittier, Alaska.
Sec. 5037. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5038. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 5039. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.
Sec. 5040. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.
Sec. 5041. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 5042. Cambria, California.
Sec. 5043. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; 
Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.
Sec. 5044. Dana Point Harbor, California.
Sec. 5045. East San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 5046. Eastern Santa Clara basin, California.
Sec. 5047. Los Osos, California.
Sec. 5048. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.
Sec. 5049. Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel 
Basin, California.
Sec. 5050. San Francisco, California.
Sec. 5051. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.
Sec. 5052. San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and Suisun Marsh 
ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5053. Stockton, California.
Sec. 5054. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, 
Connecticut.
Sec. 5055. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
Sec. 5056. Lake Worth, Florida.
Sec. 5057. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho.
Sec. 5058. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.
Sec. 5059. Illinois River Basin restoration.
Sec. 5060. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration.
Sec. 5061. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 5062. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 5063. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.
Sec. 5064. Calumet region, Indiana.
Sec. 5065. Paducah, Kentucky.
Sec. 5066. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 5067. Winchester, Kentucky.
Sec. 5068. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Sec. 5069. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.
Sec. 5070. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 5071. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 5072. Charlestown, Maryland.
Sec. 5073. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.
Sec. 5074. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 5075. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 5076. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 5077. Crookston, Minnesota.
Sec. 5078. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.
Sec. 5079. Itasca County, Minnesota.
Sec. 5080. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 5081. Northeastern Minnesota.
Sec. 5082. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 5083. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.
Sec. 5084. Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois.
Sec. 5085. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 5086. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 5087. Atlantic Coast of New York.
Sec. 5088. College Point, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5089. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5090. Hudson River, New York.
Sec. 5091. Mount Morris Dam, New York.
Sec. 5092. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5093. Stanly County, North Carolina.
Sec. 5094. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sec. 5095. Toussaint River, Ohio.
Sec. 5096. Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 5097. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.
Sec. 5098. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5099. Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5100. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5101. Northeast Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5102. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 5103. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 5104. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and 
terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. 5105. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
Sec. 5106. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.
Sec. 5107. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.
Sec. 5108. Tennessee River partnership.
Sec. 5109. Upper Mississippi embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and 
Mississippi.
Sec. 5110. Bosque River Watershed, Texas.
Sec. 5111. Dallas Floodway, Dallas Texas.
Sec. 5112. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 5113. Onion Creek, Texas.
Sec. 5114. Eastern Shore and southwest Virginia.
Sec. 5115. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.
Sec. 5116. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.
Sec. 5117. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.
Sec. 5118. Puget Island, Washington.
Sec. 5119. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 5120. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 5121. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 5122. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 5123. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
interests.

                      TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

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

                   TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

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

   TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY SYSTEM

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

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

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

SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is 
feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
          (1) Haleyville, alabama.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
        Haleyville, Alabama.
          (2) Weiss lake, alabama.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
        Weiss Lake, Alabama.
          (3) Little colorado river levee, arizona.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.
          (4) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
          (5) Barrel springs wash, palmdale, california.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, 
        California.
          (6) Borrego springs, california.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Borrego Springs, California.
          (7) Colton, california.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
        Colton, California.
          (8) Dunlap stream, yucaipa, california.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, Yucaipa, California.
          (9) Hunts canyon wash, palmdale, california.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, 
        California.
          (10) Ontario and chino, california.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Ontario and Chino, California.
          (11) Santa venetia, california.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Santa Venetia, California.
          (12) Whittier, california.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Whittier, California.
          (13) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
          (14) St. francisville, lousiana.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, St. Francisville, Louisiana.
          (15) Salem, massachusetts.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Salem, Massachusetts.
          (16) Cass river, michigan.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, Michigan.
          (17) Crow river, rockford, minnesota.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.
          (18) Marsh creek, minnesota.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
          (19) South branch of the wild rice river, borup, minnesota.--
        Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild 
        Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
          (20) Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.
          (21) Acid brook, pompton lakes, new jersey.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.
          (22) Cannisteo river, addison, new york.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.
          (23) Cohocton river, campbell, new york.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.
          (24) Dry and otter creeks, cortland, new york.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland, New 
        York.
          (25) East river, silver beach, new york city, new york.--
        Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach, 
        New York City, New York.
          (26) East valley creek, andover, new york.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, East Valley Creek, Andover, New York.
          (27) Sunnyside brook, westchester county, new york.--Project 
        for flood damage reduction, Sunnyside Brook, Westchester 
        County, New York.
          (28) Little yankee run, ohio.--Project for flood damage 
        reduction, Little Yankee Run, Ohio.
          (29) Little neshaminy creek, warrenton, pennsylvania.--
        Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek, 
        Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
          (30) Southampton creek watershed, southampton, 
        pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Southampton 
        Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania.
          (31) Spring creek, lower macungie township, pennsylvania.--
        Project for flood damage reduction, Spring Creek, Lower 
        Macungie Township, Pennsylvania.
          (32) Yardley aqueduct, silver and brock creeks, yardley, 
        pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Yardley 
        Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania.
          (33) Surfside beach, south carolina.--Project for flood 
        damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.
          (34) Congelosi ditch, missouri city, texas.--Project for 
        flood damage reduction, Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas.
          (35) Dilley, texas.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
        Dilley, Texas.
  (b) Special Rules.--
          (1) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--The Secretary may 
        proceed with the project for the Cache River Basin, Grubbs, 
        Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a), notwithstanding that 
        the project is located within the boundaries of the flood 
        control project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, 
        authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950, (64 
        Stat. 172) and modified by section 99 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41).
          (2) Ontario and chino, california.--The Secretary shall carry 
        out the project for flood damage reduction, Ontario and Chino, 
        California, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary 
        determines that the project is feasible.
          (3) Santa venetia, california.--The Secretary shall carry out 
        the project for flood damage reduction, Santa Venetia, 
        California, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary 
        determines that the project is feasible and shall allow the 
        non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the 
        project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the 
        extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying 
        such section is necessary to implement the project.
          (4) Whittier, california.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
        project for flood damage reduction, Whittier, California, 
        referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that 
        the project is feasible.
          (5) South branch of the wild rice river, borup, minnesota.--
        In carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, South 
        Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota, referred to in 
        subsection (a) the Secretary may consider national ecosystem 
        restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the 
        project and shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate 
        in the financing of the project in accordance with section 
        903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
        Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation 
        indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement 
        the project.
          (6) Acid brook, pompton lakes, new jersey.--The Secretary 
        shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Acid 
        Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, referred to in subsection (a) 
        if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
          (7) Dilley, texas.--The Secretary shall carry out the project 
        for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred to in 
        subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is 
        feasible.

SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 
may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 
1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
          (1) St. johns bluff training wall, duval county, florida.--
        Project for emergency streambank protection, St. Johns Bluff 
        Training Wall, Duval County, Florida.
          (2) Gulf intracoastal waterway, iberville parish, 
        louisiana.--Projects for emergency streambank restoration, Gulf 
        Intracoastal Waterway, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
          (3) Ouachita and black rivers, arkansas and louisiana.--
        Projects for emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and 
        Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.
          (4) Piney point lighthouse, st. mary's county, maryland.--
        Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney Point 
        Lighthouse, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
          (5) Pug hole lake, minnesota.--Project for emergency 
        streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.
          (6) Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri.--
        Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork Grand 
        River, Gentry County, Missouri.
          (7) Platte river, platte city, missouri.--Project for 
        emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City, 
        Missouri.
          (8) Rush creek, parkville, missouri.--Project for emergency 
        streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri, 
        including measures to address degradation of the creek bed.
          (9) Dry and otter creeks, cortland county, new york.--Project 
        for emergency streambank protection, Dry and Otter Creeks, 
        Cortland County, New York.
          (10) Keuka lake, hammondsport, new york.--Project for 
        emergency streambank protection, Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, New 
        York.
          (11) Kowawese unique area and hudson river, new windsor, new 
        york.--Project for emergency streambank protection, Kowawese 
        Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.
          (12) Owego creek, tioga county, new york.--Project for 
        emergency streambank protection, Owego Creek, Tioga County, New 
        York.
          (13) Howard road outfall, shelby county, tennessee.--Project 
        for emergency streambank protection, Howard Road outfall, 
        Shelby County, Tennessee.
          (14) Mitch farm ditch and lateral d, shelby county, 
        tennessee.--Project for emergency streambank protection, Mitch 
        Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee.
          (15) Wolf river tributaries, shelby county, tennessee.--
        Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf River 
        tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee.
          (16) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--Project for emergency 
        streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
          (17) Wells river, newbury, vermont.--Project for emergency 
        streambank protection, Wells River, Newbury, Vermont.

SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is 
feasible, may carry out the project under section 107 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):
          (1) Mississippi river ship channel, louisiana.--Project for 
        navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
          (2) East basin, cape cod canal, sandwich, massachusetts.--
        Project for navigation, East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich, 
        Massachusetts.
          (3) Lynn harbor, lynn, massachusetts.--Project for 
        navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.
          (4) Merrimack river, haverhill, massachusetts.--Project for 
        navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.
          (5) Oak bluffs harbor, oak bluffs, massachusetts.--Project 
        for navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
          (6) Woods hole great harbor, falmouth, massachusetts.--
        Project for navigation, Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, 
        Massachusetts.
          (7) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au 
        Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
          (8) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--Project 
        for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan.
          (9) Tower harbor, tower, minnesota.--Project for navigation, 
        Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota.
          (10) Olcott harbor, olcott, new york.--Project for 
        navigation, Olcott Harbor, Olcott, New York.
  (b) Special Rules.--
          (1) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--The 
        Secretary shall review the locally prepared plan for the 
        project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Michigan, 
        referred to in subsection (a), and, if the Secretary determines 
        that the plan meets the evaluation and design standards of the 
        Corps of Engineers and that the plan is feasible, the Secretary 
        may use the plan to carry out the project and shall provide 
        credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
        for the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
        before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 
        the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
        project.
          (2) Tower harbor, tower minnesota.--The Secretary shall carry 
        out the project for navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota, 
        referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that 
        the project is feasible.

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

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is 
appropriate, may carry out the project under section 1135 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a):
          (1) Ballona creek, los angeles county, california.--Project 
        for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ballona 
        Creek, Los Angeles County, California.
          (2) Ballona lagoon tide gates, marina del rey, california.--
        Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 
        Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey, California.
          (3) Ft. george inlet, duval county, florida.--Project for 
        improvement of the quality of the environment, Ft. George 
        Inlet, Duval County, Florida.
          (4) Rathbun lake, iowa.--Project for improvement of the 
        quality of the environment, Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
          (5) Smithville lake, missouri.--Project for improvement of 
        the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri.
          (6) Delaware bay, new jersey and delaware.--Project for 
        improvement of the quality of the environment, Delaware Bay, 
        New Jersey and Delaware, for the purpose of oyster restoration.
          (7) Tioga-hammond lakes, pennsylvania.--Project for 
        improvement of the quality of the environment, Tioga-Hammond 
        Lakes, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is 
appropriate, may carry out the project under section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):
          (1) Cypress creek, montgomery, alabama.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Cypress Creek, Montgomery, Alabama.
          (2) Black lake, alaska.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, Black Lake, Alaska, at the head of the Chignik 
        watershed.
          (3) Ben lomond dam, santa cruz, california.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz, 
        California.
          (4) Dockweiler bluffs, los angeles county, california.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dockweiler Bluffs, 
        Los Angeles County, California.
          (5) Salt river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, Salt River, California.
          (6) Santa rosa creek, santa rosa, california.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem restoration, Santa Rosa Creek in the vicinity 
        of the Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa, California.
          (7) Stockton deep water ship channel and lower san joaquin 
        river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
        Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San Joaquin River, 
        California.
          (8) Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, california.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater 
        Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to 
        address aquatic nuisance species.
          (9) Biscayne bay, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida.
          (10) Clam bayou and dinkins bayou, sanibel island, florida.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clam Bayou and 
        Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida.
          (11) Chattahoochee fall line, georgia and alabama.--Project 
        for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall Line, 
        Georgia and Alabama.
          (12) Longwood cove, gainesville, georgia.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville, 
        Georgia.
          (13) City park, university lakes, louisiana.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes, 
        Louisiana.
          (14) Mill pond, littleton, massachusetts.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton, 
        Massachusetts.
          (15) Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, 
        Massachusetts.
          (16) Rush lake, minnesota.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota.
          (17) South fork of the crow river, hutchinson, minnesota.--
        Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the 
        Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota.
          (18) St. louis, missouri.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
        restoration, St. Louis, Missouri.
          (19) Truckee river, reno, nevada.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including 
        features for fish passage for Washoe County.
          (20) Grover's mill pond, new jersey.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.
          (21) Dugway creek, bratenahl, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.
          (22) Johnson creek, gresham, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
          (23) Beaver creek, beaver and salem, pennsylvania.--Project 
        for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver and 
        Salem, Pennsylvania.
          (24) Cementon dam, lehigh river, pennsylvania.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, Lehigh River, 
        Pennsylvania.
          (25) Saucon creek, northampton county, pennsylvania.--Project 
        for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon Creek, Northampton 
        County, Pennsylvania.
          (26) Blackstone river, rhode island.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
          (27) Wilson branch, cheraw, south carolina.--Project for 
        aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South 
        Carolina.
          (28) White river, bethel, vermont.--Project for aquatic 
        ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont.
  (b) Special Rule.--The Secretary shall carry out the project for 
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Black Lake, Alaska referred to in 
subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is 
feasible.

SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 
projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 
may carry out the project under section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores 
of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
426g):
          (1) Nelson lagoon, alaska.--Project for shoreline protection, 
        Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.
          (2) Sanibel island, florida.--Project for shoreline 
        protection, Sanibel Island, Florida.
          (3) Apra harbor, guam.--Project for shoreline protection, 
        Apra Harbor, Guam.
          (4) Piti, cabras island, guam.--Project for shoreline 
        protection, Piti, Cabras Island, Guam.
          (5) Narrows and gravesend bay, upper new york bay, brooklyn, 
        new york.--Project for shoreline protection in the vicinity of 
        the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York 
        Bay, Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.
          (6) Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard, 
        pennsylvania.--Project for shoreline protection, Delaware River 
        in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 
        Pennsylvania.
          (7) Port aransas, texas.--Project for shoreline protection, 
        Port Aransas, Texas.

SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project and, if 
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary 
may carry out the project under section 2 of the Flood Control Act of 
August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g): Project for removal of snags and 
clearing and straightening of channels for flood control, Kowawese 
Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 2001. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

  Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2213) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(n) Non-Federal Contributions.--
          ``(1) Prohibition on solicitation of excess contributions.--
        The Secretary may not--
                  ``(A) solicit contributions from non-Federal 
                interests for costs of constructing authorized water 
                resources projects or measures in excess of the non-
                Federal share assigned to the appropriate project 
                purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), and (c); or
                  ``(B) condition Federal participation in such 
                projects or measures on the receipt of such 
                contributions.
          ``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this 
        subsection shall be construed to affect the Secretary's 
        authority under section 903(c).''.

SEC. 2002. HARBOR COST SHARING.

  (a) Payments During Construction.--Section 101(a)(1) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(1); 100 Stat. 
4082) is amended in each of subparagraphs (B) and (C) by striking ``45 
feet'' and inserting ``53 feet''.
  (b) Operation and Maintenance.--Section 101(b)(1) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``45 feet'' and inserting 
``53 feet''.
  (c) Definitions.--Section 214 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat. 
4108) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (3) by striking ``45 
feet'' and inserting ``53 feet''.
  (d) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and 
(c) shall apply only to a project, or separable element of a project, 
on which a contract for physical construction has not been awarded 
before October 1, 2003.
  (e) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise 
any partnership agreement entered into after October 1, 2003, for any 
project to which the amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) 
apply to take into account the change in non-Federal participation in 
the project as a result of such amendments.

SEC. 2003. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

  Section 214(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 
U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 117 Stat. 1836; 119 Stat. 2169; 120 
Stat. 318; 120 Stat. 3197) is amended by striking ``2008'' and 
inserting ``2010''.

SEC. 2004. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND 
                    DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

  (a) Extension of Program.--Section 5(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act 
authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores 
of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
426h(a)), is amended by striking ``7 years'' and inserting ``10 
years''.
  (b) Extension of Planning, Design, and Construction Phase.--Section 
5(b)(1)(A) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking 
``3 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.
  (c) Cost Sharing; Removal of Projects.--Section 5(b) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 426h(b)) is amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (5) 
        and (6), respectively; and
          (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
          ``(3) Cost sharing.--The Secretary may enter into a cost 
        sharing agreement with a non-Federal interest to carry out a 
        project, or a phase of a project, under the erosion control 
        program in cooperation with the non-Federal interest.
          ``(4) Removal of projects.--The Secretary may pay all or a 
        portion of the costs of removing a project, or an element of a 
        project, constructed under the erosion control program if the 
        Secretary determines during the term of the program that the 
        project or element is detrimental to the environment, private 
        property, or public safety.''.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 5(e)(2) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 426h(e)(2)) is amended by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
``$31,000,000''.

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

  Section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal 
participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned 
property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), is amended by 
striking ``$3,000,000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000''.

SEC. 2006. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

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

SEC. 2007. SMALL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.

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

SEC. 2008. MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF 
                    THE ENVIRONMENT.

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

SEC. 2009. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

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

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

          (2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
  ``(a) Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest.--
          ``(1) In general.--After December 31, 1970, the construction 
        of any water resources project, or an acceptable separable 
        element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, acting through 
        the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal interest where such 
        interest will be reimbursed for such construction under any 
        provision of law, shall not be commenced until each non-Federal 
        interest has entered into a written partnership agreement with 
        the Secretary (or, where appropriate, the district engineer for 
        the district in which the project will be carried out) under 
        which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and 
        requirements for implementation or construction of the project 
        or the appropriate element of the project, as the case may be; 
        except that no such agreement shall be required if the 
        Secretary determines that the administrative costs associated 
        with negotiating, executing, or administering the agreement 
        would exceed the amount of the contribution required from the 
        non-Federal interest and are less than $25,000.
          ``(2) Liquidated damages.--A partnership agreement described 
        in paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages 
        in the event of a failure of one or more parties to perform.
          ``(3) Obligation of future appropriations.--In any 
        partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) and entered 
        into by a State, or a body politic of the State which derives 
        its powers from the State constitution, or a governmental 
        entity created by the State legislature, the agreement may 
        reflect that it does not obligate future appropriations for 
        such performance and payment when obligating future 
        appropriations would be inconsistent with constitutional or 
        statutory limitations of the State or a political subdivision 
        of the State.
          ``(4) Credit for in-kind contributions.--
                  ``(A) In general.--A partnership agreement described 
                in paragraph (1) may provide with respect to a project 
                that the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
                share of the cost of the project, including a project 
                implemented without specific authorization in law, the 
                value of in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal 
                interest, including--
                          ``(i) the costs of planning (including data 
                        collection), design, management, mitigation, 
                        construction, and construction services that 
                        are provided by the non-Federal interest for 
                        implementation of the project;
                          ``(ii) the value of materials or services 
                        provided before execution of the partnership 
                        agreement, including efforts on constructed 
                        elements incorporated into the project; and
                          ``(iii) the value of materials and services 
                        provided after execution of the partnership 
                        agreement.
                  ``(B) Condition.--The Secretary shall credit an in-
                kind contribution under subparagraph (A) if the 
                Secretary determines that the material or service 
                provided as an in-kind contribution is integral to the 
                project.
                  ``(C) Work performed before partnership agreement.--
                In any case in which the non-Federal interest is to 
                receive credit under subparagraph (A)(ii) for the cost 
                of work carried out by the non-Federal interest and 
                such work has not been carried out as of the date of 
                enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary and the 
                non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement 
                under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out 
                such work, and only work carried out following the 
                execution of the agreement shall be eligible for 
                credit.
                  ``(D) Limitations.--Credit authorized under this 
                paragraph for a project--
                          ``(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share 
                        of the cost of the project;
                          ``(ii) shall not alter any other requirement 
                        that a non-Federal interest provide lands, 
                        easements or rights-of-way, or areas for 
                        disposal of dredged material for the project;
                          ``(iii) shall not alter any requirement that 
                        a non-Federal interest pay a portion of the 
                        costs of construction of the project under 
                        sections 101 and 103 of the Water Resources 
                        Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211; 33 
                        U.S.C. 2213); and
                          ``(iv) shall not exceed the actual and 
                        reasonable costs of the materials, services, or 
                        other things provided by the non-Federal 
                        interest, as determined by the Secretary.
                  ``(E) Applicability.--
                          ``(i) In general.--This paragraph shall apply 
                        to water resources projects authorized after 
                        November 16, 1986, including projects initiated 
                        after November 16, 1986, without specific 
                        authorization in law.
                          ``(ii) Limitation.--In any case in which a 
                        specific provision of law provides for a non-
                        Federal interest to receive credit toward the 
                        non-Federal share of the cost of a study for, 
                        or construction or operation and maintenance 
                        of, a water resources project, the specific 
                        provision of law shall apply instead of this 
                        paragraph.''.
  (b) Non-Federal Interest.--Section 221(b) of such Act is amended to 
read as follows:
  ``(b) Definition of Non-Federal Interest.--The term `non-Federal 
interest' means a legally constituted public body (including a 
federally recognized Indian tribe), and a nonprofit entity with the 
consent of the affected local government, that has full authority and 
capability to perform the terms of its agreement and to pay damages, if 
necessary, in the event of failure to perform.''.
  (c) Program Administration.--Section 221 of such Act is further 
amended--
          (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (h); and
          (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
  ``(e) Delegation of Authority.--Not later than September 30, 2008, 
the Secretary shall issue policies and guidelines for partnership 
agreements that delegate to the district engineers, at a minimum--
          ``(1) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 
        agreement that has appeared in an agreement previously approved 
        by the Secretary;
          ``(2) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 
        agreement the specific terms of which are dictated by law or by 
        a final feasibility study, final environmental impact 
        statement, or other final decision document for a water 
        resources project;
          ``(3) the authority to approve any partnership agreement that 
        complies with the policies and guidelines issued by the 
        Secretary; and
          ``(4) the authority to sign any partnership agreement for any 
        water resources project unless, within 30 days of the date of 
        authorization of the project, the Secretary notifies the 
        district engineer in which the project will be carried out that 
        the Secretary wishes to retain the prerogative to sign the 
        partnership agreement for that project.
  ``(f) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment of this subsection, and every year thereafter, the Secretary 
shall submit to Congress a report detailing the following:
          ``(1) The number of partnership agreements signed by district 
        engineers and the number of partnership agreements signed by 
        the Secretary.
          ``(2) For any partnership agreement signed by the Secretary, 
        an explanation of why delegation to the district engineer was 
        not appropriate.
  ``(g) Public Availability.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this subsection, the Chief of Engineers shall--
          ``(1) ensure that each district engineer has made available 
        to the public, including on the Internet, all partnership 
        agreements entered into under this section within the preceding 
        10 years and all partnership agreements for water resources 
        projects currently being carried out in that district; and
          ``(2) make each partnership agreement entered into after such 
        date of enactment available to the public, including on the 
        Internet, not later than 7 days after the date on which such 
        agreement is entered into.''.
  (d) Local Cooperation.--Section 912(b) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (2)--
                  (A) by striking ``shall'' the first place it appears 
                and inserting ``may''; and
                  (B) by striking the last sentence; and
          (2) in paragraph (4)--
                  (A) by inserting after ``injunction, for'' the 
                following: ``payment of damages or, for'';
                  (B) by striking ``to collect a civil penalty imposed 
                under this section,''; and
                  (C) by striking ``any civil penalty imposed under 
                this section,'' and inserting ``any damages,''.
  (e) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and 
(d) only apply to partnership agreements entered into after the date of 
enactment of this Act; except that, at the request of a non-Federal 
interest for a project, the district engineer for the district in which 
the project is located may amend a project partnership agreement 
entered into on or before such date and under which construction on the 
project has not been initiated as of such date of enactment for the 
purpose of incorporating such amendments.
  (f) Partnership and Cooperative Arrangements; References.--
          (1) In general.--A goal of agreements entered into under 
        section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
        5b) shall be to further partnership and cooperative 
        arrangements, and the agreements shall be referred to as 
        ``partnership agreements''.
          (2) References to cooperation agreements.--Any reference in a 
        law, regulation, document, or other paper of the United States 
        to a ``cooperation agreement'' or ``project cooperation 
        agreement'' shall be deemed to be a reference to a 
        ``partnership agreement'' or a ``project partnership 
        agreement'', respectively.
          (3) References to partnership agreements.--Any reference to a 
        ``partnership agreement'' or ``project partnership agreement'' 
        in this Act (other than this section) shall be deemed to be a 
        reference to a ``cooperation agreement'' or a ``project 
        cooperation agreement'', respectively.

SEC. 2010. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION, AND REUSE.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide to State and local 
governments assessment, planning, and design assistance for 
remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse of areas located 
within the boundaries of such State or local governments where such 
remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse will contribute to the 
improvement of water quality or the conservation of water and related 
resources of drainage basins and watersheds within the United States.
  (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2008 through 2012.

SEC. 2011. COMPILATION OF LAWS.

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

SEC. 2012. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL.

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

SEC. 2013. WETLANDS MITIGATION.

  In carrying out a water resources project that involves wetlands 
mitigation and that has impacts that occur within the same watershed of 
a mitigation bank, the Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable and 
where appropriate, shall first consider the use of the mitigation bank 
if the bank contains sufficient available credits to offset the impact 
and the bank is approved in accordance with the Federal Guidance for 
the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 
58605) or other applicable Federal law (including regulations).

SEC. 2014. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

  (a) Mitigation Plan Contents.--Section 906(d) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
          ``(3) Contents.--A mitigation plan shall include--
                  ``(A) a description of the physical action to be 
                undertaken to achieve the mitigation objectives within 
                the watershed in which such losses occur and, in any 
                case in which mitigation must take place outside the 
                watershed, a justification detailing the rationale for 
                undertaking the mitigation outside of the watershed;
                  ``(B) a description of the lands or interests in 
                lands to be acquired for mitigation and the basis for a 
                determination that such lands are available for 
                acquisition;
                  ``(C) the type, amount, and characteristics of the 
                habitat being restored;
                  ``(D) success criteria for mitigation based on 
                replacement of lost functions and values of the 
                habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative 
                characteristics; and
                  ``(E) a plan for any necessary monitoring to 
                determine the success of the mitigation, including the 
                cost and duration of any monitoring and, to the extent 
                practicable, the entities responsible for any 
                monitoring.
          ``(4) Responsibility for monitoring.--In any case in which it 
        is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for a water 
        resources project, the entity responsible for monitoring at the 
        time of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final 
        decision document for the project, such entity shall be 
        identified in the partnership agreement entered into with the 
        non-Federal interest.''.
  (b) Status Report.--
          (1) In general.--Concurrent with the President's submission 
        to Congress of the President's request for appropriations for 
        the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
        submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
        the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment 
        and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of 
        construction of projects that require mitigation under section 
        906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
        2283; 100 Stat. 4186) and the status of such mitigation.
          (2) Projects included.--The status report shall include the 
        status of all projects that are under construction, all 
        projects for which the President requests funding for the next 
        fiscal year, and all projects that have completed construction, 
        but have not completed the mitigation required under section 
        906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

SEC. 2015. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.

  (a) In General.--In conducting a study of harbor and navigation 
improvements, the Secretary may recommend a project without the need to 
demonstrate that the project is justified solely by national economic 
development benefits if the Secretary determines that--
          (1)(A) the community to be served by the project is at least 
        70 miles from the nearest surface accessible commercial port 
        and has no direct rail or highway link to another community 
        served by a surface accessible port or harbor; or
          (B) the project would be located in the Commonwealth of 
        Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
        Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, or American Samoa;
          (2) the harbor is economically critical such that over 80 
        percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be 
        consumed within the community served by the harbor and 
        navigation improvement; and
          (3) the long-term viability of the community would be 
        threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement.
  (b) Justification.--In considering whether to recommend a project 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the benefits of the 
project to--
          (1) public health and safety of the local community, 
        including access to facilities designed to protect public 
        health and safety;
          (2) access to natural resources for subsistence purposes;
          (3) local and regional economic opportunities;
          (4) welfare of the local population; and
          (5) social and cultural value to the community.

SEC. 2016. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

  (a) In General.--Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by striking subsections (c) through 
(g) and inserting the following:
  ``(c) In General.--The Secretary may carry out projects to transport 
and place sediment obtained in connection with the construction, 
operation, or maintenance of an authorized water resources project at 
locations selected by a non-Federal entity for use in the construction, 
repair, or rehabilitation of projects determined by the Secretary to be 
in the public interest and associated with navigation, flood damage 
reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water supply, 
agricultural water supply, recreation, hurricane and storm damage 
reduction, aquatic plant control, and environmental protection and 
restoration.
  ``(d) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken pursuant to this 
section shall be initiated only after non-Federal interests have 
entered into an agreement with the Secretary in which the non-Federal 
interests agree to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of 
construction of the project and 100 percent of the cost of operation, 
maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project in 
accordance with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
  ``(e) Special Rule.--Construction of a project under subsection (a) 
for one or more of the purposes of protection, restoration, or creation 
of aquatic and ecologically related habitat, the cost of which does not 
exceed $750,000 and which will be located in a disadvantaged community 
as determined by the Secretary, may be carried out at Federal expense.
  ``(f) Determination of Construction Costs.--Costs associated with 
construction of a project under this section shall be limited solely to 
construction costs that are in excess of those costs necessary to carry 
out the dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of the 
authorized water resources project in the most cos- effective way, 
consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.
  ``(g) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method.--In developing and 
carrying out a water resources project involving the disposal of 
sediment, the Secretary may select, with the consent of the non-Federal 
interest, a disposal method that is not the least cost option if the 
Secretary determines that the incremental costs of such disposal method 
are reasonable in relation to the environmental benefits, including the 
benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the creation of 
wetlands and control of shoreline erosion. The Federal share of such 
incremental costs shall be determined in accordance with subsections 
(d) and (f).
  ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any project carried out 
under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit 
entity, with the consent of the affected local government.
  ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $30,000,000 annually for projects under this section of 
which not more than $3,000,000 annually may be used for construction of 
projects described in subsection (e). Such sums shall remain available 
until expended.
  ``(j) Regional Sediment Management Planning.--In consultation with 
appropriate State and Federal agencies, the Secretary may develop, at 
Federal expense, plans for regional management of sediment obtained in 
conjunction with the construction, operation, or maintenance of water 
resources projects, including potential beneficial uses of sediment for 
construction, repair, or rehabilitation of public projects for 
navigation, flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and 
industrial water supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, 
hurricane and storm damage reduction, aquatic plant control, and 
environmental protection and restoration.
  ``(k) Use of Funds.--
          ``(1) Non-federal interest.--The non-Federal interest for a 
        project described in this section may use, and the Secretary 
        shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal program, 
        to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the 
        cost of such project if such funds are authorized to be used to 
        carry out such project.
          ``(2) Other federal agencies.--The non-Federal share of the 
        cost of construction of a project under this section may be met 
        through contributions from a Federal agency made directly to 
        the Secretary, with the consent of the affected local 
        government, if such funds are authorized to be used to carry 
        out such project. Before initiating a project to which this 
        paragraph applies, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement 
        with a non-Federal interest in which the non-Federal interest 
        agrees to pay 100 percent of the cost of operation, 
        maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project.''.
  (b) Repeal.--
          (1) In general.--Section 145 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed.
          (2) Hold harmless.--The repeal made by paragraph (1) shall 
        not affect the authority of the Secretary to complete any 
        project being carried out under such section 145 on the day 
        before the date of enactment of this Act.
  (c) Priority Areas.--In carrying out section 204 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the Secretary shall 
give priority to the following:
          (1) A project at Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas.
          (2) A project at Egmont Key, Florida.
          (3) A project in the vicinity of Calcasieu Ship Channel, 
        Louisiana.
          (4) A project in the vicinity of the Smith Point Park 
        Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York.
          (5) A project in the vicinity of Morehead City, North 
        Carolina.
          (6) A project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay, Texas.
          (7) A project at Benson Beach, Washington.

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

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

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

  ``The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up to 
$500,000 for all studies and projects--
          ``(1) in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, 
        Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the 
        United States Virgin Islands;
          ``(2) in Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 
        18, United States Code, and including lands that are within the 
        jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined 
        by the Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the 
        Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status 
        under part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations); or
          ``(3) on land in the State of Alaska owned by an Alaska 
        Native Regional Corporation or an Alaska Native Village 
        Corporation (as those terms are defined in the Alaska Native 
        Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)) or the 
        Metlakatla Indian community.''.

SEC. 2018. USE OF OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS.

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

SEC. 2019. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.

  Upon authorization by law of an increase in the maximum amount of 
Federal funds that may be allocated for a water resources project or an 
increase in the total cost of a water resources project authorized to 
be carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall revise the 
partnership agreement for the project to take into account the change 
in Federal participation in the project.

SEC. 2020. COST SHARING.

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

SEC. 2021. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

  The Secretary shall expedite any authorized planning, design, and 
construction of any project for flood damage reduction for an area 
that, within the preceding 5 years, has been subject to flooding that 
resulted in the loss of life and caused damage of sufficient severity 
and magnitude to warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the 
President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

SEC. 2022. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

  (a) In General.--Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587-2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is 
amended--
          (1) in subsection (d)--
                  (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
                  (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
                (5) and inserting ``;''; and
                  (C) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(6) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio;
          ``(7) Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties, 
        Washington;
          ``(8) Niagara River Basin, New York;
          ``(9) Genesee River Basin, New York; and
          ``(10) White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.'';
          (2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) and inserting 
        the following:
          ``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the costs 
        of an assessment carried out under this section on or after 
        December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.''; and
          (3) by striking subsection (g).
  (b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall revise 
the partnership agreement for any assessment being carried out under 
such section 729 to take into account the change in non-Federal 
participation in the assessment as a result of the amendments made by 
subsection (a).

SEC. 2023. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

  (a) Scope.--Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269(b)(1)(B); 114 Stat. 2589) is amended by 
inserting after ``Code'' the following: ``, and including lands that 
are within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as 
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the 
Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 
151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations''.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 203(e) of such Act is 
amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2012''.

SEC. 2024. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING.

  Section 309 of Public Law 102-154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a-1; 105 Stat. 1034) 
is amended by inserting ``the Secretary of the Army,'' after ``the 
Secretary of Energy,''.

SEC. 2025. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

  Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
1962d-16) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``(a) The Secretary'' and 
        inserting the following:
  ``(a) Federal State Cooperation.--
          ``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary'';
          (2) by inserting after the last sentence in subsection (a) 
        the following:
          ``(2) Technical assistance.--
          ``(A) In general.--At the request of a governmental agency or 
        non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide, at Federal 
        expense, technical assistance to such agency or non-Federal 
        interest in managing water resources.
          ``(B) Types of assistance.--Technical assistance under this 
        paragraph may include provision and integration of hydrologic, 
        economic, and environmental data and analyses.'';
          (3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``this section'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)'';
          (4) in subsection (b)(3) by striking ``Up to \1/2\ of the'' 
        and inserting ``The'';
          (5) in subsection (c) by striking ``(c) There is'' and 
        inserting the following:
  ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
          ``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
          (6) in subsection (c)(1) (as designated by paragraph (5))--
                  (A) by striking ``the provisions of this section'' 
                and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)''; and
                  (B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting 
                ``$1,000,000'';
          (7) by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the following:
          ``(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be 
        appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection 
        (a)(2), of which not more than $2,000,000 annually may be used 
        by the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with 
        nonprofit organizations to provide assistance to rural and 
        small communities.'';
          (8) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
          (9) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
  ``(d) Annual Submission of Proposed Activities.--Concurrent with the 
President's submission to Congress of the President's request for 
appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the 
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the 
individual activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for 
that fiscal year.''.

SEC. 2026. LAKES PROGRAM.

  Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at end of paragraph (18);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of 
        silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
        sedimentation;
          ``(21) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey, 
        removal of silt and measures to address water quality;
          ``(22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal of 
        silt and restoration of structural integrity;
          ``(23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal of 
        silt and aquatic growth;
          ``(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of 
        silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural 
        integrity; and
          ``(25) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.''.

SEC. 2027. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL 
                    ACTIONS.

  (a) Notice of Intent.--Upon request of the non-Federal interest in 
the form of a written notice of intent to construct or modify a non-
Federal water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood damage 
reduction, storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, or navigation 
project that requires the approval of the Secretary, the Secretary 
shall initiate, subject to subsection (g)(1), procedures to establish a 
schedule for consolidating Federal, State, and local agency and Indian 
tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and issuance of all 
permits for the construction or modification of the project. The non-
Federal interest shall submit to the Secretary, with the notice of 
intent, studies and documentation, including environmental reviews, 
that may be required by Federal law for decisionmaking on the proposed 
project. All States and Indian tribes having jurisdiction over the 
proposed project shall be invited by the Secretary, but shall not be 
required, to participate in carrying out this section with respect to 
the project.
  (b) Procedural Requirements.--Within 15 days after receipt of notice 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish such notice in the 
Federal Register. The Secretary also shall provide written notification 
of the receipt of a notice under subsection (a) to all State and local 
agencies and Indian tribes that may be required to issue permits for 
the construction of the project or related activities. The Secretary 
shall solicit the cooperation of those agencies and request their entry 
into a memorandum of agreement described in subsection (c) with respect 
to the project. Within 30 days after publication of the notice in the 
Federal Register, State and local agencies and Indian tribes that 
intend to enter into the memorandum of agreement with respect to the 
project shall notify the Secretary of their intent in writing.
  (c) Scheduling Agreement.--Within 90 days after the date of receipt 
of notice under subsection (a) with respect to a project, the Secretary 
of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, as necessary, and any State or 
local agencies that have notified the Secretary under subsection (b) 
shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary establishing a 
schedule of decisionmaking for approval of the project and permits 
associated with the project and with related activities.
  (d) Contents of Agreement.--An agreement entered into under 
subsection (c) with respect to a project, to the extent practicable, 
shall consolidate hearing and comment periods, procedures for data 
collection and report preparation, and the environmental review and 
permitting processes associated with the project and related 
activities. The agreement shall detail, to the extent possible, the 
non-Federal interest's responsibilities for data development and 
information that may be necessary to process each permit required for 
the project, including a schedule when the information and data will be 
provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency or Indian 
tribe.
  (e) Revision of Agreement.--The Secretary may revise an agreement 
entered into under subsection (c) with respect to a project once to 
extend the schedule to allow the non-Federal interest the minimum 
amount of additional time necessary to revise its original application 
to meet the objections of a Federal, State, or local agency or Indian 
tribe that is a party to the agreement.
  (f) Final Decision.--Not later than the final day of a schedule 
established by an agreement entered into under subsection (c) with 
respect to a project, the Secretary shall notify the non-Federal 
interest of the final decision on the project and whether the permit or 
permits have been issued.
  (g) Costs of Coordination.--The costs incurred by the Secretary to 
establish and carry out a schedule to consolidate Federal, State, and 
local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project 
reviews, and permit issuance for a project under this section shall be 
paid by the non-Federal interest.
  (h) Report on Timesavings Methods.--Not later than 3 years after the 
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and 
transmit to Congress a report estimating the time required for the 
issuance of all Federal, State, local, and tribal permits for the 
construction of non-Federal projects for water supply, wastewater 
infrastructure, flood damage reduction, storm damage reduction, 
ecosystem restoration, and navigation. The Secretary shall include in 
that report recommendations for further reducing the amount of time 
required for the issuance of those permits, including any proposed 
changes in existing law.

SEC. 2028. PROJECT STREAMLINING.

  (a) Policy.--The benefits of water resources projects are important 
to the Nation's economy and environment, and recommendations to 
Congress regarding such projects should not be delayed due to 
uncoordinated or inefficient reviews or the failure to timely resolve 
disputes during the development of water resources projects.
  (b) Scope.--This section shall apply to each study initiated after 
the date of enactment of this Act to develop a feasibility report under 
section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2282), or a reevaluation report, for a water resources project if the 
Secretary determines that such study requires an environmental impact 
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
  (c) Water Resources Project Review Process.--The Secretary shall 
develop and implement a coordinated review process for the development 
of water resources projects.
  (d) Coordinated Reviews.--
          (1) In general.--The coordinated review process under this 
        section shall provide that all reviews, analyses, opinions, 
        permits, licenses, and approvals that must be issued or made by 
        a Federal, State, or local government agency or Indian tribe 
        for the development of a water resources project described in 
        subsection (b) will be conducted, to the maximum extent 
        practicable, concurrently and completed within a time period 
        established by the Secretary, in cooperation with the agencies 
        identified under subsection (e) with respect to the project.
          (2) Agency participation.--Each Federal agency identified 
        under subsection (e) with respect to the development of a water 
        resources project shall formulate and implement administrative 
        policy and procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure 
        completion of reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, 
        and approvals described in paragraph (1) for the project in a 
        timely and environmentally responsible manner.
  (e) Identification of Jurisdictional Agencies.--With respect to the 
development of each water resources project, the Secretary shall 
identify, as soon as practicable all Federal, State, and local 
government agencies and Indian tribes that may--
          (1) have jurisdiction over the project;
          (2) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, 
        analysis, or opinion for the project; or
          (3) be required to make a determination on issuing a permit, 
        license, or approval for the project.
  (f) State Authority.--If the coordinated review process is being 
implemented under this section by the Secretary with respect to the 
development of a water resources project described in subsection (b) 
within the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent with State law, 
may choose to participate in the process and to make subject to the 
process all State agencies that--
          (1) have jurisdiction over the project;
          (2) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or 
        opinion for the project; or
          (3) are required to make a determination on issuing a permit, 
        license, or approval for the project.
  (g) Memorandum of Understanding.--The coordinated review process 
developed under this section may be incorporated into a memorandum of 
understanding for a water resources project between the Secretary, the 
heads of Federal, State, and local government agencies, Indian tribes 
identified under subsection (e), and the non-Federal interest for the 
project.
  (h) Effect of Failure to Meet Deadline.--
          (1) Notification of congress and ceq.--If the Secretary 
        determines that a Federal, State, or local government agency, 
        Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest that is participating in 
        the coordinated review process under this section with respect 
        to the development of a water resources project has not met a 
        deadline established under subsection (d) for the project, the 
        Secretary shall notify, within 30 days of the date of such 
        determination, the Committee on Transportation and 
        Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
        on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the Council on 
        Environmental Quality, and the agency, Indian tribe, or non-
        Federal interest involved about the failure to meet the 
        deadline.
          (2) Agency report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
        receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, State, or 
        local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest 
        involved may submit a report to the Secretary, the Committee on 
        Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
        of the Senate, and the Council on Environmental Quality 
        explaining why the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal 
        interest did not meet the deadline and what actions it intends 
        to take to complete or issue the required review, analysis, or 
        opinion or determination on issuing a permit, license, or 
        approval.
  (i) Purpose and Need and Determination of Reasonable Alternatives.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, as the Federal lead agency 
        responsible for carrying out a study for a water resources 
        project and the associated process for meeting the requirements 
        of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, shall--
                  (A) define the project's purpose and need for 
                purposes of any document which the Secretary is 
                responsible for preparing for the project and shall 
                determine the range of alternatives for consideration 
                in any document which the Secretary is responsible for 
                preparing for the project; and
                  (B) determine, in collaboration with participating 
                agencies at appropriate times during the study process, 
                the methodologies to be used and the level of detail 
                required in the analysis of each alternative for the 
                project.
          (2) Preferred alternative.--At the discretion of the 
        Secretary, the preferred alternative for a project, after being 
        identified, may be developed to a higher level of detail than 
        other alternatives.
  (j) Limitations.--Nothing in this section shall preempt or interfere 
with--
          (1) any statutory requirement for seeking public comment;
          (2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a Federal, 
        State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal 
        interest has with respect to carrying out a water resources 
        project; or
          (3) any obligation to comply with the provisions of the 
        National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the regulations 
        issued by the Council on Environmental Quality to carry out 
        such Act.

SEC. 2029. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

  (a) In General.--For the purpose of expediting the cost-effective 
design and construction of wetlands restoration that is part of an 
authorized water resources project, the Secretary may enter into 
cooperative agreements under section 6305 of title 31, United States 
Code, with nonprofit organizations with expertise in wetlands 
restoration to carry out such design and construction on behalf of the 
Secretary.
  (b) Limitations.--
          (1) Per project limit.--A cooperative agreement under this 
        section shall not obligate the Secretary to pay the nonprofit 
        organization more than $1,000,000 for any single wetlands 
        restoration project.
          (2) Annual limit.--The total value of work carried out under 
        cooperative agreements under this section may not exceed 
        $5,000,000 in any fiscal year.

SEC. 2030. TRAINING FUNDS.

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

SEC. 2031. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.

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

SEC. 2032. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

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

SEC. 2033. ABILITY TO PAY.

  (a) Criteria and Procedures.--Section 103(m)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)(2)) is amended by 
striking ``180 days after such date of enactment'' and inserting 
``September 30, 2007''.
  (b) Projects.--The Secretary shall apply the criteria and procedures 
referred to in section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) to the following projects:
          (1) St. johns bayou and new madrid floodway, missouri.--The 
        project for flood control, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid 
        Floodway, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118).
          (2) Lower rio grande basin, texas.--The project for flood 
        control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, authorized by section 
        401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
        Stat. 4125).
          (3) West virginia and pennsylvania projects.--The projects 
        for flood control authorized by section 581 of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790-3791).

SEC. 2034. LEASING AUTHORITY.

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

SEC. 2035. COST ESTIMATES.

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

SEC. 2036. PROJECT PLANNING.

  (a) Determination of Certain National Benefits.--
          (1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
        consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and 
        Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation 
        Studies (1983), the Secretary may select a water resources 
        project alternative that does not maximize net national 
        economic development benefits or net national ecosystem 
        restoration benefits if there is an overriding reason based on 
        other Federal, State, local, or international concerns.
          (2) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane storm 
        damage reduction projects.--With respect to a water resources 
        project the primary purpose of which is flood damage reduction, 
        navigation, or hurricane and storm damage reduction, an 
        overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the plan that 
        maximizes net national economic development benefits may be if 
        the Secretary determines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, 
        that an alternative plan is feasible and achieves the project 
        purposes while providing greater ecosystem restoration 
        benefits.
          (3) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to a water 
        resources project the primary purpose of which is ecosystem 
        restoration, an overriding reason for selecting a plan other 
        than the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration 
        benefits may be if the Secretary determines, and the non-
        Federal interest concurs, that an alternative plan is feasible 
        and achieves the project purposes while providing greater 
        economic development benefits.
  (b) Identifying Additional Benefits and Projects.--
          (1) Primarily economic benefits.--In conducting a study of 
        the feasibility of a project where the primary benefits are 
        expected to be economic, the Secretary may identify ecosystem 
        restoration benefits that may be achieved in the study area 
        and, after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal 
        interest, may study and recommend construction of additional 
        measures, a separate project, or separable project element to 
        achieve those benefits.
          (2) Primarily ecosystem restoration benefits.--In conducting 
        a study of the feasibility of a project where the primary 
        benefits are expected to be associated with ecosystem 
        restoration, the Secretary may identify economic benefits that 
        may be achieved in the study area and, after obtaining the 
        participation of a non-Federal interest, may study and 
        recommend construction of additional measures, a separate 
        project, or separable project element to achieve those 
        benefits.
          (3) Rules applicable to certain measures, projects, and 
        elements.--Any additional measures, separate project, or 
        separable element identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and 
        recommended for construction shall not be considered integral 
        to the underlying project and, if authorized, shall be subject 
        to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-Federal 
        interest agrees to share in the cost of the additional 
        measures, project, or separable element.
  (c) Calculation of Benefits and Costs for Flood Damage Reduction 
Projects.--A feasibility study for a project for flood damage reduction 
shall include, as part of the calculation of benefits and costs--
          (1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding following 
        completion of the proposed project;
          (2) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of 
        the proposed project; and
          (3) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs 
        associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are 
        evaluated in an equitable manner.

SEC. 2037. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

  (a) Project Studies Subject to Independent Peer Review.--
          (1) In general.--Project studies shall be subject to a peer 
        review by an independent panel of experts as determined under 
        this section.
          (2) Scope.--The peer review may include a review of the 
        economic and environmental assumptions and projections, project 
        evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental analyses, 
        engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, methods 
        for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in evaluation 
        of economic or environmental impacts of proposed projects, and 
        any biological opinions of the project study.
          (3) Project studies subject to peer review.--
                  (A) Mandatory.--A project study shall be subject to 
                peer review under paragraph (1)--
                          (i) if the project has an estimated total 
                        cost of more than $50,000,000, including 
                        mitigation costs, and is not determined by the 
                        Chief of Engineers to be exempt from peer 
                        review under paragraph (6); or
                          (ii) the Governor of an affected State 
                        requests a peer review by an independent panel 
                        of experts.
                  (B) Discretionary.--A project study may be subject to 
                peer review if--
                          (i) the head of a Federal or State agency 
                        charged with reviewing the project study 
                        determines that the project is likely to have a 
                        significant adverse impact on environmental, 
                        cultural, or other resources under the 
                        jurisdiction of the agency after implementation 
                        of proposed mitigation plans and requests a 
                        peer review by an independent panel of experts; 
                        or
                          (ii) the Chief of Engineers determines that 
                        the project study is controversial.
          (4) Controversial projects.--Upon receipt of a written 
        request under paragraph (3)(B) or on the initiative of the 
        Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers shall determine 
        whether a project study is controversial.
          (5) Factors to consider.--In determining whether a project 
        study is controversial, the Chief of Engineers shall consider 
        if--
                  (A) there is a significant public dispute as to the 
                size, nature, or effects of the project; or
                  (B) there is a significant public dispute as to the 
                economic or environmental costs or benefits of the 
                project.
          (6) Project studies excluded from peer review.--Project 
        studies that may be excluded from peer review under paragraph 
        (1) are--
                  (A) a study for a project the Chief of Engineers 
                determines--
                          (i) is not controversial;
                          (ii) has no more than negligible adverse 
                        impacts on scarce or unique cultural, historic, 
                        or tribal resources;
                          (iii) has no substantial adverse impacts on 
                        fish and wildlife species and their habitat 
                        prior to the implementation of mitigation 
                        measures; and
                          (iv) has, before implementation of mitigation 
                        measures, no more than a negligible adverse 
                        impact on a species listed as endangered or 
                        threatened species under the Endangered Species 
                        Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539 et seq.) or the 
                        critical habitat of such species designated 
                        under such Act; and
                  (B) a study for a project pursued under section 205 
                of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), 
                section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 
                (33 U.S.C. 701g), section 14 of the Flood Control Act 
                of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), section 107(a) of the River 
                and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), section 3 of 
                the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal 
                participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
                publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 
                U.S.C. 426g), section 111 of the River and Harbor Act 
                of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), section 3 of the Act entitled 
                ``An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and 
                preservation of certain public works on rivers and 
                harbors, and for other purposes'', approved March 2, 
                1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 1135 of the Water 
                Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), 
                section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
                1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), or section 204 of the Water 
                Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
          (7) Appeal.--The decision of the Chief of Engineers whether 
        to peer review a project study shall be published in the 
        Federal Register and shall be subject to appeal by a person 
        referred to in paragraph (3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the 
        Secretary of the Army if such appeal is made within the 30-day 
        period following the date of such publication.
          (8) Determination of project cost.--For purposes of 
        determining the estimated total cost of a project under 
        paragraph (3)(A), the project cost shall be based upon the 
        reasonable estimates of the Chief of Engineers at the 
        completion of the reconnaissance study for the project. If the 
        reasonable estimate of project costs is subsequently determined 
        to be in excess of the amount in paragraph (3)(A), the Chief of 
        Engineers shall make a determination whether a project study 
        should be reviewed under this section.
  (b) Timing of Peer Review.--The Chief of Engineers shall determine 
the timing of a peer review of a project study under subsection (a). In 
all cases, the peer review shall occur during the period beginning on 
the date of the completion of the reconnaissance study for the project 
and ending on the date the draft report of the Chief of Engineers for 
the project is made available for public comment. Where the Chief of 
Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a project study, the Chief 
of Engineers shall consider, at a minimum, whether to initiate a peer 
review at the time that--
          (1) the without-project conditions are identified;
          (2) the array of alternatives to be considered are 
        identified; and
          (3) the preferred alternative is identified.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Chief of 
Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a project study.
  (c) Establishment of Panels.--
          (1) In general.--For each project study subject to peer 
        review under subsection (a), as soon as practicable after the 
        Chief of Engineers determines that a project study will be 
        subject to peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall contract 
        with the National Academy of Sciences (or a similar independent 
        scientific and technical advisory organization), or an eligible 
        organization, to establish a panel of experts to peer review 
        the project study for technical and scientific sufficiency.
          (2) Membership.--A panel of experts established for a project 
        study under this section shall be composed of independent 
        experts who represent a balance of areas of expertise suitable 
        for the review being conducted.
          (3) Limitation on appointments.--An individual may not be 
        selected to serve on a panel of experts established for a 
        project study under this section if the individual has a 
        financial or close professional association with any 
        organization or group with a strong financial or organizational 
        interest in the project.
          (4) Congressional notification.--Upon identification of a 
        project study for peer review under this section, but prior to 
        initiation of any review, the Chief of Engineers shall notify 
        the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 
        the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
        of Representatives of such review.
  (d) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a peer 
review for a project study under this section shall, consistent with 
the scope of the referral for review--
          (1) conduct a peer review for the project study submitted to 
        the panel for review;
          (2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and 
        environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief 
        of Engineers;
          (3) provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief of 
        Engineers throughout the development of the project study, as 
        requested; and
          (4) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report 
        containing the panel's economic, engineering, and environmental 
        analysis of the project study, including the panel's assessment 
        of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and 
        environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief 
        of Engineers, to accompany the publication of the project 
        study.
  (e) Duration of Project Study Peer Reviews.--
          (1) Deadline.--A panel of experts shall--
                  (A) complete its peer review under this section for a 
                project study and submit a report to the Chief of 
                Engineers under subsection (d)(4) within 180 days after 
                the date of establishment of the panel, or, if the 
                Chief of Engineers determines that a longer period of 
                time is necessary, such period of time established by 
                the Chief of Engineers, but in no event later than 90 
                days after the date a draft project study is made 
                available for public review; and
                  (B) terminate on the date of submission of the 
                report.
          (2) Failure to meet deadline.--If a panel does not complete 
        its peer review of a project study under this section and 
        submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection 
        (d)(4) on or before the deadline established by paragraph (1) 
        for the project study, the Chief of Engineers shall continue 
        the project study for the project that is subject to peer 
        review by the panel without delay.
  (f) Recommendations of Panel.--
          (1) Consideration by the chief of engineers.--After receiving 
        a report on a project study from a panel of experts under this 
        section and before entering a final record of decision for the 
        project, the Chief of Engineers shall consider any 
        recommendations contained in the report and prepare a written 
        response for any recommendations adopted or not adopted.
          (2) Public availability and transmittal to congress.--After 
        receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 
        under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall--
                  (A) make a copy of the report and any written 
                response of the Chief of Engineers on recommendations 
                contained in the report available to the public; and
                  (B) transmit to Congress a copy of the report, 
                together with any such written response, on the date of 
                a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final 
                decision document for a project study that is subject 
                to peer review by the panel.
  (g) Costs.--
          (1) In general.--The costs of a panel of experts established 
        for a peer review under this section--
                  (A) shall be a Federal expense; and
                  (B) shall not exceed $500,000.
          (2) Waiver.--The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000 
        limitation contained in paragraph (1)(B) in cases that the 
        Chief of Engineers determines appropriate.
  (h) Applicability.--This section shall apply to--
          (1) project studies initiated during the 2-year period 
        preceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the 
        array of alternatives to be considered has not been identified; 
        and
          (2) project studies initiated during the period beginning on 
        such date of enactment and ending 4 years after such date of 
        enactment.
  (i) Report.--Within 4\1/2\ years of the date of enactment of this 
section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit a report to Congress on 
the implementation of this section.
  (j) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any peer review panel established under 
this section.
  (k) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers to cause or conduct a 
peer review of a water resources project existing on the date of 
enactment of this section.
  (l) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
          (1) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a 
        feasibility study or reevaluation study for a project. The term 
        also includes any other study associated with a modification or 
        update of a project that includes an environmental impact 
        statement, including the environmental impact statement.
          (2) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'', as used 
        with respect to a project, means a State all or a portion of 
        which is within the drainage basin in which the project is or 
        would be located and would be economically or environmentally 
        affected as a consequence of the project.
          (3) Eligible organization.--The term ``eligible 
        organization'' means an organization that--
                  (A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt 
                from Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal 
                Revenue Code of 1986;
                  (B) is independent;
                  (C) is free from conflicts of interest;
                  (D) does not carry out or advocate for or against 
                Federal water resources projects; and
                  (E) has experience in establishing and administering 
                peer review panels.

SEC. 2038. STUDIES AND REPORTS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

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

SEC. 2039. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FABRICATION PORT.

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

SEC. 2040. USE OF FIRMS EMPLOYING LOCAL RESIDENTS.

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

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

SEC. 3001. COOK INLET, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 3002. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 3003. SITKA, ALASKA.

  The Sitka, Alaska, element of the project for navigation, Southeast 
Alaska Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, authorized by section 101(1) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4801), is modified 
to direct the Secretary to take such action as is necessary to correct 
design deficiencies in the Sitka Harbor Breakwater, at full Federal 
expense. The estimated cost is $6,300,000.

SEC. 3004. TATITLEK, ALASKA.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project for navigation, Tatitlek, Alaska, being carried out under 
section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall 
be $10,000,000.

SEC. 3005. RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA.

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

SEC. 3006. OSCEOLA HARBOR, ARKANSAS.

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

SEC. 3007. PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, ARKANSAS.

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

SEC. 3008. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALIFORNIA. .

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

SEC. 3009. COMPTON CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

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

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

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson Creek/
Murderer's Creek, California, being carried out under section 206 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is 
modified--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out 
        by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
        agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the 
        work is integral to the project; and
          (2) to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 
        restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the 
        project.

SEC. 3011. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton Airfield, 
California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the 
report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 19, 2004, at a total cost 
of $228,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $171,100,000 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $57,000,000.

SEC. 3012. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCKTON SHIP CHANNEL, 
                    CALIFORNIA.

  The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, California, 
authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 
1091) is modified--
          (1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
        John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel element 
        of the project may be provided in the form of in-kind services 
        and materials; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of such element the cost of planning and 
        design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 
        date of an agreement for such planning and design if the 
        Secretary determines that such work is integral to such 
        element.

SEC. 3013. KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 3014. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, 
California, authorized by section 601(d) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to determine whether maintenance of the project is feasible, 
and if the Secretary determines that maintenance of the project is 
feasible, to carry out such maintenance.

SEC. 3015. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, Llagas 
Creek, California, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $105,000,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $65,000,000, and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $40,000,000.
  (b) Special Rule.--In evaluating and implementing the project, the 
Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that 
the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is 
necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 3016. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) In General.--The project for Magpie Creek, California, authorized 
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is 
modified to direct the Secretary to apply the cost-sharing requirements 
of section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4085) for the portion of the project consisting of land 
acquisition to preserve and enhance existing floodwater storage.
  (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the cost of the project the cost of planning and design work carried 
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.

SEC. 3017. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific Flyway Center, 
Sacramento, California, being carried out under section 206 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified 
to authorize the Secretary to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public 
access to the project.

SEC. 3018. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Pinole 
Creek Phase I, California, being carried out under section 1135 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified 
to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3019. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA.

  Upon completion of the modifications to the Prado Dam element of the 
project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4113), the Memorandum of Agreement for the Operation 
for Prado Dam for Seasonal Additional Water Conservation between the 
Department of the Army and the Orange County Water District (including 
all the conditions and stipulations in the memorandum) shall remain in 
effect for volumes of water made available prior to such modifications.

SEC. 3020. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 3021. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, 
California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 3022. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 3023. SEVEN OAKS DAM, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 3024. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper 
Guadalupe River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified to 
authorize the Secretary to construct the project generally in 
accordance with the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Damage Reduction, San 
Jose, California, Limited Reevaluation Report, dated March, 2004, at a 
total cost of $244,500,000.

SEC. 3025. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut Creek Channel, 
California, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out 
        by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
        agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the 
        work is integral to the project; and
          (2) to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 
        restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the 
        project.

SEC. 3026. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 
Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, being carried out under 
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out 
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.

SEC. 3027. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/San Pablo 
Creek Phase II, California, being carried out under section 206 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified 
to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project 
and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 
restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the 
project.

SEC. 3028. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

  The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California, 
authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified--
          (1) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a 
        total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
        $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,700,000; 
        and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out 
        by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
        agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the 
        work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3029. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLORADO.

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

SEC. 3030. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, 
                    DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.

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

SEC. 3031. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

  (a) Shoreline.--The project for shoreline protection, Brevard County, 
Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(7) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), is modified--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to establish the reach of the 
        project as the reach between the Florida department of 
        environmental protection monuments 75.4 to 118.3, a distance of 
        7.6 miles; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to expedite the general 
        reevaluation report required by section 418 of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637).
  (b) Credit.--Section 310 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1999 (113 Stat. 301) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(d) Credit.--After completion of the study, the Secretary shall 
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
shore protection the cost of nourishment and renourishment associated 
with the project for shore protection incurred by the non-Federal 
interest to respond to damages to Brevard County beaches that are the 
result of a Federal navigation project, as determined in the final 
report for the study.''.

SEC. 3032. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA.

  The project for shore protection, Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, 
Florida, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 
(79 Stat. 1090), and modified by section 311 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301), is further modified to direct 
the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of mitigation construction and derelict erosion 
control structure removal carried out by the non-Federal interest 
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3033. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA.

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

SEC. 3034. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.

  The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero Island 
segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized by section 201 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073), by Senate Resolution dated 
December 17, 1970, and by House Resolution dated December 15, 1970, and 
modified by section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2602), is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3035. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.

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

SEC. 3036. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.

  (a) In General.--The project for shore protection, Lido Key Beach, 
Sarasota, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819), deauthorized under section 1001(b) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), and 
reauthorized by section 364(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 313), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
construct the project substantially in accordance with the report of 
the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of 
$15,190,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,320,000 and an 
estimated non-Federal cost of $5,870,000, and at an estimated total 
cost of $65,000,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of 
the project.
  (b) Construction of Shoreline Protection Projects by Non-Federal 
Interests.--The Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement with 
the non-Federal interest in accordance with section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i-1) for the modified 
project.

SEC. 3037. MIAMI HARBOR, FLORIDA.

  The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, authorized 
by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
(104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 315 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 302), is further modified--
          (1) to include as a project purpose environmental mitigation 
        required before July 18, 2003, by a Federal, State, or local 
        environmental agency for unauthorized or unanticipated 
        environmental impacts within, or in the vicinity of, the 
        authorized project; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal 
        interest for the Federal share of the costs the non-Federal 
        interest has incurred in construction of the project (including 
        environmental mitigation costs and costs incurred for 
        incomplete usable increments of the project) in accordance with 
        section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
        U.S.C. 2232).

SEC. 3038. PEANUT ISLAND, FLORIDA.

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

SEC. 3039. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA.

  The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida, 
authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 276) is modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3040. TAMPA HARBOR CUT B, FLORIDA.

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

SEC. 3041. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.

  (a) Land Exchange.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange lands above 863 
        feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the 
        Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile district 
        engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 1996, for 
        lands on the north side of Allatoona Lake that are needed for 
        wildlife management and for protection of the water quality and 
        overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
          (2) Terms and conditions.--The basis for all land exchanges 
        under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal so that 
        lands exchanged are of equal value.
  (b) Disposal and Acquisition of Lands, Allatoona Lake, Georgia.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may also sell lands above 863 
        feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the 
        memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1) and may use the 
        proceeds to pay costs associated with the purchase of lands 
        needed for wildlife management and for protection of the water 
        quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
          (2) Terms and conditions.--Land sales and purchases to be 
        conducted under this subsection shall be subject to the 
        following terms and conditions:
                  (A) Lands acquired under this subsection shall be by 
                negotiated purchase from willing sellers only.
                  (B) The basis for all transactions under the program 
                shall be a fair market appraisal acceptable to the 
                Secretary.
                  (C) The purchasers shall share in the associated real 
                estate costs, to include surveys and associated fees in 
                accordance with the memorandum referred to in 
                subsection (a)(1).
                  (D) Any other conditions that the Secretary may 
                impose.
  (c) Repeal.--Section 325 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.

SEC. 3042. LATHAM RIVER, GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA.

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

SEC. 3043. DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO.

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

SEC. 3044. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN, ILLINOIS.

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

SEC. 3045. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.

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

SEC. 3046. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.

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

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

  (a) Treatment as Single Project.--The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 
Dispersal Barrier Project (in this section referred to as ``Barrier 
I'') (as in existence on the date of enactment of this Act), 
constructed as a demonstration project under section 1202(i)(3) of the 
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 
U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)), and the project relating to the Chicago Sanitary 
and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, authorized by section 345 of the 
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-335; 118 
Stat. 1352) (in this section referred to as ``Barrier II''), shall be 
considered to constitute a single project.
  (b) Authorization.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall--
                  (A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I;
                  (B) construct Barrier II, notwithstanding the project 
                cooperation agreement with the State of Illinois dated 
                June 14, 2005;
                  (C) operate and maintain Barrier I and Barrier II as 
                a system to optimize effectiveness;
                  (D) conduct, in consultation with appropriate 
                Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental entities, a 
                study of a range of options and technologies for 
                reducing impacts of hazards that may reduce the 
                efficacy of the Barriers; and
                  (E) provide to each State a credit in an amount equal 
                to the amount of funds contributed by the State toward 
                Barrier II.
          (2) Use of credit.--A State may apply a credit provided to 
        the State under paragraph (1)(E) to any cost sharing 
        responsibility for an existing or future Federal project 
        carried out by the Secretary in the State.
  (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 345 of the District of Columbia 
Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-335; 118 Stat. 1352), is 
amended to read as follows:

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

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

SEC. 3048. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS.

  (a) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Emiquon, 
Illinois, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), shall be $7,500,000.
  (b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility 
of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of 
the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain 
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
purposes'', approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

SEC. 3049. LASALLE, ILLINOIS.

  In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1990 (104 Stat. 4639-4640), the Secretary shall give priority to work 
in the vicinity of LaSalle, Illinois, on the Illinois and Michigan 
Canal.

SEC. 3050. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS.

  (a) Project Purpose.--The project for flood control, Spunky Bottoms, 
Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 
1936 (49 Stat. 1583), is modified to add environmental restoration as a 
project purpose.
  (b) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the 
environment, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, being carried out under section 
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), 
shall be $7,500,000.
  (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility 
of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of 
the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain 
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
purposes'', approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

SEC. 3051. FORT WAYNE AND VICINITY, INDIANA.

  The project for flood control Fort Wayne, St. Mary's and Maumee 
Rivers, Indiana, authorized by section 101(a)(11) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4604), is modified--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to provide a 100-year level of 
        flood protection at the Berry-Thieme, Park-Thompson, Woodhurst, 
        and Tillman sites along the St. Mary's River, Fort Wayne and 
        vicinity, Indiana, at a total cost of $5,300,000; and
          (2) to allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
        financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of 
        the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to 
        the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that 
        applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 3052. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA.

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

SEC. 3053. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.

  The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of White 
River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and 
harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved June 22, 
1936 (49 Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and section 322 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 303-304), is 
further modified--
          (1) to authorize the Secretary to undertake the riverfront 
        alterations described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront 
        Concept Plan, dated February 1994, for the Fall Creek Reach 
        feature at a total cost of $28,545,000; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, 
        and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
        before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 
        the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
        project.

SEC. 3054. DES MOINES RIVER AND GREENBELT, IOWA.

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

SEC. 3055. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY.

  The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project for flood control, 
Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland Rivers, West 
Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), 
is modified to direct the Secretary to take measures to provide a 100-
year level of flood protection for the city of Prestonsburg.

SEC. 3056. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON ROUGE 
                    PARISH WATERSHED.

  The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Amite River 
and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed, 
authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 277) and modified by section 116 of division D of 
Public Law 108-7 (117 Stat. 140), is further modified--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to carry out the project with the 
        cost sharing for the project determined in accordance with 
        section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
        (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effect on October 11, 1996;
          (2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a 
        total cost of $187,000,000; and
          (3) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out 
        by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
        agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the 
        work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3057. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.

  (a) In General.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603-2604) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(1) is authorized to study, design, construct, operate, and 
        maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A Regional Visitor Center 
        in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana, in consultation with 
        the State of Louisiana, to provide information to the public on 
        the Atchafalaya River system and other associated waterways 
        that have influenced surrounding communities, and national and 
        local water resources development of the Army Corps of 
        Engineers in South Central Louisiana; and''.
  (b) Technical Correction.--Section 315(b) of such Act is amended by 
striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a)(2)''.
  (c) Donations.--Section 315 of such Act is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
  ``(c) Donations.--In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the Mississippi 
River Commission is authorized to accept the donation of cash, funds, 
lands, materials, and services from non-Federal governmental entities 
and nonprofit corporations.''.

SEC. 3058. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA.

  The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System 
project, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to acquire from willing sellers the fee interest, exclusive 
of oil, gas, and minerals, of an additional 20,000 acres of land within 
the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for the public access feature of 
the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, to enhance fish and wildlife 
resources, at a total cost of $4,000,000.

SEC. 3059. BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.

  The project for the improvement of the quality of the environment, 
Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, being carried out under section 1135 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is 
modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 3060. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO 
                    SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.

  The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, J. Bennett 
Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana, 
authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and modified by section 4(h) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 
301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3710), and section 316 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2572), is further modified--
          (1) to authorize the purchase and reforesting of lands that 
        have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses; and
          (2) to incorporate current wildlife and forestry management 
        practices for the purpose of improving species diversity on 
        mitigation lands that meet Federal and State of Louisiana 
        habitat goals and objectives.

SEC. 3061. MELVILLE, LOUISIANA.

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

SEC. 3062. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA.

  The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, authorized as part 
of the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake Pontchartrain, 
Louisiana, by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 
1077) and modified by section 365 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3739), is further modified to direct the 
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the costs of relocating oyster beds in the Davis Pond project 
area if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
Mississippi Delta Region project.

SEC. 3063. NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LOUISIANA.

  The New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana, project for hurricane 
protection, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 
(76 Stat. 1184), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out 
the work on the St. Jude to City Price, Upper Reach A back levee. The 
Federal share of the cost of such work shall be 70 percent.

SEC. 3064. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY CANAL), 
                    LOUISIANA.

  Section 328 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
304-305) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``operation and maintenance'' and 
                inserting ``operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, 
                repair, and replacement''; and
                  (B) by striking ``Algiers Channel'' and inserting 
                ``Algiers Canal Levees''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
shall be 35 percent.''.

SEC. 3065. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE.

  The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the 
project being carried out under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act 
of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the mitigation of shore damages 
attributable to the project for navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, 
shall be $26,900,000.

SEC. 3066. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

  (a) In General.--The project for emergency streambank and shoreline 
protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan, being carried 
out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), 
is modified to include measures to enhance public access.
  (b) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be expended for the project shall be $3,000,000.

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

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

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

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

SEC. 3068. ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

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

SEC. 3069. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN.

  (a) In General.--The text of section 1149 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) is amended to read as follows:
  ``The Secretary shall construct at Federal expense a second lock, of 
a width not less than 110 feet and a length not less than 1,200 feet, 
adjacent to the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, 
generally in accordance with the report of the Board of Engineers for 
Rivers and Harbors, dated May 19, 1986, and the limited reevaluation 
report dated February 2004 at a total cost of $341,714,000.''
  (b) Conforming Repeals.--The following provisions are repealed:
          (1) Section 107(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act 
        of 1990 (104 Stat. 4620).
          (2) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
        1996 (110 Stat. 3717-3718).
          (3) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
        1999 (113 Stat. 305).

SEC. 3070. ADA, MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice 
River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in 
determining the Federal interest in the project.
  (b) Evaluation of Benefits and Costs.--In evaluating the economic 
benefits and costs for the project, the Secretary shall not consider 
the emergency levee adjacent to Judicial Ditch No. 51 in the 
determination of conditions existing prior to construction of the 
project.
  (c) Special Rule.--In evaluating and implementing the project, the 
Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that 
the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such section is 
necessary to implement the project.

SEC. 3071. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, McQuade 
Road, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 321 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), is further 
modified to authorize the Secretary to provide public access and 
recreational facilities as generally described in the Detailed Project 
Report and Environmental Assessment, McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge, 
Duluth, Minnesota, dated August 1999.
  (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs of design work 
carried out before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.
  (c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be expended for the project shall be $9,000,000.

SEC. 3072. GRAND MARAIS, MINNESOTA.

  The project for navigation, Grand Marais, Minnesota, carried out 
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) 
is modified to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design work 
carried out before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 3073. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

  The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share of 
the cost of the navigation project for Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota, 
carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 
U.S.C. 577), for the costs of design work carried out before the date 
of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3074. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to implement under section 
205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) the locally 
preferred plan for flood damage reduction, Granite Falls, Minnesota, 
substantially in accordance with the detailed project report dated 
2002, at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$8,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,000,000.
  (b) Project Financing.--In evaluating and implementing the project 
under this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interests 
to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with 
section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
Stat. 4184), to the extent that the detailed project report evaluation 
indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the 
project.
  (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out by 
the non-Federal interest before the date of execution of a partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.
  (d) Maximum Funding.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be 
expended for the flood damage reduction shall be $8,000,000.

SEC. 3075. KNIFE RIVER HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

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

SEC. 3076. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

  The project for flood control, Red Lake River, Crookston, Minnesota, 
authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is modified to include flood protection for 
the adjacent and interconnected areas generally known as the Sampson 
and Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance with the feasibility 
report supplement for local flood protection, Crookston, Minnesota, at 
a total cost of $25,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$16,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,750,000.

SEC. 3077. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA.

  The project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, authorized by 
section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), 
is modified to include operation and maintenance of the general 
navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility.

SEC. 3078. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

  The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Minnesota, carried out 
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), 
is modified to include operation and maintenance of the general 
navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility.

SEC. 3079. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota, 
being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 
(33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include construction of a dredged 
material disposal facility, including actions required to clear the 
site.
  (b) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--Non-Federal interests shall 
be responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and 
relocations necessary for the construction of the dredged material 
disposal facility.
  (c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
that may be expended for the project shall be $5,000,000.

SEC. 3080. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

  The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island, Harrison County, 
Mississippi, being carried out under section 204 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), is modified to authorize the 
non-Federal interest to provide any portion of the non-Federal share of 
the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.

SEC. 3081. PEARL RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.

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

SEC. 3082. FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.

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

SEC. 3083. L-15 LEVEE, MISSOURI.

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

SEC. 3084. MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI.

  The project for flood damage reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield, 
Missouri, authorized by section 101(b)(18) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified to direct the 
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of the planning, design, and construction work carried 
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.

SEC. 3085. RIVER DES PERES, MISSOURI.

  The projects for flood control, River Des Peres, Missouri, authorized 
by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
(104 Stat. 4607) and section 102(13) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668), are each modified to direct the Secretary 
to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines 
that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3086. ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA.

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

SEC. 3087. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA.

  The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, 
Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(20) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is 
modified--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-
        Federal share of the cost of the project or reimbursement for 
        the costs of any work that has been or will be performed by the 
        non-Federal interest before, on, or after the approval of the 
        project partnership agreement, including work performed by the 
        non-Federal interest in connection with the design and 
        construction of 7 upstream detention storage structures, if the 
        Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project;
          (2) to require that in-kind work to be credited under 
        paragraph (1) be subject to audit; and
          (3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance funds from the 
        non-Federal interest as needed to maintain the project 
        schedule.

SEC. 3088. LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NEW JERSEY.

  The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration, shore 
protection, and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Lower Cape May 
Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(25) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is 
modified to incorporate the project for shoreline erosion control, Cape 
May Point, New Jersey, carried out under section 5 of the Act entitled 
``An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting 
the shores of publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 
U.S.C. 426h), if the Secretary determines that such incorporation is 
feasible.

SEC. 3089. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.

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

SEC. 3090. BUFFALO HARBOR, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 3091. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 3092. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

  The navigation project, Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and 
New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(2) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is modified--
          (1) to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal 
        interest to construct a temporary dredged material storage 
        facility to receive dredged material from the project if--
                  (A) the non-Federal interest submits, in writing, a 
                list of potential sites for the temporary storage 
                facility to the Committee on Transportation and 
                Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the 
                Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
                Senate, and the Secretary at least 180 days before the 
                selection of the final site; and
                  (B) at least 70 percent of the dredged material 
                generated in connection with the project suitable for 
                beneficial reuse will be used at sites in the State of 
                New Jersey to the extent that there are sufficient 
                sites available; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of construction of 
        the temporary storage facility if the Secretary determines that 
        the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3093. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

  Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3781) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this section, the term 
`New York State Canal System' means the 524 miles of navigable canal 
that comprise the New York State Canal System, including the Erie, 
Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and Champlain Canals and the historic alignments 
of these canals, including the cities of Albany, Rochester, and 
Buffalo.''.

SEC. 3094. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OHIO.

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

SEC. 3095. MAHONING RIVER, OHIO.

  In carrying out the project for environmental dredging, authorized by 
section 312(f)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 
U.S.C. 1272(f)(4)), the Secretary is directed to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out 
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.

SEC. 3096. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND DELAWARE.

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

SEC. 3097. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary, including 
construction of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline erosion between .07 
and 2.7 miles south of Pennsylvania State Route 994 on the east shore 
of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.

SEC. 3098. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS CREEK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 
                    PENNSYLVANIA.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sheraden Park Stream 
and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, being carried out 
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 
U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit up to 
$400,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3099. SOLOMON'S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA.

  The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is modified to include as a project element the 
project for flood control for Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, 
Pennsylvania.

SEC. 3100. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 117 Stat. 142) is 
amended--
          (1) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ``$180,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$200,000,000''; and
          (2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ``Allegheny, Armstrong, 
        Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, 
        Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, Somerset, 
        Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties'' and inserting 
        ``Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Fayette, 
        Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, 
        Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties''.

SEC. 3101. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.

  In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, 
Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), the Secretary shall 
coordinate with non-Federal interests to review opportunities for 
increased public access.

SEC. 3102. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

  (a) Credit for Planning and Design.--The project for navigation, 
Cedar Bayou, Texas, reauthorized by section 349(a)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632), is modified to 
direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the 
non-Federal interest for the project if the Secretary determines that 
such work is integral to the project.
  (b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for construction and operation and 
maintenance of the project shall be determined in accordance with 
section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2211).

SEC. 3103. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS.

  The project for navigation, Freeport Harbor, Texas, authorized by 
section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is 
modified.--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of the planning, 
        design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 
        interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
        project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
        to the project; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to remove the sunken vessel 
        ``COMSTOCK'' at Federal expense.

SEC. 3104. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may not take any legal or 
administrative action seeking to remove a Lake Kemp improvement before 
the earlier of January 1, 2020, or the date of any transfer of 
ownership of the improvement occurring after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
  (b) Limitation on Liability.--The United States, or any of its 
officers, agents, or assignees, shall not be liable for any injury, 
loss, or damage accruing to the owners of a Lake Kemp improvement, 
their lessees, or occupants as a result of any flooding or inundation 
of such improvements by the waters of the Lake Kemp reservoir, or for 
such injury, loss, or damage as may occur through the operation and 
maintenance of the Lake Kemp dam and reservoir in any manner.
  (c) Lake Kemp Improvement Defined.--In this section, the term ``Lake 
Kemp improvement'' means an improvement (including dwellings) located 
within the flowage easement of Lake Kemp, Texas, below elevation 1159 
feet mean sea level.

SEC. 3105. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.

  The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is modified--
          (1) to include as part of the project flood protection works 
        to reroute drainage to Raymondville Drain constructed by the 
        non-Federal interests in Hidalgo County in the vicinity of 
        Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that such work 
        meets feasibility requirements;
          (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, 
        and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
        before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 
        the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
        project; and
          (3) to direct the Secretary in calculating the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project, to make a determination, 
        within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, under 
        section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
        (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest's ability to 
        pay.

SEC. 3106. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS.

  The project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage reduction, 
North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, authorized by section 
556 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), is 
modified to include recreation as a project purpose.

SEC. 3107. PAT MAYSE LAKE, TEXAS.

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

SEC. 3108. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS.

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

SEC. 3109. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

  The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, Texas, authorized 
by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259) as part 
of the comprehensive plan for flood protection on the Guadalupe and San 
Antonio Rivers in Texas and modified by section 103 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and section 335 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is 
further modified to authorize the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design and 
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 3110. LEE, RUSSELL, SCOTT, SMYTH, TAZEWELL, AND WISE COUNTIES, 
                    VIRGINIA.

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

SEC. 3111. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA.

  Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3789) is amended by striking ``at a total cost of $1,200,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $900,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $300,000.'' and inserting ``at a total cost of $3,000,000, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $2,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $750,000.''.

SEC. 3112. DUWAMISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON.

  The project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington, 
authorized by section 101(b)(26) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2579), is modified--
          (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out 
        by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the date of 
        the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
        determines that the work is integral to the project; and
          (2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any 
        portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in 
        the form of in-kind services and materials.

SEC. 3113. YAKIMA RIVER, PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WASHINGTON.

  The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Yakima River, Port of 
Sunnyside, Washington, being carried out under section 206 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to 
direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 3114. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

  Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking ``$47,000,000'' and 
inserting ``$99,000,000''.

SEC. 3115. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA.

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

SEC. 3116. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

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

SEC. 3117. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

  The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized 
by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852 (10 Stat. 58), is 
modified to direct the Secretary to deepen the upstream reach of the 
navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total cost of 
$405,000.

SEC. 3118. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

  Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 
4027) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``1276.42'' and inserting 
                ``1278.42'';
                  (B) by striking ``1218.31'' and inserting 
                ``1221.31''; and
                  (C) by striking ``1234.82'' and inserting 
                ``1235.30''; and
          (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
  ``(b) Exception.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters reservoirs 
below the minimum or above the maximum water levels established in 
subsection (a) in accordance with water control regulation manuals (or 
revisions thereto) developed by the Secretary, after consultation with 
the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal governments, landowners, 
and commercial and recreational users. The water control regulation 
manuals (and any revisions thereto) shall be effective when the 
Secretary transmits them to Congress. The Secretary shall report to 
Congress at least 14 days before operating any such headwaters 
reservoir below the minimum or above the maximum water level limits 
specified in subsection (a); except that notification is not required 
for operations necessary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the 
safety of the dam or if the drawdown of lake levels is in anticipation 
of flood control operations.''.

SEC. 3119. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), the following 
projects shall remain authorized to be carried out by the Secretary:
          (1) The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship 
        Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092).
          (2) The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam, 
        authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 
        Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127).
          (3) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, 
        Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
        Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731); except that the authorized 
        depth of that portion of the project extending riverward of the 
        Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and Somerset, 
        Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet.
  (b) Limitation.--A project described in subsection (a) shall not be 
authorized for construction after the last day of the 5-year period 
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, unless, during such 
period, funds have been obligated for the construction (including 
planning and design) of the project.

SEC. 3120. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

  Each of the following projects may be carried out by the Secretary 
and no construction on any such project may be initiated until the 
Secretary determines that the project is feasible:
          (1) Menominee harbor and river, michigan and wisconsin.--The 
        project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan 
        and Wisconsin, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
        Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized on April 15, 
        2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)).
          (2) Manitowoc harbor, wisconsin.--That portion of the project 
        for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the 
        first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852 
        (10 Stat. 58), consisting of the channel in the south part of 
        the outer harbor, deauthorized by section 101 of the River and 
        Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176).
          (3) Hearding island inlet, duluth harbor, minnesota.--The 
        project for dredging, Hearding Island Inlet, Duluth Harbor, 
        Minnesota, authorized by section 22 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4027).

SEC. 3121. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

  (a) In General.--The following projects are not authorized after the 
date of enactment of this Act:
          (1) Bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--The portion of the 
        project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, 
        authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of 
        July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel 
        in Yellow Mill River and described as follows: Beginning at a 
        point along the eastern limit of the existing project, 
        N123,649.75, E481,920.54, thence running northwesterly about 
        52.64 feet to a point N123,683.03, E481,879.75, thence running 
        northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet to a point N125,030.08, 
        E482,394.96, thence running northeasterly about 139.52 feet to 
        a point along the eastern limit of the existing channel, 
        N125,133.87, E482,488.19, thence running southwesterly about 
        1,588.98 feet to the point of origin.
          (2) Mystic river, connecticut.--The portion of the project 
        for navigation, Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized by the 
        first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 
        September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 436) consisting of a 12-foot-deep 
        channel, approximately 7,554 square feet in area, starting at a 
        point N193,086.51, E815,092.78, thence running north 59 degrees 
        21 minutes 46.63 seconds west about 138.05 feet to a point 
        N193,156.86, E814,974.00, thence running north 51 degrees 04 
        minutes 39.00 seconds west about 166.57 feet to a point 
        N193,261.51, E814,844.41, thence running north 43 degrees 01 
        minutes 34.90 seconds west about 86.23 feet to a point 
        N193,324.55, E814,785.57, thence running north 06 degrees 42 
        minutes 03.86 seconds west about 156.57 feet to a point 
        N193,480.05, E814,767.30, thence running south 21 degrees 21 
        minutes 17.94 seconds east about 231.42 feet to a point 
        N193,264.52, E814,851.57, thence running south 53 degrees 34 
        minutes 23.28 seconds east about 299.78 feet to the point of 
        origin.
          (3) New london harbor, connecticut.--The portion of the 
        project for navigation, New London Harbor, Connecticut, 
        authorized by the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 
        13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that consists of a 23-foot waterfront 
        channel and that is further described as beginning at a point 
        along the western limit of the existing project, N188,802.75, 
        E779,462.81, thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet 
        to a point N189,554.87, E780,612.53, thence running 
        southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a point N189,319.88, 
        E780,983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to 
        a point N188,864.63, E780,288.08, thence running southeasterly 
        about 567.39 feet to a point N188,301.88, E780,360.49, thence 
        running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet to the point of 
        origin.
          (4) Falmouth harbor, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
        project for navigation, th Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by 
        section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 
        1172), beginning at a point along the eastern side of the inner 
        harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running north 25 
        degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 feet to a point 
        N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 22 degrees 7 
        minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point N201,112.15, 
        E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 1 minute 0.3 
        seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, E845,674.65, 
        thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 seconds west 
        665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, thence running 
        south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 160.76 feet to 
        the point of origin.
          (5) Island end river, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
        project for navigation, Island End River, Massachusetts, 
        carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
        1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), described as follows: Beginning at a 
        point along the eastern limit of the existing project, 
        N507,348.98, E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35 
        feet to a point N507,384.17, E721,183.36, thence running 
        northeast about 324 feet to a point N507,590.51, E721,433.17, 
        thence running northeast about 345 feet to a point along the 
        northern limit of the existing project, N507,927.29, 
        E721,510.29, thence running southeast about 25 feet to a point 
        N507,921.71, E721,534.66, thence running southwest about 354 
        feet to a point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence running 
        southwest about 357 feet to the point of origin.
          (6) City waterway, tacoma, washington.--The portion of the 
        project for navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, 
        authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 
        Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), consisting 
        of the last 1,000 linear feet of the inner portion of the 
        waterway beginning at station 70+00 and ending at station 
        80+00.
          (7) Aunt lydia's cove, massachusetts.--
                  (A) In general.--The portion of the project for 
                navigation, Aunt Lydia's Cove, Massachusetts, 
                constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor 
                Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), consisting of the 8-foot 
                deep anchorage in the cove described in subparagraph 
                (B).
                  (B) Description of portion.--The portion of the 
                project described in subparagraph (A) is more 
                particularly described as the portion beginning at a 
                point along the southern limit of the existing project, 
                N254,332.00, E1,023,103.96, thence running 
                northwesterly about 761.60 feet to a point along the 
                western limit of the existing project N255,076.84, 
                E1,022,945.07, thence running southwesterly about 38.11 
                feet to a point N255,038.99, E1,022,940.60, thence 
                running southeasterly about 267.07 feet to a point 
                N254,772.00, E1,022,947.00, thence running 
                southeasterly about 462.41 feet to a point N254,320.06, 
                E1,023,044.84, thence running northeasterly about 60.31 
                feet to the point of origin.
  (b) Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut.--The project for 
navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut, authorized by 
section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1829, and by the 
first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 
1029), and section 364 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
(110 Stat. 3733-3734), is further modified to redesignate a portion of 
the 9-foot-deep channel as an anchorage area, approximately 900 feet in 
length and 90,000 square feet in area, and lying generally north of a 
line with points at coordinates N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and 
N107,938.74, E452,265.74.
  (c) Saco River, Maine.--The portion of the project for navigation, 
Saco River, Maine, authorized under section 107 of the River and Harbor 
Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and described as a 6-foot deep, 10-acre 
turning basin located at the head of navigation, is redesignated as an 
anchorage area.
  (d) Union River, Maine.--The project for navigation, Union River, 
Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 3, 1896 (29 
Stat. 215), is modified by redesignating as an anchorage area that 
portion of the project consisting of a 6-foot turning basin and lying 
northerly of a line commencing at a point N315,975.13, E1,004,424.86, 
thence running north 61 degrees 27 minutes 20.71 seconds west about 
132.34 feet to a point N316,038.37, E1,004,308.61.
  (e) Mystic River, Massachusetts.--The portion of the project for 
navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts, authorized by the first 
section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 13, 1892 (27 
Stat. 96), between a line starting at a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45 
and ending at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85 and a line starting at a 
point N514,595.15, E707,746.15 and ending at a point N514,732.94, 
E707,658.38 shall be relocated and reduced from a 100-foot wide channel 
to a 50-foot wide channel after the date of enactment of this Act 
described as follows: Beginning at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85, 
thence running southeasterly about 840.50 feet to a point N515,070.16, 
E707,601.27, thence running southeasterly about 177.54 feet to a point 
N514,904.84, E707,665.98, thence running southeasterly about 319.90 
feet to a point with coordinates N514,595.15, E707,746.15, thence 
running northwesterly about 163.37 feet to a point N514,732.94, 
E707,658.38, thence running northwesterly about 161.58 feet to a point 
N514.889.47, E707,618.30, thence running northwesterly about 166.61 
feet to a point N515.044.62, E707,557.58, thence running northwesterly 
about 825.31 feet to a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45, thence running 
northeasterly about 50.90 feet returning to a point N515,721.28, 
E707,069.85.
  (f) Conditions.--The first sentence of section 1001(b)(2) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``two years'' and inserting ``year''; and
          (2) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``5''.

SEC. 3122. LAND CONVEYANCES.

  (a) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of 
        Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to 
        paragraph (2), all right, title, and interest in and to real 
        property within the State acquired by the Federal Government as 
        mitigation land for the project for flood control, St. Francis 
        Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by the Flood 
        Control Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et seq.).
          (2) Terms and conditions.--
                  (A) In general.--The conveyance by the United States 
                under this subsection shall be subject to--
                          (i) the condition that the State of Arkansas 
                        agree to operate, maintain, and manage the real 
                        property for fish and wildlife, recreation, and 
                        environmental purposes at no cost or expense to 
                        the United States; and
                          (ii) such other terms and conditions as the 
                        Secretary determines to be in the interest of 
                        the United States.
                  (B) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
                real property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be 
                held in public ownership or the State ceases to 
                operate, maintain, and manage the real property in 
                accordance with this subsection, all right, title, and 
                interest in and to the property shall revert to the 
                United States, at the option of the Secretary.
          (3) Mitigation.--Nothing in this subsection extinguishes the 
        responsibility of the Federal Government or the non-Federal 
        interest for the project referred to in paragraph (1) from the 
        obligation to implement mitigation for such project that 
        existed on the day prior to the transfer authorized by this 
        subsection.
  (b) Milford, Kansas.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim deed 
        without consideration to the Geary County Fire Department, 
        Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and interest of the United 
        States in and to real property consisting of approximately 7.4 
        acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for construction, 
        operation, and maintenance of a fire station.
          (2) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real 
        property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in 
        public ownership or ceases to be operated and maintained as a 
        fire station, all right, title, and interest in and to the 
        property shall revert to the United States, at the option of 
        the United States.
  (c) Pike County, Missouri.--
          (1) In general.--At such time as S.S.S., Inc., conveys all 
        right, title and interest in and to the real property described 
        in paragraph (2)(A) to the United States, the Secretary shall 
        convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
        and to the real property described in paragraph (2)(B) to 
        S.S.S., Inc.
          (2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in 
        paragraph (1) are the following:
                  (A) Non-federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the 
                exact legal description to be determined by mutual 
                agreement of S.S.S., Inc., and the Secretary, subject 
                to any existing flowage easements situated in Pike 
                County, Missouri, upstream and northwest, about a 200-
                foot distance from Drake Island (also known as Grimes 
                Island).
                  (B) Federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the exact 
                legal description to be determined by mutual agreement 
                of S.S.S. Inc., and the Secretary, situated in Pike 
                County, Missouri, known as Government Tract Numbers 
                MIs-7 and a portion of FM-46 (both tracts on Buffalo 
                Island), administered by the Corps of Engineers.
          (3) Conditions.--The exchange of real property under 
        paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:
                  (A) Deeds.--
                          (i) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the 
                        real property described in paragraph (2)(A) to 
                        the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed 
                        acceptable to the Secretary.
                          (ii) Federal land.--The instrument of 
                        conveyance used to convey the real property 
                        described in paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc., 
                        shall be by quitclaim deed and contain such 
                        reservations, terms, and conditions as the 
                        Secretary considers necessary to allow the 
                        United States to operate and maintain the 
                        Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.
                  (B) Removal of improvements.--S.S.S., Inc., may 
                remove, and the Secretary may require S.S.S., Inc., to 
                remove, any improvements on the land described in 
                paragraph (2)(A).
                  (C) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange under 
                paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years 
                after the date of enactment of this Act.
          (4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market value, 
        as determined by the Secretary, of the real property conveyed 
        to S.S.S., Inc., by the Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds 
        the appraised fair market value, as determined by the 
        Secretary, of the real property conveyed to the United States 
        by S.S.S., Inc., under paragraph (1), S.S.S., Inc., shall make 
        a payment to the United States equal to the excess in cash or a 
        cash equivalent that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
  (d) Boardman, Oregon.--Section 501(g)(1) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``city of Boardman,'' and inserting ``the 
        Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,''; and
          (2) by striking ``such city'' and inserting ``the city of 
        Boardman''.
  (e) Lowell, Oregon.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may convey without 
        consideration to Lowell School District, by quitclaim deed, all 
        right, title, and interest of the United States in and to land 
        and buildings thereon, known as Tract A-82, located in Lowell, 
        Oregon, and described in paragraph (2).
          (2) Description of property.--The parcel of land authorized 
        to be conveyed under paragraph (1) is as follows: Commencing at 
        the point of intersection of the west line of Pioneer Street 
        with the westerly extension of the north line of Summit Street, 
        in Meadows Addition to Lowell, as platted and recorded at page 
        56 of Volume 4, Lane County Oregon Plat Records; thence north 
        on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 176.0 feet to 
        the true point of beginning of this description; thence north 
        on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; 
        thence west at right angles to the west line of Pioneer Street 
        a distance of 250.0 feet; thence south and parallel to the west 
        line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence east 
        250.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description 
        in Section 14, Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the 
        Willamette Meridian, Lane County, Oregon.
          (3) Terms and conditions.--Before conveying the parcel to the 
        school district, the Secretary shall ensure that the conditions 
        of buildings and facilities meet the requirements of applicable 
        Federal law.
          (4) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the property 
        conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public 
        ownership, all right, title, and interest in and to the 
        property shall revert to the United States, at the option of 
        the United States.
  (f) Lowell, Oregon.--
          (1) Release and extinguishment of deed reservations.--
                  (A) Release and extinguishment of deed 
                reservations.--The Secretary may release and extinguish 
                the deed reservations for access and communication 
                cables contained in the quitclaim deed, dated January 
                26, 1965, and recorded February 15, 1965, in the 
                records of Lane County, Oregon; except that such 
                reservations may only be released and extinguished for 
                the lands owned by the city of Lowell as described in 
                the quitclaim deed, dated April 11, 1991, in such 
                records.
                  (B) Additional release and extinguishment of deed 
                reservations.--The Secretary may also release and 
                extinguish the same deed reservations referred to in 
                subparagraph (A) over land owned by Lane County, 
                Oregon, within the city limits of Lowell, Oregon, to 
                accommodate the development proposals of the city of 
                Lowell/St. Vincent de Paul, Lane County, affordable 
                housing project; except that the Secretary may require, 
                at no cost to the United States--
                          (i) the alteration or relocation of any 
                        existing facilities, utilities, roads, or 
                        similar improvements on such lands; and
                          (ii) the right-of-way for such facilities, 
                        utilities, or improvements, as a pre-condition 
                        of any release or extinguishment of the deed 
                        reservations.
          (2) Conveyance.--The Secretary may convey to the city of 
        Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value the parcel of land 
        situated in the city of Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value 
        consisting of the strip of federally-owned lands located 
        northeast of West Boundary Road between Hyland Lane and the 
        city of Lowell's eastward city limits.
          (3) Administrative cost.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and 
        (2), the city of Lowell, Oregon, shall pay the administrative 
        costs incurred by the United States to execute the release and 
        extinguishment of the deed reservations under paragraph (1) and 
        the conveyance under paragraph (2).
  (g) Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of 
        South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, at fair market value, all 
        right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
        real property described in paragraph (2) that is managed, as of 
        the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina 
        department of commerce for public recreation purposes for the 
        Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project 
        authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 
        Stat. 1420).
          (2) Land description.--Subject to paragraph (3), the real 
        property referred to in paragraph (1) is the parcel contained 
        in the portion of real property described in Army Lease Number 
        DACW21-1-92-0500.
          (3) Reservation of interests.--The United States shall 
        reserve--
                  (A) ownership of all real property included in the 
                lease referred to in paragraph (2) that would have been 
                acquired for operational purposes in accordance with 
                the 1971 implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint 
                Acquisition Policy; and
                  (B) such other rights and interests in and to the 
                real property to be conveyed as the Secretary considers 
                necessary for authorized project purposes, including 
                easement rights-of-way to remaining Federal land.
          (4) No effect on shore management policy.--The Shoreline 
        Management Policy (ER-1130-2-406) of the Corps of Engineers 
        shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development of 
        land conveyed under this subsection.
          (5) Cost sharing.--In carrying out the conveyance under this 
        subsection, the Secretary and the State shall comply with all 
        obligations of any cost-sharing agreement between the Secretary 
        and the State with respect to the real property described in 
        paragraph (2) in effect as of the date of the conveyance.
          (6) Land not conveyed.--The State shall continue to manage 
        the real property described in paragraph (3) not conveyed under 
        this subsection in accordance with the terms and conditions of 
        Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
  (h) Denison, Texas.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall offer to convey at fair 
        market value to the city of Denison, Texas, all right, title, 
        and interest of the United States in and to the approximately 
        900 acres of land located in Grayson County, Texas, which is 
        currently subject to an application for lease for public park 
        and recreational purposes made by the city of Denison, dated 
        August 17, 2005.
          (2) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage 
        and description of the real property referred to in paragraph 
        (1) shall be determined by a survey paid for by the city of 
        Denison, Texas, that is satisfactory to the Secretary.
          (3) Conveyance.--On acceptance by the city of Denison, Texas, 
        of an offer under paragraph (1), the Secretary may immediately 
        convey the land surveyed under paragraph (2) by quitclaim deed 
        to the city of Denison, Texas.
  (i) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
          (1) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage 
        and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed 
        under this section shall be determined by a survey that is 
        satisfactory to the Secretary.
          (2) Applicability of property screening provisions.--Section 
        2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any 
        conveyance under this section.
          (3) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
        require that any conveyance under this section be subject to 
        such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers 
        appropriate and necessary to protect the interests of the 
        United States.
          (4) Costs of conveyance.--An entity to which a conveyance is 
        made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable 
        and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and 
        environmental documentation costs, associated with the 
        conveyance.
          (5) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made under 
        this section shall hold the United States harmless from any 
        liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after 
        the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The 
        United States shall remain responsible for any liability with 
        respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the 
        real property conveyed.

SEC. 3123. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE 
                    RESTRICTIONS.

  (a) Idaho.--
          (1) In general.--With respect to the property covered by each 
        deed in paragraph (2)--
                  (A) the reversionary interests and use restrictions 
                relating to port and industrial use purposes are 
                extinguished;
                  (B) the restriction that no activity shall be 
                permitted that will compete with services and 
                facilities offered by public marinas is extinguished; 
                and
                  (C) the human habitation or other building structure 
                use restriction is extinguished if the elevation of the 
                property is above the standard project flood elevation.
          (2) Affected deeds.--The deeds with the following county 
        auditor's file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1):
                  (A) Auditor's Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce 
                County, Idaho--2.07 acres.
                  (B) Auditor's Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce 
                County, Idaho--7.32 acres.
  (b) Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.--
          (1) Release of retained rights, interests, reservations.--
        With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the Tennessee 
        Society of Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (commonly 
        known as ``Easter Seals Tennessee'') at Old Hickory Lock and 
        Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under section 211 of the 
        Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087), the reversionary 
        interests and the use restrictions relating to recreation and 
        camping purposes are extinguished.
          (2) Instrument of release.--As soon as practicable after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute and 
        file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended deed, 
        or other appropriate instrument effectuating the release of 
        interests required by paragraph (1).
  (c) Port of Pasco, Washington.--
          (1) Extinguishment of use restrictions and flowage 
        easement.--With respect to the property covered by the deed in 
        paragraph (3)(A)--
                  (A) the flowage easement and human habitation or 
                other building structure use restriction is 
                extinguished if the elevation of the property is above 
                the standard project flood elevation; and
                  (B) the use of fill material to raise areas of the 
                property above the standard project flood elevation is 
                authorized, except in any area for which a permit under 
                section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
                (33 U.S.C. 1344) is required.
          (2) Extinguishment of flowage easement.--With respect to the 
        property covered by each deed in paragraph (3)(B), the flowage 
        easement is extinguished if the elevation of the property is 
        above the standard project flood elevation.
          (3) Affected deeds.--The deeds referred to in paragraphs (1) 
        and (2) are as follows:
                  (A) Auditor's File Number 262980 of Franklin County, 
                Washington.
                  (B) Auditor's File Numbers 263334 and 404398 of 
                Franklin County, Washington.
  (d) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section affects the 
remaining rights and interests of the Corps of Engineers for authorized 
project purposes.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.

  Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (42 U.S.C. 
1962d-21) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(g) In-Kind Contributions for Study.--The non-Federal interest may 
provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share required under 
subsection (f) in the form of in-kind services and materials.''.

SEC. 4002. LAKE ERIE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.

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

SEC. 4003. SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES DROUGHT STUDY.

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

SEC. 4004. DELAWARE RIVER.

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

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

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

SEC. 4006. KUSKOKWIM RIVER, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 4007. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 4008. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for hydropower, recreation, and related purposes 
on the Susitna River, Alaska.

SEC. 4009. GILA BEND, MARICOPA, ARIZONA.

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

SEC. 4010. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply source for Searcy County, 
Arkansas.

SEC. 4011. ELKHORN SLOUGH ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4012. FRESNO, KINGS, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4013. LOS ANGELES RIVER REVITALIZATION STUDY, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4014. LYTLE CREEK, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4015. MOKELUMNE RIVER, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4016. NAPA RIVER, ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4017. ORICK, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and 
ecosystem restoration, Orick, California.
  (b) Feasibility of Restoring or Rehabilitating Redwook Creek 
Levees.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall determine the 
feasibility of restoring or rehabilitating the Redwood Creek Levees, 
Humboldt County, California.

SEC. 4018. RIALTO, FONTANA, AND COLTON, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4019. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to determine the 
feasibility of, and alternatives for, measures to protect water 
diversion facilities and fish protective screen facilities in the 
vicinity of river mile 178 on the Sacramento River, California.

SEC. 4020. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4021. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged material from the San 
Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, 
including the benefits and impacts of salinity in the Delta and the 
benefits to navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, 
water quality, salinity control, water supply reliability, and 
recreation.
  (b) Cooperation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary shall 
cooperate with the California Department of Water Resources and 
appropriate Federal and State entities in developing options for the 
beneficial use of dredged material from San Francisco Bay for the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area.
  (c) Review.--The study shall include a review of the feasibility of 
using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for levee maintenance 
material, as well as for ecosystem restoration. The review may include 
monitoring a pilot project using up to 150,000 cubic yards of dredged 
material and being carried out at the Sherman Island site, examining 
larger scale use of dredged materials from the San Francisco Bay and 
Suisun Bay Channel, and analyzing the feasibility of the potential use 
of saline materials from the San Francisco Bay for both rehandling and 
ecosystem restoration purposes.

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

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

SEC. 4023. TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4024. YUCCA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 4025. ROARING FORK RIVER, BASALT, COLORADO.

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

SEC. 4026. DELAWARE AND CHRISTINA RIVERS AND SHELLPOT CREEK, 
                    WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.

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

SEC. 4027. COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES, FLORIDA.

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

SEC. 4028. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER, FLORIDA.

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

SEC. 4029. VANDERBILT BEACH LAGOON, FLORIDA.

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

SEC. 4030. MERIWETHER COUNTY, GEORGIA.

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

SEC. 4031. TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
including the northern end of Tybee Island extending from the north 
terminal groin to the mouth of Lazaretto Creek as a part of the project 
for beach erosion control, Tybee Island, Georgia, carried out under 
section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5).

SEC. 4032. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO.

  The study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho, authorized by 
section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
324), is modified--
          (1) to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as project 
        purposes to be studied; and
          (2) to require the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the study the cost, not to exceed 
        $500,000, of work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
        before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 
        the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
        project.

SEC. 4033. BALLARD'S ISLAND SIDE CHANNEL, ILLINOIS.

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

SEC. 4034. SALEM, INDIANA.

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

SEC. 4035. BUCKHORN LAKE, KENTUCKY.

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

SEC. 4036. DEWEY LAKE, KENTUCKY.

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

SEC. 4037. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.

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

SEC. 4038. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND.

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

SEC. 4039. CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN.

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

SEC. 4040. HAMBURG AND GREEN OAK TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN.

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

SEC. 4041. DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN.

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

SEC. 4042. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
modifying the project for navigation, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, 
Alabama and Mississippi, to provide water supply for northeast 
Mississippi.

SEC. 4043. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

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

SEC. 4044. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, NEW JERSEY.

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

SEC. 4045. BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY.

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

SEC. 4046. CARTERET, NEW JERSEY.

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

SEC. 4047. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.

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

SEC. 4048. PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for riverfront development, including enhanced 
public access, recreation, and environmental restoration, on the Arthur 
Kill, Perth Amboy, New Jersey.

SEC. 4049. BATAVIA, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 4050. BIG SISTER CREEK, EVANS, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 4051. FINGER LAKES, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 4052. LAKE ERIE SHORELINE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 4053. NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 4054. NIAGARA RIVER, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 4055. SHORE PARKWAY GREENWAY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.

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

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

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

SEC. 4057. LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

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

SEC. 4058. WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

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

SEC. 4059. YADKINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.

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

SEC. 4060. LAKE ERIE, OHIO.

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

SEC. 4061. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.

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

SEC. 4062. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON.

  (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish passage 
improvements on rivers throughout the State of Oregon.
  (b) Requirements.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall--
          (1) work in coordination with the State of Oregon, local 
        governments, and other Federal agencies; and
          (2) place emphasis on--
                  (A) fish passage and conservation and restoration 
                strategies to benefit species that are listed or 
                proposed for listing as threatened or endangered 
                species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
                U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
                  (B) other watershed restoration objectives.
  (c) Pilot Program.--
          (1) In general.--In conjunction with conducting the study 
        under subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out pilot 
        projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of ecosystem 
        restoration and fish passages.
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized to 
        be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

SEC. 4063. WALLA WALLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON.

  In conducting the study of determine the feasibility of carrying out 
a project for ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon, 
the Secretary shall--
          (1) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
        study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
        before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if 
        the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
        project; and
          (2) allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-Federal 
        share of the cost of the study in the form of in-kind services 
        and materials.

SEC. 4064. CHARTIERS CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

SEC. 4065. KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

SEC. 4066. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

SEC. 4067. WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

SEC. 4068. YARDLEY BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

SEC. 4069. RIO VALENCIANO, JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to reevaluate 
the project for flood damage reduction and water supply, Rio 
Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, authorized by section 209 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197) and section 204 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1828), to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out the project.
  (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the cost of the study the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 4070. CROOKED CREEK, BENNETTSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

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

SEC. 4071. BROAD RIVER, YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.

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

SEC. 4072. CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE.

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

SEC. 4073. CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE.

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

SEC. 4074. CUMBERLAND RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.

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

SEC. 4075. LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.

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

SEC. 4076. WOLF RIVER AND NONCONNAH CREEK, MEMPHIS TENNESSEE.

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

SEC. 4077. ABILENE, TEXAS.

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

SEC. 4078. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, TEXAS.

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

SEC. 4079. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

  (a) Reevaluation of Environmental Restoration Features.--The 
Secretary shall reevaluate the project for flood damage reduction, 
environmental restoration, and recreation, authorized by section 
101(b)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
280), to develop alternatives to the separable environmental 
restoration element of the project.
  (b) Study of Additional Flood Damage Reduction Measures.--The 
Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
additional flood damage reduction measures and erosion control measures 
within the boundaries of the project referred to in subsection (a).
  (c) Plans and Designs.--In conducting the studies referred to in 
subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall review plans and designs 
developed by non-Federal interests and shall use such plans and designs 
to the extent that the Secretary determines that such plans and designs 
are consistent with Federal standards.
  (d) Credit Toward Federal Share.--If an alternative environmental 
restoration element is authorized by law, the Secretary shall credit 
toward the Federal share of the cost of that project the costs incurred 
by the Secretary to carry out the separable environmental restoration 
element of the project referred to in subsection (a). The non-Federal 
interest shall not be responsible for reimbursing the Secretary for any 
amount credited under this subsection.
  (e) Credit Toward the Non-Federal Share.--The Secretary shall credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the studies under 
subsections (a) and (b), and the cost of any project carried out as a 
result of such studies the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
interest.

SEC. 4080. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

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

SEC. 4081. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for water supply for Grand County and the city 
of Moab, Utah, including a review of the impact of current and future 
demands on the Spanish Valley Aquifer.

SEC. 4082. SOUTHWESTERN UTAH.

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

SEC. 4083. CHOWAN RIVER BASIN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA.

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

SEC. 4084. ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.

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

SEC. 4085. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects in 
the watersheds of the Monongahela River Basin lying within the counties 
of Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, 
Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, 
Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Rithchie, West Virginia, 
particularly as related to abandoned mine drainage abatement.

SEC. 4086. KENOSHA HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

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

SEC. 4087. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN.

   The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental 
restoration, Menomonee River and Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, 
and greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin.

SEC. 4088. JOHNSONVILLE DAM, JOHNSONVILLE, WISCONSIN.

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

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.

  (a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the 
Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the following 
navigation channels and breakwaters constructed or improved by the non-
Federal interest if the Secretary determines that such maintenance is 
economically justified and environmentally acceptable and that the 
channel or breakwater was constructed in accordance with applicable 
permits and appropriate engineering and design standards:
          (1) Manatee Harbor basin, Florida.
          (2) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana.
          (3) Calcasieu River at Devil's Elbow, Louisiana.
          (4) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, 
        Memphis Harbor, Tennessee.
          (5) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, Texas.
          (6) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin.
  (b) Completion of Assessment.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
of receipt of a request from a non-Federal interest for Federal 
assumption of maintenance of a channel listed in subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall make a determination as provided in subsection (a) and 
advise the non-Federal interest of the Secretary's determination.

SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide technical, planning, and 
design assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out watershed 
management, restoration, and development projects at the locations 
described in subsection (d).
  (b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under subsection (a) may 
be in support of non-Federal projects for the following purposes:
          (1) Management and restoration of water quality.
          (2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments.
          (3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and 
        other waterbodies to their natural condition as a means to 
        control flooding, excessive erosion, and sedimentation.
          (4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, including urban 
        watersheds.
          (5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural measures 
        to reduce destructive impacts of flooding.
  (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.
  (d) Project Locations.--The locations referred to in subsection (a) 
are the following:
          (1) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.
          (2) Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee, 
        Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the 
        counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, 
        Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, 
        Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia.
          (3) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
          (4) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
          (5) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and Pointe 
        Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
          (6) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
          (7) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
          (8) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.
          (9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.
          (10) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
          (11) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene, 
        Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York.
          (12) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey.
          (13) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.
          (14) Ramapo River watershed, New York.
          (15) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.
          (16) Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper 
        Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower 
        Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers lying 
        within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer, 
        Pennsylvania.
          (17) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
          (18) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
          (19) Sauk River basin, Washington.
  (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY.

  (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide assistance to enhance dam 
safety at the following locations:
          (1) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
          (2) Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.
          (3) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
          (4) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
          (5) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.
          (6) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
          (7) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
          (8) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
  (b) Special Rule.--The assistance provided under subsection (a) for 
State Dam, Auburn, New York, shall be for a project for rehabilitation 
in accordance with the report on State Dam Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake 
Outlet, New York, dated March 1999, if the Secretary determines that 
the project is feasible.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $6,000,000.

SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS.

  (a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the 
Secretary shall evaluate the structural integrity and effectiveness of 
a project for flood damage reduction and, if the Secretary determines 
that the project does not meet such minimum standards as the Secretary 
may establish and, absent action by the Secretary, the project will 
fail, the Secretary may take such action as may be necessary to restore 
the integrity and effectiveness of the project.
  (b) Priority.--The Secretary shall evaluate under subsection (a) the 
following projects:
          (1) Project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River 
        Levees, Arkansas.
          (2) Project for flood damage reduction, Nonconnah Creek, 
        Tennessee.

SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS.

  (a) In General.--Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (23) and 
        (27);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(29) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
          ``(30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
          ``(31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana;
          ``(32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and
          ``(33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.''.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 212(i)(1) of such Act 
(33 U.S.C. 2332(i)(1)) is amended by striking ``section--'' and all 
that follows before the period at the end and inserting ``section 
$20,000,000''.

SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

  (a) In General.--Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(9) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(18);
          ``(10) $27,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(19);
          ``(11) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(20);
          ``(12) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(23);
          ``(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(25);
          ``(14) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(26);
          ``(15) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(27);
          ``(16) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(28); and
          ``(17) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
        (c)(40).''.
  (b) East Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas.--Federal assistance 
made available under the rural enterprise zone program of the 
Department of Agriculture may be used toward payment of the non-Federal 
share of the costs of the project described in section 219(c)(20) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-219) if 
such assistance is authorized to be used for such purposes.

SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CONSTRUCTION FOR CERTAIN 
                    PROJECTS.

  The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports and, if the 
Secretary determines that the project is feasible, shall expedite 
completion of construction for the following projects:
          (1) False River, Louisiana, being carried out under section 
        206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 
        2330).
          (2) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being carried 
        out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
        U.S.C. 701s).
          (3) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being 
        carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
        (33 U.S.C. 701s).
          (4) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried 
        out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
        U.S.C. 701s).
          (5) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York, being 
        carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
          (6) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New 
        York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water 
        Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).
          (7) North River, Peabody, Massachusetts, being carried out 
        under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
        701s).
          (8) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being carried 
        out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
        1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall expedite completion of the 
reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary determines 
that a project is justified in the completed report, proceed directly 
to project preconstruction, engineering, and design:
          (1) Project for water supply, Little Red River, Arkansas.
          (2) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, 
        Florida.
          (3) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, Baton 
        Rouge, Louisiana.
          (4) Project for navigation, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas and 
        Louisiana.
  (b) Special Rule for Egmont Key, Florida.--In carrying out the 
project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, referred to 
in subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall waive any cost share to be 
provided by non-Federal interests for any portion of the project that 
benefits federally owned property.

SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT.

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

SEC. 5010. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

  Section 1103(e)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 652(e)(7)) is amended--
          (1) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the following: 
        ``The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share of 
        the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and 
        materials.''; and
          (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
  ``(C) Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-Federal interest may include for any 
project undertaken under this section, a nonprofit entity with the 
consent of the affected local government.''.

SEC. 5011. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.

  Section 514(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by striking ``and 2004'' and 
inserting ``through 2015''.

SEC. 5012. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

  Section 506(f)(3)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(42 U.S.C. 1962d-22; 114 Stat. 2646) is amended by striking ``50 
percent'' and inserting ``100 percent''.

SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT REMEDIATION.

  Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 
Stat. 4644; 33 U.S.C. 1268 note) is amended by striking ``through 
2006'' and inserting ``through 2012''.

SEC. 5014. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS.

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

SEC. 5015. GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION.

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

SEC. 5016. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER DISPERSAL BARRIER PROJECT.

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

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

  (a) Ex Officio Member.--Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of the 1997 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From Natural 
Disasters, and for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in 
Bosnia (Public Law 105-18; 111 Stat. 176), section 2.2 of the 
Susquehanna River Basin Compact (Public Law 91-575), and section 2.2 of 
the Delaware River Basin Compact (Public Law 87-328), beginning in 
fiscal year 2002, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Division 
Engineer, North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers--
          (1) shall be the ex officio United States member under the 
        Susquehanna River Basin Compact, the Delaware River Basin 
        Compact, and the Potomac River Basin Compact;
          (2) shall serve without additional compensation; and
          (3) may designate an alternate member in accordance with the 
        terms of those compacts.
  (b) Authorization To Allocate.--The Secretary shall allocate funds to 
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware River Basin 
Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 
(Potomac River Basin Compact (Public Law 91-407)) to fulfill the 
equitable funding requirements of the respective interstate compacts.
  (c) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Delaware River Basin.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement 
        with the Delaware River Basin Commission to provide temporary 
        water supply and conservation storage at the Francis E. Walter 
        Dam, Pennsylvania, for any period during which the Commission 
        has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency 
        exists.
          (2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost 
        for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 
        shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 
        with providing the storage.
  (d) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Susquehanna River Basin.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement 
        with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to provide 
        temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal 
        facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the 
        Susquehanna River Basin for any period for which the Commission 
        has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency 
        exists.
          (2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost 
        for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 
        shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 
        with providing the storage.
  (e) Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Potomac River Basin.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an agreement 
        with the Potomac River Basin Commission to provide temporary 
        water supply and conservation storage at Federal facilities 
        operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Potomac River Basin 
        for any period for which the Commission has determined that a 
        drought warning or drought emergency exists.
          (2) Limitation.--The agreement shall provide that the cost 
        for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) 
        shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 
        with providing the storage.

SEC. 5018. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND PROTECTION 
                    PROGRAM.

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

SEC. 5019. HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT.

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

SEC. 5020. POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND TRIBUTARY STRATEGY 
                    EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM.

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

SEC. 5021. LOCK AND DAM SECURITY.

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

SEC. 5022. REHABILITATION.

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

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

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

SEC. 5024. AUBURN, ALABAMA.

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

SEC. 5025. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA.

  (a) Project Authorization.--The Secretary shall design and construct 
the locally preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook Creek, 
Huntsville, Alabama. In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall 
utilize, to the extent practicable, the existing detailed project 
report for the project prepared under the authority of section 205 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
  (b) Participation by Non-Federal Interest.--The Secretary shall allow 
the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project 
in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary's 
evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to 
implement the project.
  (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
project.

SEC. 5026. ALASKA.

  Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
369) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (c) by inserting ``environmental 
        restoration,'' after ``water supply and related facilities,'';
          (2) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence;
          (3) in subsection (h) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$45,000,000''; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a non-Federal 
interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a 
nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.
  ``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of 
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 
Federal expense.''.

SEC. 5027. BARROW, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5028. COFFMAN COVE, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5029. FIRE ISLAND, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5030. FORT YUKON, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5031. KOTZEBUE HARBOR, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5032. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA.

  (a) Long-Term Maintenance and Repair.--The Secretary shall assume 
responsibility for the long-term maintenance and repair of the Lowell 
Creek Tunnel.
  (b) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine whether 
alternative methods of flood diversion in Lowell Canyon are feasible.

SEC. 5033. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5034. TANANA RIVER, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5035. VALDEZ, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5036. WHITTIER, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5037. WRANGELL HARBOR, ALASKA.

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

SEC. 5038. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to perform operation, 
maintenance, and rehabilitation of authorized and completed levees on 
the White River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
  (b) Reimbursement.--After performing the operation, maintenance, and 
rehabilitation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall seek 
reimbursement from the Secretary of the Interior of an amount equal to 
the costs allocated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such 
operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation.

SEC. 5039. DES ARC LEVEE PROTECTION, ARKANSAS.

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

SEC. 5040. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS.

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

SEC. 5041. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation and 
streambank erosion in the St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and 
Missouri, to determine if the siltation or erosion, or both, are the 
result of a Federal flood control project and, if the Secretary 
determines that the siltation or erosion, or both, are the result of a 
Federal flood control project, the Secretary shall carry out a project 
to mitigate the siltation or erosion, or both.

SEC. 5042. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA.

  Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``$10,300,000'' and inserting the following:
                  ``(A) In general.--$10,300,000'';
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the 
                non-Federal share of the cost of the project not to 
                exceed $3,000,000 for the cost of planning and design 
                work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 
                date of the partnership agreement for the project if 
                the Secretary determines that the work is integral to 
                the project.''; and
          (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) 
        (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
        subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

SEC. 5043. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA; 
                    MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA.

  Sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2650) are each amended by adding at the end the following: 
``All planning, study, design, and construction on the project shall be 
carried out by the office of the district engineer, San Francisco, 
California.''.

SEC. 5044. DANA POINT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 5045. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

  Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(113 Stat. 336) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting the following:
                  ``(A) In general.--$25,000,000'';
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the 
                non-Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the 
                cost of design and construction work carried out by the 
                non-Federal interest before, on, or after the date of 
                the partnership agreement for the project if the 
                Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
                project; and (ii) the cost of provided for the project 
                by the non-Federal interest.
                  ``(C) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal 
                interest may provide any portion of the non-Federal 
                share of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind 
                services and materials.''; and
          (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) 
        (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
        subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

SEC. 5046. EASTERN SANTA CLARA BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 5047. LOS OSOS, CALIFORNIA.

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

SEC. 5048. PINE FLAT DAM AND RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA.

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

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

  (a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation and 
coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall 
develop a comprehensive plan for the management of water resources in 
the Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, 
California. The Secretary may carry out activities identified in the 
comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives for water 
resources management.
  (b) Non-Federal Share.--
          (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
        activities carried out under this section shall be 35 percent.
          (2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
        Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this 
        section the cost of planning, design, and construction work 
        completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests for 
        implementation of measures under this section. The amount of 
        such credit shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost 
        of such activities.
          (3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of the 
        cost of operation and maintenance of any measures constructed 
        under this section shall be 100 percent.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

SEC. 5050. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port of San 
Francisco, California, may carry out the project for repair and 
removal, as appropriate, of Piers 30-32, 35, 36, 70 (including Wharves 
7 and 8), and 80 in San Francisco, California, substantially in 
accordance with the Port's redevelopment plan.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

SEC. 5051. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA.

  (a) Area to Be Declared Nonnavigable; Public Interest.--Unless the 
Secretary finds, after consultation with local and regional public 
officials (including local and regional public planning organizations), 
that the proposed projects to be undertaken within the boundaries of 
the portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area described 
in subsection (b) are not in the public interest, such portion is 
declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United States.
  (b) Northern Embarcadero South of Bryant Street.--The portion of the 
San Francisco, California, waterfront area referred to in subsection 
(a) is as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the northeasterly 
prolongation of that portion of the northwesterly line of Bryant Street 
lying between Beale Street and Main Street with the southwesterly line 
of Spear Street, which intersection lies on the line of jurisdiction of 
the San Francisco Port Commission; following thence southerly along 
said line of jurisdiction as described in the State of California 
Harbor and Navigation Code Section 1770, as amended in 1961, to its 
intersection with the easterly line of Townsend Street along a line 
that is parallel and distant 10 feet southerly from the existing 
southern boundary of Pier 40 produced to its point of intersection with 
the United States Government pier-head line; thence northerly along 
said pier-head line to its intersection with a line parallel with, and 
distant 10 feet easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line of 
Pier 30-32; thence northerly along said parallel line and its northerly 
prolongation, to a point of intersection with a line parallel with, and 
distant 10 feet northerly from, the existing northerly boundary of Pier 
30-32, thence westerly along last said parallel line to its 
intersection with the United States Government pier-head line; to the 
northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced northwesterly; thence 
southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced 
to the point of beginning.
  (c) Requirement That Area Be Improved.--The declaration of 
nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies only to those parts of the 
area described in subsection (b) that are or will be bulkheaded, 
filled, or otherwise occupied by permanent structures and does not 
affect the applicability of any Federal statute or regulation 
applicable to such parts the day before the date of enactment of this 
Act, including sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 
401 and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors 
Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
  (d) Expiration Date.--If, 20 years from the date of enactment of this 
Act, any area or part thereof described in subsection (b) is not 
bulkheaded or filled or occupied by permanent structures, including 
marina facilities, in accordance with the requirements set out in 
subsection (c), or if work in connection with any activity permitted in 
subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after issuance of such 
permits, then the declaration of nonnavigability for such area or part 
thereof shall expire.

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

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

SEC. 5053. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.

  (a) Reevaluation.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the feasibility of 
the Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions on the Upper 
Calaveras River element of the project for flood control, Stockton 
Metropolitan Area, California, carried out under section 211(f)(3) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3683), to 
determine the eligibility of such elements for reimbursement under 
section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13).
  (b) Special Rules for Reevaluation.--In conducting the reevaluation 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall not reject a feasibility 
determination based on one or more of the policies of the Corps of 
Engineers concerning the frequency of flooding, the drainage area, and 
the amount of runoff.
  (c) Reimbursement.--If the Secretary determines that the elements 
referred to subsection (a) are feasible, the Secretary shall reimburse, 
subject to appropriations, the non-Federal interest under section 211 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 for the Federal share of 
the cost of such elements.

SEC. 5054. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN HARBOR, 
                    CONNECTICUT.

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

SEC. 5055. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

  Section 109 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (enacted 
into law by Public Law 106-554) (114 Stat. 2763A-222) is amended--
          (1) by adding at the end of subsection (e)(2) the following:
                  ``(C) Credit for work prior to execution of the 
                partnership agreement.--The Secretary shall credit 
                toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
                project--
                          ``(i) the cost of construction work carried 
                        out by the non-Federal interest before the date 
                        of the partnership agreement for the project if 
                        the Secretary determines that the work is 
                        integral to the project; and
                          ``(ii) the cost of land acquisition carried 
                        out by the non-Federal interest for projects to 
                        be carried out under this section.''; and
          (2) in subsection (f) by striking ``$100,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$100,000,000, of which not more than $15,000,000 
        may be used to provide planning, design, and construction 
        assistance to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for a water 
        treatment plant, Florida City, Florida''.

SEC. 5056. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA.

  The Secretary may carry out necessary repairs for the Lake Worth 
bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, Florida, at an estimated 
total cost of $9,000,000.

SEC. 5057. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO.

  The Secretary is authorized to carry out the Riley Creek Recreation 
Area Operation Plan of the Albeni Falls Management Plan, dated October 
2001, for the Riley Creek Recreation Area, Albeni Falls Dam, Bonner 
County, Idaho.

SEC. 5058. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in the reconstruction 
of an eligible flood control project if the Secretary determines that 
such reconstruction is not required as a result of improper operation 
and maintenance of the project by the non-Federal interest.
  (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs for the 
reconstruction of a flood control project authorized by this section 
shall be the same non-Federal share that was applicable to construction 
of the project. The non-Federal interest shall be responsible for 
operation and maintenance and repair of a project for which 
reconstruction is undertaken under this section.
  (c) Reconstruction Defined.--In this section, the term 
``reconstruction'', as used with respect to a project, means addressing 
major project deficiencies caused by long-term degradation of the 
foundation, construction materials, or engineering systems or 
components of the project, the results of which render the project at 
risk of not performing in compliance with its authorized project 
purposes. In addressing such deficiencies, the Secretary may 
incorporate current design standards and efficiency improvements, 
including the replacement of obsolete mechanical and electrical 
components at pumping stations, if such incorporation does not 
significantly change the scope, function, and purpose of the project as 
authorized.
  (d) Eligible Projects.--The following flood control projects are 
eligible for reconstruction under this section:
          (1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
          (2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, 
        Illinois.
          (3) Cairo, Illinois Mainline Levee, Cairo, Illinois.
          (4) Goose Pond Pump Station, Cairo, Illinois.
          (5) Cottonwood Slough Pump Station, Alexander County, 
        Illinois.
          (6) 10th and 28th Street Pump Stations, Cairo, Illinois.
          (7) Prairie Du Pont Levee and Sanitary District, including 
        Fish Lake Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
          (8) Flood control levee projects in Brookport, Shawneetown, 
        Old Shawneetown, Golconda, Rosiclare, Harrisburg, and 
        Reevesville, Illinois.
  (e) Justification.--The reconstruction of a project authorized by 
this section shall not be considered a separable element of the 
project.
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated--
          (1) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in 
        paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (d); and
          (2) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in 
        subsection (d)(8).
Such sums shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 5059. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.

  (a) Extension of Authorization.--Section 519(c)(2) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is amended by 
striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2010''.
  (b) In-Kind Services.--Section 519(g)(3) of such Act (114 Stat. 2655) 
is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
sentence ``if such services are provided not more than 5 years before 
the date of initiation of the project or activity''.
  (c) Nonprofit Entities and Monitoring.--Section 519 of such Act (114 
Stat. 2654) is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a non-Federal 
interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a 
nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.
  ``(i) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall develop an Illinois river 
basin monitoring program to support the plan referred to in subsection 
(b). Data collected under the monitoring program shall incorporate data 
provided by the State of Illinois and shall be publicly accessible 
through electronic means.''.

SEC. 5060. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORATION.

  (a) Kaskaskia River Basin Defined.--In this section, the term 
``Kaskaskia River Basin'' means the Kaskaskia River, Illinois, its 
backwaters, its side channels, and all tributaries, including their 
watersheds, draining into the Kaskaskia River.
  (b) Comprehensive Plan.--
          (1) Development.--The Secretary shall develop, as 
        expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for the 
        purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the Kaskaskia 
        River Basin.
          (2) Technologies and innovative approaches.--The 
        comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new 
        technologies and innovative approaches--
                  (A) to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a 
                transportation corridor;
                  (B) to improve water quality within the entire 
                Kaskaskia River Basin;
                  (C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for 
                plants and wildlife;
                  (D) to ensure aquatic integrity of sidechannels and 
                backwaters and their connectivity with the mainstem 
                river;
                  (E) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture 
                and business communities; and
                  (F) to reduce the impacts of flooding to communities 
                and landowners.
          (3) Specific components.--The comprehensive plan shall 
        include such features as are necessary to provide for--
                  (A) the development and implementation of a program 
                for sediment removal technology, sediment 
                characterization, sediment transport, and beneficial 
                uses of sediment;
                  (B) the development and implementation of a program 
                for the planning, conservation, evaluation, and 
                construction of measures for fish and wildlife habitat 
                conservation and rehabilitation, and stabilization and 
                enhancement of land and water resources in the basin;
                  (C) the development and implementation of a long-term 
                resource monitoring program;
                  (D) a conveyance study of the Kaskaskia River 
                floodplain from Vandalia, Illinois, to Carlyle Lake to 
                determine the impacts of existing and future waterfowl 
                improvements on flood stages, including detailed 
                surveys and mapping information to ensure proper 
                hydraulic and hydrological analysis;
                  (E) the development and implementation of a 
                computerized inventory and analysis system; and
                  (F) the development and implementation of a systemic 
                plan to reduce flood impacts by means of ecosystem 
                restoration projects.
          (4) Consultation.--The comprehensive plan shall be developed 
        by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate Federal 
        agencies, the State of Illinois, and the Kaskaskia River 
        Watershed Association.
          (5) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
        Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.
          (6) Additional studies and analyses.--After transmission of a 
        report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall conduct studies 
        and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive plan that 
        are appropriate and consistent with this subsection.
  (c) General Provisions.--
          (1) Water quality.--In carrying out activities under this 
        section, the Secretary's recommendations shall be consistent 
        with applicable State water quality standards.
          (2) Public participation.--In developing the comprehensive 
        plan under subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement 
        procedures to facilitate public participation, including 
        providing advance notice of meetings, providing adequate 
        opportunity for public input and comment, maintaining 
        appropriate records, and making a record of the proceedings of 
        meetings available for public inspection.
  (d) Critical Projects and Initiatives.--If the Secretary, in 
cooperation with appropriate Federal agencies and the State of 
Illinois, determines that a project or initiative for the Kaskaskia 
River Basin will produce independent, immediate, and substantial 
benefits, the Secretary may proceed expeditiously with the 
implementation of the project.
  (e) Coordination.--The Secretary shall integrate activities carried 
out under this section with ongoing Federal and State programs, 
projects, and activities, including the following:
          (1) Farm programs of the Department of Agriculture.
          (2) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State of 
        Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program of the 
        Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
          (3) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and the 
        Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the 
        Illinois Department of Agriculture.
          (4) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources 
        Conservation Service.
          (5) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the 
        Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
          (6) Other programs that may be developed by the State of 
        Illinois or the Federal Government, or that are carried out by 
        non-profit organizations, to carry out the objectives of the 
        Kaskaskia River Basin Comprehensive Plan.
  (f) In-Kind Services.--The Secretary may credit the cost of in-kind 
services provided by the non-Federal interest for an activity carried 
out under this section toward not more than 80 percent of the non-
Federal share of the cost of the activity. In-kind services shall 
include all State funds expended on programs that accomplish the goals 
of this section, as determined by the Secretary. The programs may 
include the Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve Program, the Illinois 
Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust Fund, and other 
appropriate programs carried out in the Kaskaskia River Basin.

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

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

SEC. 5062. PROMONTORY POINT, LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.

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

SEC. 5063. BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, INDIANA.

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

SEC. 5064. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.

  Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(113 Stat. 335; 117 Stat. 1843) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting the following:
                  ``(A) In general.--$100,000,000'';
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the 
                non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 
                of planning and design work carried out by the non-
                Federal interest before, on, or after the date of the 
                partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
                determines that the work is integral to the project.''; 
                and
          (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) 
        (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
        subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

SEC. 5065. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY.

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

SEC. 5066. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

  Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3773; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by adding the following:
  ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of 
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 
Federal expense.''.

SEC. 5067. WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY.

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

SEC. 5068. BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.

  Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by striking 
``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$35,000,000''.

SEC. 5069. CALCASIEU SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA.

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

SEC. 5070. CROSS LAKE, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.

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

SEC. 5071. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

  (a) Modification of Study.--The study for waterfront and riverine 
preservation, restoration, and enhancement, Mississippi River, West 
Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, being carried out under Committee 
Resolution 2570 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
of the House of Representatives adopted July 23, 1998, is modified--
          (1) to add West Feliciana Parish and East Baton Rouge Parish 
        to the geographic scope of the study; and
          (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
        share the cost of the study and the non-Federal share of the 
        cost of any project authorized by law as a result of the study 
        the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
        the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
        Secretary determines that the work is integral to the study or 
        project, as the case may be.
  (b) Expedited Consideration.--Section 517(5) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 345) is amended to read as follows:
          ``(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge, West Feliciana, 
        and East Baton Rouge Parishes, Louisiana, project for 
        waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and 
        enhancement modifications.''.

SEC. 5072. CHARLESTOWN, MARYLAND.

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 5075. MASSACHUSETTS DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.

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

SEC. 5076. ONTONAGON HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the vicinity 
of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor, Ontonagon County, 
Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 
1962 (76 Stat. 1176, 100 Stat. 4213, 110 Stat. 3730), to determine if 
the damage is the result of a Federal navigation project, and, if the 
Secretary determines that the damage is the result of a Federal 
navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate 
the damage under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 
U.S.C. 426i).

SEC. 5077. CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA.

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

SEC. 5078. GARRISON AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA.

  (a) Project Description.--Section 219(f)(61) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended--
          (1) in the paragraph heading by striking ``and kathio 
        township'' and inserting ``, crow wing county, mille lacs 
        county, mille lacs indian reservation, and kathio township'';
          (2) by striking ``$11,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$17,000,000'';
          (3) by inserting ``, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County, 
        Mille Lacs Indian Reservation (10 Stat. 1165),'' after 
        ``Garrison''; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following: ``Such assistance 
        shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille 
        Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota, except for assistance 
        provided directly to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe at the 
        discretion of the Secretary.''.
  (b) Procedures.--In carrying out the project authorized by such 
section 219(f)(61), the Secretary may use the cost sharing and 
contracting procedures available to the Secretary under section 569 of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368).

SEC. 5079. ITASCA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.

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

SEC. 5080. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.

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

SEC. 5081. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.

  (a) In General.--Section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 368) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Benton, Sherburne,'' and 
        inserting ``Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena,'';
          (2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (e)(3)(B);
          (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
  ``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a non-Federal 
interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a 
nonprofit entity.'';
          (4) in subsection (h) by striking ``$40,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$54,000,000''; and
          (5) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of 
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 
Federal expense.''.
  (b) Biwabik, Minnesota.--The Secretary shall reimburse the non-
Federal interest for the project for environmental infrastructure, 
Biwabik, Minnesota, carried out under section 569 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368), for planning, 
design, and construction costs that were incurred by the non-Federal 
interest with respect to the project before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project and that were in excess of the non-Federal 
share of the cost of the project if the Secretary determines that the 
costs are appropriate.

SEC. 5082. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

  The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the general 
reevaluation report, authorized by section 438 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2640), for the project for flood 
protection, Wild Rice River, Minnesota, authorized by section 201 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), to develop alternatives 
to the Twin Valley Lake feature, and upon the completion of such 
report, shall construct the project at a total cost of $20,000,000.

SEC. 5083. HARRISON, HANCOCK, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI.

  In carrying out projects for the protection, restoration, and 
creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats located in 
Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi, under section 204 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the 
Secretary shall accept any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.

SEC. 5084. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS.

  As a part of the operation and maintenance of the project for the 
Mississippi River (Regulating Works), between the Ohio and Missouri 
Rivers, Missouri and Illinois, authorized by the first section of an 
Act entitled ``Making appropriations for the construction, repair, and 
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for 
other purposes'', approved June 25, 1910, the Secretary may carry out 
activities necessary to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat 
in the middle Mississippi River system. Such activities may include 
modification of navigation training structures, modification and 
creation of side channels, modification and creation of islands, and 
studies and analysis necessary to apply adaptive management principles 
in design of future work.

SEC. 5085. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

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

SEC. 5086. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.

  Section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 
4849; 110 Stat. 3779) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``design'' and inserting ``planning, 
                design,''; and
                  (B) by striking ``Hackensack Meadowlands 
                Development'' and all that follows through ``Plan for'' 
                and inserting ``New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for 
                the development of an environmental improvement program 
                for'';
          (2) in subsection (b)--
                  (A) in the subsection heading by striking 
                ``Required'';
                  (B) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may'';
                  (C) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the 
                following:
          ``(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands 
        and aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands 
        ecosystem.'';
                  (D) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``and aquatic 
                habitat'' before the period at the end; and
                  (E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the 
                following:
          ``(7) Research, development, and implementation for a water 
        quality improvement program, including restoration of hydrology 
        and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and other sources 
        of contaminants that degrade existing or planned sites.'';
          (3) in subsection (c) by inserting before the last sentence 
        the following: ``The non-Federal sponsor may also provide in-
        kind services, not to exceed the non-Federal share of the total 
        project cost, and may also receive credit for reasonable cost 
        of design work completed prior to entering into the partnership 
        agreement with the Secretary for a project to be carried out 
        under the program developed under subsection (a).''; and
          (4) in subsection (d) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$35,000,000''.

SEC. 5087. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.

  (a) Development of Program.--Section 404(a) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``processes'' and inserting ``and related 
        environmental processes'';
          (2) by inserting after ``Atlantic Coast'' the following: 
        ``(and associated back bays)'';
          (3) by inserting after ``actions'' the following: ``, 
        environmental restoration or conservation measures for coastal 
        and back bays,''; and
          (4) by adding at the end the following: ``The plan for 
        collecting data and monitoring information included in such 
        annual report shall be fully coordinated with and agreed to by 
        appropriate agencies of the State of New York.''.
  (b) Annual Reports.--Section 404(b) of such Act is amended--
          (1) by striking ``Initial Plan.--Not later than 12 months 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act, the'' and 
        inserting ``Annual Reports.--The'';
          (2) by striking ``initial plan for data collection and 
        monitoring'' and inserting ``annual report of data collection 
        and monitoring activities''; and
          (3) by striking the last sentence.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 404(c) of such Act (113 
Stat. 341) is amended by striking ``and an additional total of 
$2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter'' and inserting ``$2,500,000 for 
fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years 
beginning after September 30, 2004,''.
  (d) Tsunami Warning System.--Section 404 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
  ``(d) Tsunami Warning System.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
$800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a project for a tsunami warning 
system, Atlantic Coast of New York.''.

SEC. 5088. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 5089. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

  The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project for ecosystem restoration, Flushing Bay and Creek, New 
York City, New York, the cost of design and construction work carried 
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
integral to the project.

SEC. 5090. HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 5091. MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NEW YORK.

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

SEC. 5092. JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA.

  The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the calculations 
necessary to negotiate and execute a revised, permanent contract for 
water supply storage at John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina, 
among the Secretary and the Kerr Lake Regional Water System and the 
city of Henderson, North Carolina.

SEC. 5093. STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

  Section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by inserting ``water and'' before 
``wastewater''.

SEC. 5094. CINCINNATI, OHIO.

   (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to undertake the 
ecosystem restoration and recreation components of the Central 
Riverfront Park Master Plan, dated December 1999, at a total cost of 
$25,000,000.
  (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share 
of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, and 
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 
date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
determines that the work is integral to the project.

SEC. 5095. TOUSSAINT RIVER, OHIO.

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

SEC. 5096. EUGENE, OREGON.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of restoring the millrace in Eugene, Oregon, and, if the 
Secretary determines that the restoration is feasible, the Secretary 
shall carry out the restoration.
  (b) Consideration of Noneconomic Benefits.--In determining the 
feasibility of restoring the millrace, the Secretary shall include 
noneconomic benefits associated with the historical significance of the 
millrace and associated with preservation and enhancement of resources.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

SEC. 5097. FERN RIDGE DAM, OREGON.

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

SEC. 5098. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting the following:
                  ``(A) In general.--$20,000,000'';
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the 
                non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 
                of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
                the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
                if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
                to the project.''; and
          (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) 
        (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
        subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

SEC. 5099. KEHLY RUN DAMS, PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 504(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
Stat. 338; 117 Stat. 1842) is amended by striking ``Dams'' and 
inserting ``Dams No. 1-5''.

SEC. 5100. LEHIGH RIVER, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

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

SEC. 5101. NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.

  Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ``and Monroe'' and inserting 
``Northumberland, Union, Snyder, Luzerne, and Monroe''.

SEC. 5102. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK.

  (a) Study and Strategy Development.--Section 567(a) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787; 114 Stat. 2662) is 
amended--
          (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``and 
        carry out'' after ``develop''; and
          (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``$10,000,000.'' and 
        inserting ``$20,000,000, of which the Secretary may utilize not 
        more than $5,000,000 to design and construct feasible pilot 
        projects during the development of the strategy to demonstrate 
        alternative approaches for the strategy. The total cost for any 
        single pilot project may not exceed $500,000. The Secretary 
        shall evaluate the results of the pilot projects and consider 
        the results in the development of the strategy.''.
  (b) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 567(c) of such Act (114 Stat. 
2662) is amended--
          (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Cooperation'' and 
        inserting ``Cooperative''; and
          (2) in the first sentence--
                  (A) by inserting ``and carrying out'' after 
                ``developing''; and
                  (B) by striking ``cooperation'' and inserting ``cost-
                sharing and cooperative''.
  (c) Implementation of Strategy.--Section 567(d) of such Act (114 
Stat. 2663) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
        following:
          ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
          (2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) (as so 
        designated)--
                  (A) by striking ``implement'' and inserting ``carry 
                out''; and
                  (B) by striking ``implementing'' and inserting 
                ``carrying out'';
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(2) Priority project.--In carrying out projects to 
        implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give priority to 
        the project for ecosystem restoration, Cooperstown, New York, 
        described in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin--Cooperstown 
        Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, dated December 
        2004, prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the New York State 
        Department of Environmental Conservation.''; and
          (4) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) 
        (as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with 
        paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection).
  (d) Credit.--Section 567 of such Act (110 Stat. 3787; 114 Stat. 2662) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
  ``(e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
share of the cost of a project under this section--
          ``(1) the cost of design and construction work carried out by 
        the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
        agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the 
        work is integral to the project; and
          ``(2) the cost of in-kind services and materials provided for 
        the project by the non-Federal interest.''.

SEC. 5103. CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.

  The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-Federal 
interest concerning flood protection and environmental restoration for 
Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and, if the Secretary 
determines that the report meets the evaluation and design standards of 
the Corps of Engineers and that the project is feasible, the Secretary 
may carry out the project at a total cost of $130,000,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $85,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $45,000,000.

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

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

SEC. 5105. FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE.

  The Secretary shall--
          (1) conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur 
        Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee 
        modifications that would be required to make the levee and 
        associated drainage structures consistent with Federal 
        standards;
          (2) design and construct such modifications; and
          (3) after completion of such modifications, incorporate the 
        levee into the project for flood control, Mississippi River and 
        Tributaries, authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act for the 
        control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, 
        and for other purposes'', approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534-
        539), commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of 1928''.

SEC. 5106. J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TENNESSEE.

  The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct a trail system at the 
J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee, authorized by section 4 
of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain 
public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
purposes'', approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), and adjacent public 
property, including design and construction of support facilities. In 
carrying out such improvements, the Secretary is authorized to use 
funds made available by the State of Tennessee from any Federal or 
State source, or both.

SEC. 5107. TOWN CREEK, LENOIR CITY, TENNESSEE.

  The Secretary shall design and construct the project for flood damage 
reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the Town Creek, Lenoir City, 
Loudon County, Tennessee, feasibility report of the Nashville district 
engineer, dated November 2000, under the authority of section 205 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), notwithstanding section 
1 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a; 49 Stat. 
1570). The non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 
subject to section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).

SEC. 5108. TENNESSEE RIVER PARTNERSHIP.

  (a) In General.--As part of the operation and maintenance of the 
project for navigation, Tennessee River, Tennessee, Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Kentucky, authorized by the first section of the River 
and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 927), the Secretary may enter 
into a partnership with a nonprofit entity to remove debris from the 
Tennessee River in the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by providing a 
vessel to such entity, at Federal expense, for such debris removal 
purposes.
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.

SEC. 5109. UPPER MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT, TENNESSEE, ARKANSAS, AND 
                    MISSISSIPPI.

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

SEC. 5110. BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED, TEXAS.

  (a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall develop, as 
expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for development of 
new technologies and innovative approaches for restoring, preserving, 
and protecting the Bosque River watershed within Bosque, Hamilton, 
McLennan, and Erath Counties, Texas. The Secretary, in cooperation with 
the Secretary of Agriculture, may carry out activities identified in 
the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives for 
stabilization and enhancement of land and water resources in the basin.
  (b) Services of Public Non-Profit Institutions and Other Entities.--
In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may utilize, through 
contracts or other means, the services of public non-profit 
institutions and such other entities as the Secretary considers 
appropriate.
  (c) Non-Federal Share.--
          (1) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
        Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this 
        section the cost of planning, design, and construction work 
        completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests for 
        implementation of measures constructed with assistance provided 
        under this section. The amount of such credit shall not exceed 
        the non-Federal share of the cost of such activities.
          (2) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of the 
        cost of operation and maintenance for measures constructed with 
        assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.

SEC. 5111. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS TEXAS.

  (a) In General.--The project for flood control, Trinity River and 
tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled, ``An 
Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain 
public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes'', approved 
March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 18), is modified to--
          (1) direct the Secretary to review the Balanced Vision Plan 
        for the Trinity River Corridor, Dallas, Texas, dated December 
        2003 and amended in March 2004, prepared by the non-Federal 
        interest for the project;
          (2) direct the Secretary to review the Interior Levee 
        Drainage Study Phase-I report, Dallas, Texas, dated September 
        2006, prepared by the non-Federal interest; and
          (3) if the Secretary determines that the project is 
        technically sound and environmentally acceptable, authorize the 
        Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 
        $459,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $298,000,000 
        and an estimated non-Federal cost of $161,000,000.
  (b) Credit.--
          (1) In-kind contributions.--The Secretary shall credit toward 
        the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
        planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-
        Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
        for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
        integral to the project.
          (2) Cash contributions.--The Secretary shall accept funds 
        provided by the non-Federal interest for use in carrying out 
        planning, engineering, and design for the project. The Federal 
        share of such planning, engineering, and design carried out 
        with non-Federal contributions shall be credited against the 
        non-Federal share of the cost of the project.

SEC. 5112. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

  (a) In General.--Section 575(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended by inserting 
before the period at the end the following: ``, whether or not such 
works or actions are partially funded under the hazard mitigation grant 
program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency''.
  (b) Specific Projects.--Section 575(b) of such Act (110 Stat. 3789; 
113 Stat. 311) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end;
          (2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding the following:
          ``(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou, 
        Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).''.

SEC. 5113. ONION CREEK, TEXAS.

  In carrying out the study for the project for flood damage reduction, 
recreation, and ecosystem restoration, Onion Creek, Texas, the 
Secretary shall include the costs and benefits associated with the 
relocation of flood-prone residences in the study area for the project 
in the period beginning 2 years before the date of initiation of the 
study and ending on the date of execution of the partnership agreement 
for construction of the project to the extent the Secretary determines 
such relocations are compatible with the project. The Secretary shall 
credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 
of relocation of such flood-prone residences incurred by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
project if the Secretary determines that the relocation of such 
residences is integral to the project.

SEC. 5114. EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.

  Section 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``$20,000,000 for water supply and wastewater 
        infrastructure'' and inserting the following:
                  ``(A) In general.--$20,000,000 for water supply, 
                wastewater infrastructure, and environmental 
                restoration'';
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the 
                non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost 
                of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
                the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
                if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
                to the project.''; and
          (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) 
        (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
        subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

SEC. 5115. DYKE MARSH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

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

SEC. 5116. BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON.

  The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation in Baker 
Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington, to determine if the siltation is the 
result of a Federal navigation project (including diverted flows from 
the Columbia River) and, if the Secretary determines that the siltation 
is the result of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall 
carry out a project to mitigate the siltation as part of maintenance of 
the Federal navigation project.

SEC. 5117. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON.

  The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct a 
campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island (also know as 
``Strawberry Island'') in Skamania County, Washington.

SEC. 5118. PUGET ISLAND, WASHINGTON.

  The Secretary is directed to place dredged and other suitable 
material along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of Puget 
Island, Washington, between river miles 38 to 47 in order to protect 
economic and environmental resources in the area from further erosion, 
at a Federal cost of $1,000,000. This action shall be coordinated with 
appropriate resource agencies and comply with applicable Federal laws.

SEC. 5119. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.

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

SEC. 5120. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.

  (a) Cheat and Tygart River Basins, West Virginia.--Section 581(a)(1) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 113 
Stat. 313) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``flood control measures'' and inserting 
        ``structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank 
        protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and 
        modification measures''; and
          (2) by inserting ``with respect to measures that incorporate 
        levees or floodwalls'' before the semicolon.
  (b) Priority Communities.--Section 581(b) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
        inserting a semicolon; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed; and
          ``(8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty's Run River 
        basin.''.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 581(c) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended by 
striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting ``$90,000,000''.

SEC. 5121. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.

  Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
371) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``Nicholas,''; and
                  (B) by striking ``Gilmer,''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a non-Federal 
interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a 
nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.
  ``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the amounts 
appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of 
Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at 
Federal expense.''.

SEC. 5122. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

  (a) Corps of Engineers.--Section 340 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
  ``(h) Corps of Engineers.--Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to 
carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district 
offices to administer projects under this section at Federal 
expense.''.
  (b) Southern West Virginia Defined.--Section 340(f) of such Act is 
amended by inserting ``Nicholas,'' after ``Greenbrier,''.
  (c) Nonprofit Entities.--Section 340 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended by adding 
at the end the following:
  ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a non-Federal 
interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a 
nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.''.

SEC. 5123. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL 
                    INTERESTS.

  Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 
U.S.C. 701b-13) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(12) Perris, california.--The project for flood control, 
        Perris, California.
          ``(13) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--An element 
        of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, 
        Illinois.
          ``(14) Larose to golden meadow, louisiana.--The project for 
        flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
          ``(15) Buffalo bayou, texas.--A project for flood control, 
        Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project 
        authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of 
        June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and modified by section 3a of the 
        Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414).
          ``(16) Halls bayou, texas.--A project for flood control, 
        Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project 
        for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, 
        authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources 
        Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610).''.

                      TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

SEC. 6001. HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FLORIDA.

  (a) Modification.--The project for Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, 
Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to authorize the 
Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $42,500,000.
  (b) Treatment.--Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
          (1) in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: ``The 
        project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and 
        Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) 
        of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), 
        shall be treated for purposes of this section as being in the 
        Plan, except that operation and maintenance costs of the 
        project shall remain a non-Federal responsibility.''; and
          (2) in clause (iii) by inserting after ``subparagraph (B)'' 
        the following: ``and the project for aquifer storage and 
        recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer''.

SEC. 6002. PILOT PROJECTS.

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

SEC. 6003. MAXIMUM COSTS.

  (a) Maximum Cost of Projects.--Section 601(b)(2)(E) of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2683) is amended by 
inserting ``and section (d)'' before the period at the end.
  (b) Maximum Cost of Program Authority.--Section 601(c)(3) of such Act 
(114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                  ``(C) Maximum cost of program authority.--Section 902 
                of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
                U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to the individual project 
                funding limits in subparagraph (A) and the aggregate 
                cost limits in subparagraph (B).''.

SEC. 6004. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

  Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 
Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) Project authorization.--The following project for water 
        resources development and conservation and other purposes is 
        authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in 
        accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 
        described in the report designated in this paragraph:
                  ``(A) Indian river lagoon south, florida.--The 
                project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood 
                damage reduction, and protection of water quality, 
                Indian River Lagoon South, Florida: Report of the Chief 
                of Engineers dated August 6, 2004, at a total cost of 
                $1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
                $682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
                $682,500,000.
                  ``(B) Picayune strand, florida.--The project for 
                environmental restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida: 
                Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 
                2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000, with an 
                estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated 
                non-Federal cost of $187,665,000.
                  ``(C) Site 1 impoundment, florida.--The project for 
                environmental restoration, Site 1 Impoundment, Florida: 
                Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 
                2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated 
                Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-
                Federal cost of $40,420,000.''.

SEC. 6005. CREDIT.

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

SEC. 6006. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE.

  Section 601(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 
Stat. 2691) is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) Maximum expenditures.--The Secretary may expend up to 
        $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after 
        September 30, 2004, to carry out this subsection.''.

SEC. 6007. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.

  Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
(110 Stat. 3769; 113 Stat. 286) is amended--
          (1) in clause (i) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and all that 
        follows through ``2003'' and inserting ``$95,000,000''; and
          (2) in clause (ii) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$30,000,000''.

SEC. 6008. MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES.

  (a) In General.--The project, Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades 
National Park, authorized by section 104 of the Everglades National 
Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-8), as 
described in the General Design Memorandum and Environmental Impact 
Statement for Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, 
June 1992, is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
project substantially in accordance with the Revised General 
Reevaluation Report/Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Tamiami Trail Modifications, Modified Water Deliveries to 
Everglades National Park, August 2005, at a total cost of $144,131,000.
  (b) Use of Funds.--Funds made available under section 102(f) of the 
Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 
U.S.C. 410r-6), may be used to carry out the project modification under 
subsection (a).
  (c) Source and Allocation of Funds.--
          (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), Federal 
        costs incurred for construction of the project modification 
        under subsection (a) on or after October 1, 2004, shall be 
        shared equally between the Secretary and the Secretary of the 
        Interior.
          (2) Acceptance and use of funds.--The Secretary may accept 
        and expend funds, without further appropriation, provided from 
        another Federal agency or from non-Federal interests for 
        construction of the project modification under subsection (a) 
        or for carrying out such other work that the Secretary 
        determines to be appropriate and consistent with authorized 
        purposes of the modified project.

SEC. 6009. DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

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

SEC. 6010. REGIONAL ENGINEERING MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.

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

                   TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 7002. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

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

SEC. 7003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA.

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

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

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

SEC. 7005. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.

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

SEC. 7006. CONSTRUCTION.

  (a) Science and Technology.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a coastal 
        Louisiana ecosystem program substantially in accordance with 
        the Plan, at a total cost of $100,000,000.
          (2) Purposes.--The purposes of the program under paragraph 
        (1) shall be--
                  (A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the 
                physical, chemical, geological, biological, and 
                cultural baseline conditions in coastal Louisiana 
                ecosystem;
                  (B) to improve knowledge of the physical, chemical, 
                geological, biological, and cultural baseline 
                conditions in coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
                  (C) to identify and develop technologies, models, and 
                methods to carry out this subsection.
          (3) Working groups.--The Secretary may establish such working 
        groups as the Secretary determines to be necessary to assist 
        the Secretary in carrying out this subsection.
          (4) Contracts and cooperative agreements.--In carrying out 
        this subsection, the Secretary may enter into a contract or 
        cooperative agreement with an individual or entity (including a 
        consortium of academic institutions in Louisiana) with 
        scientific or engineering expertise in the restoration of 
        aquatic and marine ecosystems for coastal restoration and 
        enhancement through science and technology.
  (b) Demonstration Projects.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary may 
        carry out demonstration projects substantially in accordance 
        with the Plan and within the coastal Louisiana ecosystem for 
        the purpose of resolving critical areas of scientific or 
        technological uncertainty related to the implementation of the 
        comprehensive plan to be developed under section 7002(a).
          (2) Maximum cost.--
                  (A) Total cost.--The total cost for planning, design, 
                and construction of all projects under this subsection 
                shall not exceed $100,000,000.
                  (B) Individual project.--The total cost of an 
                individual project under this subsection shall not 
                exceed $25,000,000.
  (c) Initial Projects.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out the 
        following projects substantially in accordance with the Plan:
                  (A) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet environmental 
                restoration at a total cost of $105,300,000.
                  (B) Small diversion at Hope Canal at a total cost of 
                $68,600,000.
                  (C) Barataria basin barrier shoreline restoration at 
                a total cost of $242,600,000.
                  (D) Small Bayou Lafourche reintroduction at a total 
                cost of $133,500,000.
                  (E) Medium diversion at Myrtle Grove with dedicated 
                dredging at a total cost of $278,300,000.
          (2) Modifications.--
                  (A) In general.--In carrying out each project under 
                paragraph (1), the Secretary shall carry out such 
                modifications as may be necessary to the ecosystem 
                restoration features identified in the Plan to address 
                the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the areas 
                of the project.
                  (B) Integration.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
                each modification under subparagraph (A) is taken into 
                account in conducting the study of comprehensive 
                hurricane protection authorized by title I of the 
                Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 
                (119 Stat. 2247).
          (3) Construction reports.--Before the Secretary may begin 
        construction of any project under this subsection, the 
        Secretary shall submit a report documenting any modifications 
        to the project, including cost changes, to the Committee on 
        Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
        Works of the Senate.
          (4) Applicability of other provisions.--Notwithstanding 
        section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
        U.S.C. 2280), the cost of a project described in paragraph (1) 
        and any modifications to the project shall not exceed 150 
        percent of the cost of such project set forth in paragraph (1).
  (d) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--The Secretary, substantially 
in accordance with the Plan, shall implement in the coastal Louisiana 
ecosystem a program for the beneficial use of material dredged from 
federally maintained waterways at a total cost of $100,000,000.
  (e) Additional Projects.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to carry out a 
        project for ecosystem restoration for the Chenier Plain, 
        Louisiana, and the following projects referred to in the Plan 
        if the Secretary determines such projects are feasible:
                  (A) Land Bridge between Caillou Lake and the Gulf of 
                Mexico at a total cost of $56,300,000.
                  (B) Gulf Shoreline at Point Au Fer Island at a total 
                cost of $43,400,000.
                  (C) Modification of Caernarvon Diversion at a total 
                cost of $20,700,000.
                  (D) Modification of Davis Pond Diversion at a total 
                cost of $64,200,000.
          (2) Reports.--Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary 
        shall submit feasibility reports on the projects described in 
        paragraph (1) to the Committee on Transportation and 
        Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
          (3) Construction.--No appropriations shall be made to 
        construct any project under this subsection if the report under 
        paragraph (2) has not been approved by resolutions adopted by 
        the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
        of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
        Works of the Senate.

SEC. 7007. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE.

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

SEC. 7008. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.

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

SEC. 7009. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

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

SEC. 7010. EXPEDITED REPORTS.

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

SEC. 7011. REPORTING.

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

SEC. 7012. NEW ORLEANS AND VICINITY.

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

SEC. 7013. MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET.

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

   TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY SYSTEM

SEC. 8001. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 8002. NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTORATION.

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

SEC. 8003. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS.

  (a) Small Scale and Nonstructural Measures.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
                  (A) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 
                20, 22, 24, and LaGrange Lock or other alternative 
                locations that are economically and environmentally 
                feasible;
                  (B) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and
                  (C) conduct development and testing of an appointment 
                scheduling system.
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of 
        projects authorized under this subsection shall be 
        $235,000,000. Such costs are to be paid 1/2 from amounts 
        appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from 
        amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such 
        sums shall remain available until expended.
  (b) New Locks.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall construct new 1,200-foot 
        locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi 
        River and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois 
        Waterway.
          (2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of 
        projects authorized under this subsection shall be 
        $1,795,000,000. Such costs are to be paid 1/2 from amounts 
        appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from 
        amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such 
        sums shall remain available until expended.
  (c) Concurrence.--The mitigation required for the projects authorized 
under subsections (a) and (b), including any acquisition of lands or 
interests in lands, shall be undertaken or acquired concurrently with 
lands and interests in lands for the projects authorized under 
subsections (a) and (b), and physical construction required for the 
purposes of mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with the 
physical construction of such projects.

SEC. 8004. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZATION.

  (a) Operation.--To ensure the environmental sustainability of the 
existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System, the 
Secretary shall modify, consistent with requirements to avoid adverse 
effects on navigation, the operation of the Upper Mississippi River and 
Illinois Waterway System to address the cumulative environmental 
impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological integrity 
of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River.
  (b) Ecosystem Restoration Projects.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, consistent 
        with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, 
        ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain the 
        sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River 
        and Illinois River in accordance with the general framework 
        outlined in the Plan.
          (2) Projects included.--Ecosystem restoration projects may 
        include--
                  (A) island building;
                  (B) construction of fish passages;
                  (C) floodplain restoration;
                  (D) water level management (including water 
                drawdown);
                  (E) backwater restoration;
                  (F) side channel restoration;
                  (G) wing dam and dike restoration and modification;
                  (H) island and shoreline protection;
                  (I) topographical diversity;
                  (J) dam point control;
                  (K) use of dredged material for environmental 
                purposes;
                  (L) tributary confluence restoration;
                  (M) spillway, dam, and levee modification to benefit 
                the environment; and
                  (N) land and easement acquisition.
          (3) Cost sharing.--
                  (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs 
                (B) and (C), the Federal share of the cost of carrying 
                out an ecosystem restoration project under this 
                subsection shall be 65 percent.
                  (B) Exception for certain restoration projects.--In 
                the case of a project under this section for ecosystem 
                restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying 
                out the project shall be 100 percent if the project--
                          (i) is located below the ordinary high water 
                        mark or in a connected backwater;
                          (ii) modifies the operation of structures for 
                        navigation; or
                          (iii) is located on federally owned land.
                  (C) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection 
                affects the applicability of section 906(e) of the 
                Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
                2283(e)).
                  (D) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding 
                section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
                1962d-5b), for any project carried out under this 
                title, a non-Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit 
                entity, with the consent of the affected local 
                government.
          (4) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or an 
        interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a 
        willing seller through conveyance of--
                  (A) fee title to the land; or
                  (B) a flood plain conservation easement.
  (c) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall carry out a long term resource 
monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, and applied 
research program for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River to 
determine trends in ecosystem health, to understand systemic changes, 
and to help identify restoration needs. The program shall build upon 
the monitoring program established under section 1103(e)(1)(A)(ii) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
652(e)(1)(A)(ii)).
  (d) Ecosystem Restoration Preconstruction Engineering and Design.--
          (1) Restoration design.--Before initiating the construction 
        of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the Secretary 
        shall--
                  (A) establish ecosystem restoration goals and 
                identify specific performance measures designed to 
                demonstrate ecosystem restoration;
                  (B) establish the without-project condition or 
                baseline for each performance indicator; and
                  (C) for each separable element of the ecosystem 
                restoration, identify specific target goals for each 
                performance indicator.
          (2) Outcomes.--Performance measures identified under 
        paragraph (1)(A) shall include specific measurable 
        environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality, 
        hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the 
        population and distribution of which are representative of the 
        abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic and 
        terrestrial species.
          (3) Restoration design.--Restoration design carried out as 
        part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan 
        for the performance measures identified under paragraph (1)(A), 
        including--
                  (A) a timeline to achieve the identified target 
                goals; and
                  (B) a timeline for the demonstration of project 
                completion.
  (e) Consultation and Funding Agreements.--
          (1) In general.--In carrying out the environmental 
        sustainability, ecosystem restoration, and monitoring 
        activities authorized in this section, the Secretary shall 
        consult with the Secretary of the Interior and the States of 
        Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
          (2) Funding agreements.--The Secretary is authorized to enter 
        into agreements with the Secretary of the Interior, the Upper 
        Mississippi River Basin Association, and natural resource and 
        conservation agencies of the States of Illinois, Iowa, 
        Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to provide for the direct 
        participation of and transfer of funds to such entities for the 
        planning, implementation, and evaluation of projects and 
        programs established by this section.
  (f) Specific Projects Authorization.--
          (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out this subsection $1,580,000,000, of which not more 
        than $226,000,000 shall be available for projects described in 
        subsection (b)(2)(B) and not more than $43,000,000 shall be 
        available for projects described in subsection (b)(2)(J). Such 
        sums shall remain available until expended.
          (2) Limitation on available funds.--Of the amounts made 
        available under paragraph (1), not more than $35,000,000 in any 
        fiscal year may be used for land acquisition under subsection 
        (b)(4).
          (3) Individual project limit.--Other than for projects 
        described in subparagraphs (B) and (J) of subsection (b)(2), 
        the total cost of any single project carried out under this 
        subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
          (4) Monitoring.--In addition to amounts authorized under 
        paragraph (1), there are authorized $10,420,000 per fiscal year 
        to carry out the monitoring program under subsection (c) if 
        such sums are not appropriated pursuant to section 1103(e)(4) 
        the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
        652(e)(4)).
  (g) Implementation Reports.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2008, and every 4 
        years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
        on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 
        on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
        Representatives an implementation report that--
                  (A) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and 
                priorities for ecosystem restoration projects; and
                  (B) measures the progress in meeting the goals.
          (2) Advisory panel.--
                  (A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint and 
                convene an advisory panel to provide independent 
                guidance in the development of each implementation 
                report under paragraph (1).
                  (B) Panel members.--Panel members shall include--
                          (i) one representative of each of the State 
                        resource agencies (or a designee of the 
                        Governor of the State) from each of the States 
                        of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and 
                        Wisconsin;
                          (ii) one representative of the Department of 
                        Agriculture;
                          (iii) one representative of the Department of 
                        Transportation;
                          (iv) one representative of the United States 
                        Geological Survey;
                          (v) one representative of the United States 
                        Fish and Wildlife Service;
                          (vi) one representative of the Environmental 
                        Protection Agency;
                          (vii) one representative of affected 
                        landowners;
                          (viii) two representatives of conservation 
                        and environmental advocacy groups; and
                          (ix) two representatives of agriculture and 
                        industry advocacy groups.
                  (C) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall serve as 
                chairperson of the advisory panel.
                  (D) Application of federal advisory committee act.--
                The Advisory Panel and any working group established by 
                the Advisory Panel shall not be considered an advisory 
                committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
                U.S.C. App.).
  (h) Ranking System.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
        Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed 
        projects.
          (2) Priority.--The ranking system shall give greater weight 
        to projects that restore natural river processes, including 
        those projects listed in subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 8005. COMPARABLE PROGRESS.

  (a) In General.--As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering, design, 
and construction for projects authorized under this title, the 
Secretary shall--
          (1) select appropriate milestones;
          (2) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the 
        projects are being carried out at comparable rates; and
          (3) make an annual report to Congress, beginning in fiscal 
        year 2008, regarding whether the projects are being carried out 
        at a comparable rate.
  (b) No Comparable Rate.--If the Secretary or Congress determines 
under subsection (a)(2) that projects authorized under this title are 
not moving toward completion at a comparable rate, annual funding 
requests for the projects shall be adjusted to ensure that the projects 
move toward completion at a comparable rate in the future.

                         Purpose of Legislation

    H.R. 1495, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2007'', 
includes project authorizations, modifications, 
deauthorizations, studies, and policy initiatives for the Army 
Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Program--the nation's largest 
water resources program. Throughout its eight titles, the bill 
authorizes and directs the Corps to carry out various studies, 
projects, and programs relating to navigation, flood damage 
reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, water supply, 
recreation, environmental restoration and protection.

                  Background and Need For Legislation

    The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 demonstrates 
the continuing commitment of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure to the nation's water resources 
infrastructure, and a regular authorization schedule for the 
Civil Works Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(``Corps''), which was instituted by the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986. The Committee believes that passage of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 is vitally 
important to fulfill commitments to non-Federal sponsors, to be 
responsive to new and emerging water resources needs, and to 
fine-tune the Corps' missions and responsibilities.

                    VALUE OF THE CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM

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

                  CORPS OF ENGINEERS PLANNING PROCESS

    In recent years, there has been some controversy regarding 
the planning process used by the Corps of Engineers to develop 
water resources projects. The Civil Works program of the Corps 
of Engineers is a $4.5 to $5.5 billion annual program. Of that 
amount, between $135 and $145 million is spent annually to 
study water resources needs, determine if there is a Federal 
interest in meeting those needs, and develop recommendations 
for water resources projects that are technically sound, 
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.
    For certain small projects, Congress has authorized the 
Corps to participate in the development and construction under 
continuing authorities. The Federal participation in these 
small projects is limited to between $500,000 and $7 million 
per project, depending on the project type. For all other 
projects, the Corps must first receive authorization from 
Congress to proceed with a study, either by statute or, if the 
Corps previously has conducted a study in the same geographic 
area, in the form of a Committee resolution.
    Once authorized, a water resources study begins with a 
reconnaissance study. The reconnaissance phase is a relatively 
quick examination of the problem (generally costing no more 
than $100,000 and lasting 12 months) during which the Corps of 
Engineers determines if there is a Federal interest and a 
potentially feasible project. If, based on the reconnaissance 
study, the Corps determines there is a potentially feasible 
water resources project, it may seek the participation of a 
non-Federal interest willing to share in 50 percent of the 
study costs (for studies for projects other than inland 
navigation) and proceed to a full feasibility study. A 
feasibility study generally takes about two years.
    To ensure that a project is technically sound, 
environmentally acceptable, and economically justified, the 
Corps must conduct a study in accordance with applicable laws, 
regulations, and policy, including the 1983 Principles and 
Guidelines issued by the Water Resources Council, Engineering 
Regulations issued by the Corps of Engineers (and most recently 
comprehensively revised in 1999), and other guidance 
periodically issued by the Chief of Engineers. Studies that 
result in a report of the Chief of Engineers recommending a 
water resources project are submitted to Congress for 
authorization. Other than projects constructed under continuing 
authorities, the Corps may not proceed to construction of a 
project until it is specifically authorized.
    All Corps of Engineers projects affect water resources in 
some fashion. In many cases, there may be competing demands on 
those water resources, leading to controversy and even 
opposition to a proposed project by some constituencies. In 
some cases, project opponents have found problems with analyses 
conducted by the Corps of Engineers, leading to calls for 
improvement of the Corps' process for developing water 
resources projects. The Committee believes that the Corps of 
Engineers employs experts in their fields who provide a 
tremendous service to the nation. The Committee also holds 
these professionals to the highest standards and expects all 
work products generated by the Corps of Engineers to be able to 
withstand any level of outside scrutiny. Accordingly, this bill 
provides the Chief of Engineers with tools to ensure that 
project studies are carried out using high quality methods, 
models, and analyses. At the same time, the Committee also 
recognizes that many disputes over water resources projects are 
policy disputes. Accordingly, the bill also ensures that 
changes to the project planning process will not lead to delays 
in project delivery and provides the Chief of Engineers with 
tools to resolve policy disputes and minimize delays. Once 
fully implemented, the Committee expects that the improvements 
to the Corps planning process contained in this bill will 
result in fewer delays, fewer technical concerns, and increased 
public acceptance of proposed projects.

                       Summary of the Legislation


Section 1. Short title; table of contents

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

Section 2. Definition of Secretary

    This section defines the term ``Secretary'', which is used 
throughout the bill, as the Secretary of the Army.

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS


Section 1001. Project authorizations

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

Corps of Engineers......................................     $11,232,000
Haines Borough..........................................       2,808,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      14,040,000

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

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Average
                                                   Annual      Average
                    Account                      Equivalent     Annual
                                                 Beneficial    Adverse
                                                  Effects      Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED, Commercial Navigation....................       $1,202       $1,122
NED, Recreation (Incidental)..................          294           96
                                               -------------------------
      Total...................................        1,496        1,218
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Project economic life: 50 years.
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.2
    Current Discount Rate: 5-5/8%
    Direct Beneficiaries: The project would provide properly 
sized stalls for mooring and increase wave protection from the 
southeast resulting in reduced damages to existing floats and 
to vessels incurred from the overcrowded conditions in the 
existing harbor. The newly created harbor would provide 
additional protected moorage to reduce travel costs incurred 
from the overcrowded conditions in the existing harbor.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final 
Chief's report was signed on 20 December 2004.
    The Committee understands that the Haines Borough would 
like to convert the breakwater structures planned for the 
project into a causeway which could be used to service vessels 
which are too large to enter the proposed new boat harbor. The 
Committee supports this initiative because it will provide 
long-term economic benefits to the project above those 
projected in the Chief's Report. The construction of this 
breakwater involves the use of a bridge to move materials over 
a channel. The Committee therefore instructs the Corps to leave 
this infrastructure in place and work with the Haines Borough 
to develop a plan which would allow for a finished causeway, 
road and bridge on the causeway should funds be identified for 
this additional feature.
    (2) Port Lions, Kodiak Island, Alaska.
    Location of Study Area: The study area is located at the 
Native Village of Port Lions, located on Kodiak Island, Alaska.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The primary 
problem is the lack of adequate wave protection for the 
existing inner harbor facilities and moored vessels at Port 
Lions. The mooring basin is subject to severe damages and 
undesirable wave conditions from northeast waves entering the 
basin through the near-shore breach and around the deep-water 
end of the main breakwater. Damages are also caused by smaller, 
locally generated waves from the southwest. Wave heights of 
three to five feet have been observed within the harbor limits. 
Damage to the float system is especially prevalent on the outer 
portions of the three main floats due to exposure to higher 
waves. Significant portions of the mooring floats are unsafe 
and have been blocked off from public access or removed from 
the water. Year round use of the basin has been reduced from 
about 124 to 35 vessels. For the general Kodiak Island area, 
demand for year around moorage exceeds all planned expansion. A 
shortage of regional moorage that is both safe and convenient 
has led to lost income, vessel damages, lost time, and 
inconvenience.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives plans 
investigated included; the no-action plan, non-structural 
plans, and various alternative structural plans. The 
alternatives were designed to meet the planning objectives and 
criteria and were evaluated based on environmental, economic, 
and engineering considerations.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan 
provides a new rubblemound breakwater at the existing harbor to 
provide protected moorage for the design fleet.
    Benefits to the Nation would include; reduced harbor and 
vessel damages, reduced harvest costs, reduced local emergency 
costs, and reduced water taxi service costs. Other direct 
benefits include; increased subsistence opportunities, harbor 
of refuge, and reduced search and rescue costs. Because the 
Recommended Plan would not have any significant adverse 
effects, no mitigation measures (beyond management practices 
and avoidance) or compensation were required. The Recommended 
Plan is the National Economic Development (NED) Plan.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The Recommended Plan 
provides a new rubblemound breakwater 1,360 feet in length, 
located southwest and east of the existing mooring basin. The 
new breakwater would protect the design fleet from northeast 
and southwest waves. The new breakwater would not be shore-
connected to provide a 150-foot opening for fish passage. This 
would allow fish to remain in the shallow water near the shore 
and minimize the threat of deep-water predation. Additionally, 
the width of the near-shore opening at the existing breakwater 
would be reduced to 30 feet by a combination of extending the 
existing breakwater 40 feet shoreward and by extending the 
existing stub breakwater 75 feet seaward. The breakwaters would 
provide protection for a 10-acre mooring basin. The basin would 
provide protected moorage for a total of 124 commercial and 
subsistence vessels ranging in length from 22 to 55 feet. The 
entrance channel is 1,100 feet long by 100 feet wide with a 
depth of -14 feet, mean lower low water (MLLW).
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 
(ADOT&PF;) is the non-Federal sponsor. The ADOT&PF; and community 
of Port Lions strongly support the project and will fund the 
non-Federal share of the project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service supports the Recommended Plan. There were no 
objections to the Recommended Plan. There are no outstanding 
issues.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Environmental Assessment is 
included as part of the Feasibility Report dated October 2005. 
There were no objectionable comments received during the public 
comment period. A Finding of No Significant Impact was signed 
26 September 2005.
    Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended Plan:

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

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

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

    Estimated Effects of the NED Plan: 

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

    The NER plan would restore approximately 1,466 acres and 
would produce approximately 267 average annual functional 
capacity units (AAFCU). Environmental benefits are not 
quantified monetarily and therefore environment specific costs 
are not included in the project benefit/cost ratio.
    Direct Beneficiaries: The residents and visitors to Phoenix 
and surrounding areas and the ecosystem are the direct 
beneficiaries of the project. Combined with other projects in 
the watershed will restore 42 miles of the Salt River from the 
Granite Reef Dam downstream to the Salt-Agua Fria River 
confluence.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of 
Engineers Report was signed on December 19, 2006.
    (4) Santa Cruz River, Paseo de las Iglesias, Pima County, 
Arizona.
    Location of Study Area: The study area is located in 
southeast Arizona within Pima County and flows through the city 
of Tucson, the 2nd largest city in Arizona.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The loss of 
riparian habitat in the arid southwest is extremely 
significant. Originally comprising a mere 1% of the landscape 
historically, over 95% of riparian habitat has been lost in 
Arizona. This type of river-connected riparian and fringe 
habitat is of an extremely high value due to its rarity. Arid 
Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as a critically 
endangered habitat type. It has been estimated that 75 to 90 
percent of all wildlife in the arid southwest is riparian 
dependent during some part of its life cycle. As a direct 
consequence of the extensive degradation and loss of riparian 
habitat, the area has experienced a major reduction in species 
diversity and in the population of remaining species. In 
addition, destruction of native riparian habitat facilitates an 
increase in invasive plant species that are more tolerant of 
disturbed conditions. The existing functional capacity of the 
ecosystem in the study area is forecasted to deteriorate 
significantly over the next 50 years.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in 
detail included three plans; the no-action, the National 
Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan and the Preferred Alternative.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan for 
ecosystem restoration and recreation would restore ecosystem 
functions and values to approximately a 7.5 mile reach of the 
Santa Cruz River. No flood damage reduction project could be 
justified within the 5,000 acre study area.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The Recommended Plan 
includes restoring 1,098 acres including 718 acres of mesquite 
bosque, 356 acres of riparian shrub, 18 acres of cottonwood-
willow, and 6 acres of emergent marsh. The plan includes five 
water harvesting basins and eight water harvesting basins at 
tributary confluences. The recommended plan would restore a 
significant ecosystem resource along the Pacific Flyway for 
neo-tropical birds, reconnect wildlife corridors, restore 
wildlife habitat for species significant to Pima County, 
provide potential habitat for threatened and endangered 
species, and restore threatened plant communities of 
cottonwood/willow riparian forest and Mesquite Bosque. The 
ecosystem function will increase fourteen (14) times over the 
expected future without project degraded condition.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Pima County Regional Flood Control District is the local 
sponsor and they strongly support the project and will fund the 
local share of the project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality, and the Center for 
Biological Diversity have all stated support for the proposed 
restoration efforts.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment 
has been included as part of the Final Feasibility Report, 
dated July 2005. These documents were released for public 
review and comment on 8 October 2004 and minor comments were 
received and responded to and are included in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement.
    Estimated Implementation Costs of Addendum Modified 
Recommended LPP Plan:

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

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

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

    Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area 
are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of 
Engineers Report was signed on 28 March 2006.
    (5) Tanque Verde Creek, Pima County, Arizona.
    Location of Study Area: Tanque Verde Creek is located in 
the City of Tucson, approximately 100 miles southeast of 
Phoenix, Arizona.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Tanque 
Verde Creek is an ephemeral stream, draining a 219 square mile 
watershed that extends into the Catalina and Tanque Verde 
Mountains, north and east of Tucson, Arizona, respectively. It 
combines with another major regional watercourse, Pantano Wash, 
to become the Rillito River, which continues west along the 
northern edge of Tucson. The reach of Tanque Verde Creek 
between Craycroft Road and Sabino Canyon Road is approximately 
two miles long and is partially bank protected. The study reach 
extends a short distance downstream of Craycroft Road and a 
short distance upstream of Sabino Canyon Road. The study reach 
is better defined as the unprotected portion of Tanque Verde 
Creek from the area of Craycroft Road to Sabino Canyon Road.
    The localized approach to bank protection in the study area 
has left large areas with little or no protection. These areas 
continue to experience rapid erosion during significant flow 
events. Two large gaps in the bank protection measuring 4,220 
and 2,830 feet are currently found on the south bank of Tanque 
Verde Creek. These gaps are found along the outer edge of a 
broad bend in the creek, are subjected to continued erosion by 
low flows, and flood flows on Tanque Verde Creek. On the north 
bank, immediately upstream of the Craycroft Road Bridge, the 
existing bank continues to migrate north, and has begun to 
expose areas of soil cement that are keyed into the sideslope, 
thereby potentially compromising its integrity. Additionally, 
upstream of the Craycroft Road Bridge, an old meander bend 
extends south of the existing channel. Flood flows and 
subsurface flows tend to follow this meander and have resulted 
in the undermining of the roadway embankment in the past. 
Periodic repairs to the road surface and to an interceptor 
sewer line are required due to these flows. In the event of a 
catastrophic flood, flows could undermine and break through the 
roadway embankment, washing out the roadway and the sewer 
interceptor. Such an event could also cause inundation and 
erosion damages to houses and other development west of 
Craycroft Road, including within the Fort Lowell Historic 
District.
    The opportunity exists to provide bank protection between 
Craycroft Road and Sabino Canyon Road to halt the channel 
migration and protect existing structures, property, and 
riparian areas. The study area contains many areas of high 
quality desert riparian habitat. These areas are becoming 
increasingly scarce, due primarily to development encroachment. 
The opportunity exists to acquire the rights-of-way to a 500-
foot-wide buffer along the north bank. Public ownership would 
prevent future development of this area, and would preserve the 
existing riparian values.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The Los Angeles District in 
its preparation of the ``Survey Report & Environmental 
Assessment, Rillito River & Associated Streams,'' conducted 
extensive analyses of the economic and engineering viability of 
various structural techniques on the Rillito River to which 
Tanque Verde Creek is a tributary. The Corps examined gabions, 
stone revetment, grouted stone, and soil cement revetment. The 
Corps determined that gabions and stone revetment were cost 
inefficient in comparison to grouted stone and soil cement 
revetment, and were dropped from further consideration. Current 
cost data suggest that the cost efficiencies of grouted stone 
and soil cement revetment still exist; gabions and stone 
revetment, therefore, are not considered viable candidates for 
evaluation. Grouted stone is economically viable; however, 
current costs and its requirement for additional land maintain 
its cost ineffectiveness in comparison to soil cement 
revetment, as was determined in the Survey Report. Web cellular 
confinement systems were investigated as potential 
alternatives. These systems would require the addition of 
concrete into the cells as flow velocities exceed 15 feet per 
second (fps), thus defeating their intended environmental 
advantage. Soil cement revetment remains an engineering and 
economically viable solution.
    An array of soil cement revetment alternatives identified 
as satisfying all the criteria were evaluated, in addition to 
the no-action plan.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan, 
Alternative 4, best satisfies the project objectives. It 
provides the desired flood damage protection, produces the 
highest environmental outputs, is designated as the National 
Economic Development (NED) Plan and is locally preferred.
    The recommended plan fully addresses the identified 
problems along the Tanque Verde Creek between Sabino Canyon 
Road and Craycroft Road while including both structural and 
non-structural measures. The structural measures include 
installing soil cement bank protection in the existing gaps in 
bank protection on the south bank, and installing approximately 
1,550 feet of bank protection upstream of the Craycroft Road 
Bridge on the north bank. The horizontal alignment of the 
proposed bank protection would be along smooth curves that 
generally follow the existing bank. Where applicable, the ends 
would match the existing soil cement. On the south bank, at the 
downstream end, the proposed soil cement would key into the 
bank just upstream of the confluence with Pantano Wash.
    On the north bank, at the upstream end, the soil cement 
would key into the existing bank and be tied back to high 
ground. The soil cement would match the top of the existing 
bank, and the toedown would extend 10 feet below the existing 
thalweg. In addition, limited bank protection will be 
constructed for the preserve area. This limited bank protection 
will be a low soil cement berm (approximately 5,000 feet in 
length) with ``weep holes'' to maintain the hydrologic 
connection between the creek and the preserve. The berm will 
stabilize the slope and allow for the continued overtopping of 
flood waters with events greater than approximately 10-years in 
size by its low 2-foot height. The soil cement mixture provides 
a hard and durable surface that is expected to last well over 
the project life of 50 years.
    The recommended plan would affect desert riparian habitat, 
including mesquite bosque habitat, along Tanque Verde Creek. A 
total of approximately 9.9 acres of habitat would be lost, 
including approximately 1.9 acres of moderate to high quality 
mesquite bosque habitat and 8.0 acres of disturbed desert wash 
habitat. Impacts to wildlife in the disturbed desert wash area 
will be minor because relatively few species inhabit these 
areas, and most are relatively common. Impacts to wildlife 
found in the mesquite bosque habitats would include temporary 
and permanent displacement and mortality of some wildlife that 
is unable to escape.
    Mitigation of the recommended plan, in addition to the 
berm, involves acquiring the rights-of-way to establish a 
permanent 500-foot buffer along the north bank. Public 
ownership of this land (approximately 48 acres) would prevent 
additional development and the associated flood damages, while 
preserving the riparian values of this heavily vegetated area.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The project reach is 
approximately 2 miles of the Tanque Verde Creek immediately 
upstream of Rillito River at its confluence with Pantano Wash 
from Craycroft Road to just downstream of Sabino Canyon Road. 
The selected plan includes:
           complete bank erosion control on the 
        southern bank with the construction of two segments of 
        which one is approximately 4,220 linear feet and the 
        other 2,830 linear feet
           north bank erosion control (1,550 linear 
        feet) protecting vulnerable public infrastructure and 
        5,000 feet of modified bank protection along the 
        mitigation preserve area, and
           establishment of a 48-acre riparian habitat 
        area.
    Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: Pima County 
Department of Transportation and Flood Control has indicated 
its support for the selected plan and has provided a Letter of 
Intent acknowledging sponsorship requirements for the Selected 
Plan.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Both the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish have 
indicated their support for the project. The opinion received 
through the Draft Coordination Act Report and through ongoing 
coordination favors the project, which addresses the flood 
damage problem and yield environmental benefits that are 
necessary to preserve the environmental community in this area. 
It is the recommendation of the Arizona Game and Fish that 
softer protection for the riparian preserve be investigated 
during the design phase of this project.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Environmental Assessment was 
included with the LRR, which was drafted in May of 2002 and 
approved on 30 Sept 02.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: 

Corps of Engineers......................................      $3,836,000
Pima County Flood Control District......................       2,070,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................       5,906,000

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

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Average
                                             Annual
                 Account                   Equivalent    Average Annual
                                           Beneficial   Adverse Effects
                                            Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Flood Damage Reduction.......     $714,100    Not Applicable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.1. (Current Discount Rate: 6.625)

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

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Average
                                             Annual
                 Account                   Equivalent    Average Annual
                                           Beneficial   Adverse Effects
                                            Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Functional Capacity Units Net   1006 AAFCU     Not Applicable
 Increase...............................
Annualized Recreational Benefits........     $170,800     Not Applicable
Annualized Incidental Flood Damage             32,300    Not Applicable
 Reduction (Base Year Only).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio (Recreation): 1.50. (Current Discount Rate: 5.625).

    Direct Beneficiaries: Expected ecosystem restoration and 
recreation benefits for Maricopa County, the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community, and the City of Mesa along the Salt 
River between the Granite Reef Dam and Pima Freeway (SR 101).
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final 
Chief's report was signed on 3 January 2005.
    (7) May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
    Location of Study Area: The study area is located within 
the corporate limits of Fort Smith, Sebastian County, Arkansas.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 
principal water resources problems in the May Branch Basin are 
flood damages to industry, businesses, and residences, and 
limited aquatic habitat. The P Street storm sewer is the major 
drainage outlet for the May Branch basin. Runoff with a 
recurrence interval of approximately ten years exceeds the 
capacity of the outlet. A major flood event occurred in spring 
1990. At that time, the Arkansas River experienced high flows 
and the P Street gravity outlet on May Branch was closed. 
Pumping and the P Street storm sewer could not handle the flow. 
The heavy rainfall resulted in flooding that caused an 
estimated $2.5 million in damages to 26 businesses and 44 
residential units. In 2004, a 13-year old boy slipped into a 
side drain. He was swept 1.5 miles through the rough, dark P 
Street storm sewer until he was rescued at the P Street weir. 
There is an opportunity to open up the channel to allow for 
rescue of persons falling into the drainage system. Expected 
annual flood damages are estimated to be $1.7 million to 
include damages to the 136 structures located in the 500-year 
floodplain. The opportunity exists to improve the social 
wellbeing of those who live and work in the May Branch 
floodplain by alleviating the flood damages to the homes, 
businesses, and infrastructure.
    Construction of the P Street storm sewer in 1910 to replace 
the May Branch open channel reduced the aquatic habitat to 
virtually nonexistent. The opportunity exists to reconstruct 
the May Branch channel, which would restore some minor aquatic 
habitat.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated 
included no action, nonstructural, parallel storm sewers, 
additional pump capacity, detention basins, and open channel 
plans. The plans investigated in detail included the no-action 
plan, the National Economic Development (NED) Plan and the 
Locally Preferred Plan (LPP).
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is 
the LPP. The LPP provides for a new 2.77-mile long open channel 
to convey flood waters from the May Branch basin to the 
Arkansas River.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The new channel 
alignment would require 15 structure relocations, 5 rail and 9 
road crossings, and a gated hydraulic control structure at the 
Fort Smith (Arkansas River) Levee. These features are to 
provide flood damage reduction benefits. From O Street to the 
Fort Smith (Arkansas River) Levee, the new open channel would 
augment the flow capacity of the P Street Storm Sewer. Most of 
the road and rail crossings would be covered channel sections. 
The channel bottom width varies from 24 feet in the downstream 
portion to 4 feet for the upstream most 0.5 miles. The channel 
would be mainly trapezoidal with three horizontal to one 
vertical (3H:1V) side slopes. The channel slopes would be rip-
rapped, except for a short vertical concrete wall section, and 
a 1,500-foot long segment downstream of Grand Avenue where the 
channel has 2H:1V concrete-lined side slopes to avoid area 
buildings. The reporting officers find that approximately 2.25 
miles of the new channel, from the Arkansas River upstream to 
Grand Avenue (Reaches 1 through 4), satisfy requirements for 
full Federal participation in cost sharing under current 
Administration policy. The remaining 0.52 miles of new channel 
(Reaches 5 and 6) will lie upstream of the limit of Federal 
interest and will be constructed at 100-percent non-Federal 
cost.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The State Of Arkansas supported the project by letter dated 
November 27, 2006. The City of Fort Smith is the local sponsor. 
By letter dated October 19, 2006, the City of Fort Smith 
affirmed its full support and ability to fund the local share 
of the project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: No comments were 
received from the Federal and Regional Agencies as part of the 
State and Agency Review.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment 
was an integral part of the Final Feasibility Report, dated 
September 2006. The draft report was released for a 30-day 
public review on 28 July 2006. The public review was completed 
on 6 September 2006. Comments received were favorable.
    Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended LPP Plan:

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

    Estimated Effects of the LPP:

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

    NED plan recommended? No, the features of the NED plan are, 
in all material respects, identical to those of Reaches 1 
through 4 of the LPP, except that the NED plan would have 
smaller flow capacity in Reaches 1 and 2 nearest the Arkansas 
River. Implementing the NED plan would be approximately 
$1,981,000 less costly than the LPP. However, the LPP would 
provide greater flood damage reduction and less expected 
residual flood damages compared to the NED Plan. Implementation 
of the recommended LPP would remove 127 structures from the 
100-year flood plain of May Branch. Consequently, the 
recommended project has the potential to reduce future net 
Federally subsidized reimbursements for flood losses.
    The recommended LPP would decrease expected annual flood 
damages along May Branch by more than 96 percent and nearly 
eliminate the flood damages expected to be caused by a flood 
that has a 1.0-percent chance of occurring in any given year 
(100-year event). The recommended plan would also diminish 
flood damages for events larger than the 1.0-percent chance 
event by decreasing flood stages and increasing the chances of 
successful emergency flood fighting. The project would also 
reduce highway and railroad traffic interruptions, lessen 
flood-induced disruptions to the delivery of health and safety 
services, and decrease the threat of loss of life attendant to 
flash flooding in urban settings.
    Based on the preceding information, the Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Civil Works), by memorandum dated 27 October 2005, 
granted an exception to the Administration policy requirement 
that the NED plan be recommended for implementation.
    Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in the surrounding area 
are the direct beneficiaries of the project.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of 
Engineers Report was signed on 19 December 2006.
    (8) Hamilton City, California.
    Location of Study Area: Hamilton City is in Glenn County, 
California, along the west bank of the Sacramento River, about 
85 miles north of the City of Sacramento. The study area 
includes Hamilton City and the surrounding rural area. It is 
bounded by the Sacramento River to the east and the Glenn 
Colusa Canal to the west and extends about two miles north and 
six miles south of Hamilton City. Hamilton City has a 
population of about 2,000. An existing private levee, 
constructed by landowners in about 1904 and known as the ``J'' 
levee, provides some flood protection to the city and 
surrounding area. Surrounding land use is agricultural with 
fruit and nut orchards as the primary crops.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Flooding 
threatens public safety in and around the community of Hamilton 
City. The primary risk of flooding to Hamilton City is from the 
upstream, unregulated tributary streams along the Sacramento 
River between Shasta Dam and Hamilton City. The community 
relies on the ``J'' levee to contain flows in the Sacramento 
River. The ``J'' levee does not meet Corps of Engineers or any 
other levee construction standards and could fail at river 
levels well below the top of the levee. The Sacramento River is 
prevented from meandering. A primary problem of the riverine 
ecosystem in the study area is the loss of the river's natural 
function to erode its banks and migrate through its floodplain. 
Confinement of the river by levees, bank protection, and 
channel stabilization have limited erosion and deposition of 
sediment and the formation of essential riverine and riparian 
habitats. In addition, in the Hamilton City area, private 
levees protecting the community and surrounding agricultural 
lands have severed the Sacramento River from its historic 
floodplain. The levees greatly reduce the area subject to 
relatively frequent, ecologically significant flooding, which 
reduces the establishment of riparian vegetation and associated 
components. The lack of the disturbance pattern from flooding 
in riparian areas has resulted in a reduction in the natural 
mosaic of vegetative patterns. As a result, the quantity and 
quality of riparian and related floodplain habitat and 
dependent species has been diminished.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternative plans were 
formulated for the primary project purpose, ecosystem 
restoration, to ensure an Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan 
could be identified. Combined alternative plans were also 
formulated for both flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
restoration. In general, the most cost efficient plans aligned 
a new levee as far from the river as possible. This allowed the 
greatest extent of floodplain flooding and habitat restoration, 
maximizing ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction 
benefits. To identify the NER plan, an incremental cost 
analysis was performed. Two alternatives were identified as 
``best buys'' in that they provide the greatest increase in 
output for the least increase in cost and have the lowest 
incremental costs per unit of output relative to the other 
cost-effective plans. The comparison of the incremental outputs 
for the two ``best buy'' plans resulted in the identification 
of ecosystem alternative #6 as the NER plan. With the 
identification of alternative #6 as the NER plan, flood damage 
reduction measures were reevaluated and combined alternative 
plans were formulated to address other problems and 
opportunities. The preliminary combined alternative plans were 
screened against the four planning criteria of completeness, 
effectiveness, efficiency and acceptability. An incremental 
cost analysis was performed for the cost effective combined 
alternatives. Combined alternative 6 is determined to be the 
alternative plan that reasonably maximizes both ecosystem 
restoration and flood damage reduction benefits when compared 
to costs, and is identified as the Combined Plan. The non-
Federal sponsor has indicated its willingness to sponsor this 
plan.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan 
consists of actively restoring about 1,500 acres of native 
vegetation, constructing a setback levee about 6.8 miles long, 
starting at about 7.5 feet high and transitioning in two 
increments down to 6 feet high and then to three feet high, and 
breaching the existing ``J'' levee in several locations. The 
levee would provide the community with a 90% level of 
confidence of passing the 75-year, 35-year, and 11-year events, 
respectively, by increment.
    Views of States and Non-Federal Interests: The State of 
California Reclamation Board has agreed to be the non-Federal 
sponsor for the project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Federal and 
regional agencies offered no comments.
    Status of NEPA Document: A Final Environmental Impact 
Statement/Report (FSEIS/R) was completed for the project.
    Estimated Implementation Costs:

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

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

Corps of Engineers......................................      $8,521,000
Imperial Beach..........................................       5,179,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      13,700,000

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Average
                                             annual      Average annual
                 Account                   beneficial   adverse effects
                                            effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Storm Damage Reduction..................   $2,395,000                N/A
Recreation..............................      744,000                N/A
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................    3,139,000                N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Economic Life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 2.16.

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

Corps of Engineers......................................    $ 89,700,000
Ventura County Watershed Protection District............      54,800,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total:..............................................     144,500,000

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

                 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED PLAN




Average Annual Cost per Habitat Unit..................           $10,127
Avg Annual Equivalent Cost per Acre...................        2,723/acre
First Cost per Acre...................................       43,984/acre


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

                                             HEP COMPARISON OF NO ACTION TO RECOMMENDED PLAN (HABITAT UNITS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Steelhead Habitat         Riparian Habitat          Natural Processes              Totals
                                                          Component                 Component                 Component        -------------------------
                   Target year                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   With                      With                      With      No  Action      With
                                                   No  Action    Project     No  Action    Project     No  Action    Project                   Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...............................................          177          177         1032         1032          228          228         1437         1437
5...............................................          234          501         1029         1125          228          240         1491         1866
20..............................................          234          543          944         1145          228          520         1406         2208
50..............................................          234          544          782         1183          286          570         1302         2297
AAHUS...........................................          231          514          917         1147          245          464         1393         2128
Change in AAHUs.................................         ----          283         ----          229         ----          219         ----          731
% Change........................................         ----         122%         ----          25%         ----          89%         ----         53%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio (Recreation): 4:1
(Discount Rate used: 5.625)

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

Corps of Engineers......................................     $29,500,000
Lake County.............................................      15,700,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      45,200,000

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

Corps of Engineers......................................     $87,500,000
Non-Federal Interest....................................      47,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     134,500,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: The CDFG will assume 
ownership of the constructed project and be responsible for all 
operations and maintenance (O&M;) activities associated with the 
ponds. O&M; responsibilities for the project include levee 
inspection and maintenance, repair and replacement of water 
conveyance and control structures, operator's labor, 
maintenance materials, equipment and labor, inspection reports, 
utilities, removal of invasive exotic vegetation such as 
Spartina and other major replacements.
    Estimated Effects:
    NER Effects: Average Annual Habitat Units: 2,000
    Recreation annual benefit: $1,170,000
    Direct Beneficiaries: Native species of flora and fauna 
(including special-status species), the general public, and 
users of the recycled water pipeline after the project is 
completed.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final 
Chief's report was signed on 22 December 2004.
    (13) South Platte River, Denver, Colorado.
    Location of the Study Area: The project is located on the 
Zuni/Sun Valley Reach of the South Platte River, between 8th 
Avenue and Lakewood Gulch.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The City 
and County of Denver has accomplished much towards restoring 
the environmental assets of Denver's South Platte River 
corridor. Only the Zuni to Sun Valley reach, which includes the 
Zuni Power Plant and the Sun Valley housing development, 
remains in a severely degraded condition. A low head Fabridam 
that is used to store water for cooling purposes by the Zuni 
Power Plant dominates this area by backing up water for over 
one mile and blocking upstream movement of aquatic organisms to 
an additional 13 miles of river habitat. Ecosystem problems 
include restricted fish mobility (100 percent blockage during 
low river flows); low dissolved oxygen levels upstream of the 
Fabridam; harmful sediment deposition in areas downstream of 
the Fabridam following periodic flushing of sediment trapped 
above the dam; no protective cover for aquatic species 
downstream of the dam; minimal riparian habitat; virtually no 
wetland habitat; extremely low stream-flow depth-to-width 
ratios; elevated stream temperatures from power plant 
discharged water and from stagnant upstream pools heated by 
sunlight; bank stabilization problems caused by the Fabridam 
backwater; elimination of wildlife mobility due to the presence 
of the Fabridam, significant invasion by non-native plant 
species; minimal river access constraining recreational use of 
the river corridor; and safety problems due to steep banks and 
deep pools behind the dam.
    Opportunities exist to restore this last river reach in 
metropolitan Denver, resulting in unrestricted mobility through 
aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat and substantial 
increases in wetlands and quality aquatic habitat. Once the 
Fabridam is removed and aquatic and riparian habitat is 
restored, an unobstructed South Platte greenway will exist 
through the entire 35-mile reach from Chatfield Dam through the 
Denver metropolitan area.
    Weir Gulch, a west bank tributary entering the South Platte 
River a few thousand feet upstream of the Fabridam, also 
presents a significant opportunity for restoration and 
reconnection of aquatic and riparian habitat with the South 
Platte River.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Measures considered included 
revegetation, bank modifications, Weir Gulch restoration, 
removal of the Fabridam, development of a low flow channel, and 
no action. Also, the potential for abandonment of the dam was 
considered at some future point in time; however, the power 
plant, which relies on the dam for necessary cooling water, is 
expected to operate indefinitely into the future. Combinations 
of these measures were evaluated for cost-effectiveness and 
``best buy'' (incremental analysis).
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is 
the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration 
benefits. This plan consists of the removal of the Fabridam, 
construction of a 250 cfs low flow channel, site utility 
relocations, and full site restoration, including bank 
modifications, revegetation with native plants, and Weir Gulch 
restoration. With removal of the Fabridam, a new alternative 
cooling water supply (a within-channel infiltration gallery 
system) will be constructed to allow continued operation of the 
Zuni Power Plant.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended NER plan 
will restore 15 acres of fish and wildlife habitats along one 
mile of the stream corridor of the South Platte River. Bank 
modifications will include removal of existing riprap, 
stripping of vegetation, excavation of soil material, and use 
of excavated west bank soil material to build out and stabilize 
the east bank. A 250 cfs low flow channel excavated into the 
channel will concentrate flows in a slight meandering pattern, 
creating aquatic and wetland habitat through the formation of 
riffles, pools and bars. The stream corridor throughout the 
project area will be fully vegetated with native species. Weir 
Gulch restoration will consist of clearing, grading and 
revegetation for approximately 600 feet upstream from its 
mouth.
    Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: This project is 
strongly supported locally by the Greenway Foundation, Urban 
Drainage and Flood Control District, and the City and County of 
Denver, the study's non-Federal sponsor. A letter from the 
State of Colorado Division of Wildlife dated 9 March 2001 and a 
letter from the Denver Board of Water Commissioners dated 20 
February 2001 provided extensive support for this project, 
including support for the removal of the Fabridam and for the 
established goals for restoration of the South Platte River 
downstream of 8th Avenue to Lakewood Gulch. There is broad 
community support for South Platte River restoration, as 
reflected in letters of concurrence from the Colorado 
Historical Society and support from nongovernmental 
organizations, including the Audubon Society and Sierra Club. 
Approximately 40 letters of support have been received from 
agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. A State 
of Colorado letter dated 2 December 2002 had a few minor 
concerns that have been formally addressed by the Omaha 
District in a letter dated 25 February 2003.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service letter dated 14 February 2001 states directly 
that the proposed project would not negatively impact any 
threatened and endangered species. The Environmental Protection 
Agency provided two letters, dated 15 March 2001 and 26 
February 2003, supporting the project.
    Status of NEPA Document: The finding of no significant 
impact was signed on 7 August 2002, following public review. No 
opposing or negative responses were encountered or submitted.
    Estimated Implementation Costs:

Corps of Engineers......................................     $13,680,000
Non-Federal.............................................       7,370,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      21,050,000

    Description of Non-Federal Implementation Costs: The City 
and County of Denver will be responsible for acquiring all real 
estate necessary for project construction, including relocation 
of all utilities, as well as construction of the infiltration 
gallery and acquisition of all consumptive water rights. In 
accordance with report recommendations, the Federal Government 
will execute and/or reimburse the non-Federal sponsor for all 
activities that exceed their 35% total project cost obligation.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: At the end of the 
monitoring period, and upon receipt of the OMRR&R; manual, the 
local sponsor will assume normal operation and maintenance 
responsibility for the project. Future operation and 
maintenance requirements will be funded entirely by the local 
sponsor.
    Estimated Effects: The recommended NER plan will restore 15 
acres of fish and wildlife habitats along one mile of the 
stream corridor of the South Platte River. A more natural flow 
regime will be restored by removal of the Fabridam. Negative 
downstream impacts associated with sediment flushing at the 
Fabridam every 3-4 months will be eliminated. The project area 
will experience improved water temperatures and water quality, 
a significant increase in native plants and fish habitat, a 
decrease in non-native plants and noxious weeds, and a net gain 
of approximately 3 acres of wetland. A productive and 
biologically diverse fish and wildlife community, including 
migratory waterfowl and fish-eating birds, riparian songbirds 
and mammals, and native fish, will develop. Unrestricted 
movement by mobile aquatic and riparian species will be 
possible along a 35-mile reach of the South Platte River, since 
restoration of river reaches, both upstream and downstream of 
the proposed project through Denver, has previously been 
completed by local interests.
    Direct Beneficiaries: Fish and wildlife using the South 
Platte River and the residents of the Denver metropolitan area 
and the rest of the Nation will benefit from the improved fish 
and wildlife habitat quality and quantity.
    Relationship to Other Plans: The City and County of Denver 
has spent over $35 million of local funds on numerous projects 
upstream and downstream of Denver County Reach to create a more 
environmentally sound South Platte River through metropolitan 
Denver. As the last major river restoration project in 
metropolitan Denver, the proposed Denver County Reach project 
completes the transformation of the South Platte River from one 
long-abused as solely a means of providing storm drainage and a 
water delivery system for residential, agricultural and 
commercial interests to a river corridor recognized as having 
great environmental value. The project location is upstream and 
contiguous to the Section 1135, Colfax Reach Project.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final 
Chief's report was signed on 16 May 2003.
    (14) Miami Harbor, Florida.
    Location of Study Area: Miami Harbor is located on the east 
coast of Florida in Biscayne Bay near the southern end of the 
Florida peninsula.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Currently 
vessels using the harbor must light-load to enter or leave the 
harbor causing increased transportation costs. Entrance channel 
and inner harbor widths and depths are not adequate for safe, 
cost-efficient transiting of many existing and future container 
ships. Difficult crosscurrents at the beginning of the entrance 
channel and the transition from Cut-3 to Lummus Island Cut have 
resulted in groundings. Ships transiting the Lummus Island Cut 
pass extremely close to vessels docked at the gantry crane 
berths, which results in a surge effect on those ships at dock. 
The surge effect produces a force that tends to pull ships away 
from their moorings and makes unloading difficult.
    Proposed wideners at the beginning of the entrance channel, 
along the southern intersection of Cut-3 with Lummus Island 
Cut, and along the southern edge of Lummus Island Cut will 
improve navigation safety, and reduce tug assists. The proposed 
channel deepening will provide a reduction or elimination of 
light loading costs. Expanding the Fisher Island Turning Basin 
will decrease transit times for ships due to an additional 
turning basin. Those transportation efficiencies will allow the 
existing and future container ships to carry more cargo and 
reduce transportation costs.
    Alternative Plans Considered: To achieve the cost reduction 
benefits mentioned above six initial measures or components 
received consideration. As a result of information received 
during the coordination process, modifications to those 
components resulted in reduced environmental impacts to reef 
and seagrass areas while increasing navigation safety. 
Iterative reviews involving resource agencies, ship simulation 
results, and the harbor pilots resulted in modifications to the 
original six components to provide fourteen total components 
that received consideration. Continued dialogue with interested 
parties completely avoided one reef area at the entrance 
channel and produced similar reductions in seagrass impacts and 
construction costs for the other proposed components. For 
evaluation of benefits different combinations of components 
resulted in nine alternative plans. The nine alternative plans 
include a no action plan, a channel widening alternative 
(Components 1C, 2A, and 5A), an expansion of Fisher Island 
Turning Basin (Component 3B), deepening the previously 
authorized channel configuration to depths of 43-50 feet, four 
combinations of deepening and widening alternatives, and a 36-
foot deepening and widening alternative (Components 6 and 6A 
involving extension and widening of the Dodge Island Channel 
and construction of the Dodge Island Turning Basin). Component 
4 involved a non-structural alternative, which shifts the 
cruise ship channel or Cut-4 to an area of existing deep water.
    The NED plan consists of widening components 1C, 2A, and 5A 
optimized at a depth of 49 feet. The NED plan would provide 
AAEQ benefits of $14,710,000 and AAEQ costs of $10,010,000, 
which resulted in net AAEQ benefits of $4,700,000 and a 
benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1.
    The sponsor is willing to pay for an additional foot of 
depth, which provides for a locally preferred plan of 50 feet. 
The LP plan has AAEQ benefits of $14,740,000 and AAEQ costs of 
$10,650,000, which provides net AAEQ benefits of $4,090,000 and 
a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.4 to 1.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is 
not the plan that maximizes net national economic development 
benefits. The recommended plan is the locally-preferred plan 
and consists of:
           Component 1C--Widen seaward portion of Cut-1 
        from 500 to 800 feet and deepen Cut-1 and Cut-2 from a 
        project depth of 44 to 52 feet for the LP plan;
           Component 2A--Add turn widener at the 
        southern intersection of Cut-3 with Fisherman's Channel 
        and deepen to a project depth of 50 feet for the LP 
        plan;
           Component 3B--Increase the Fisher Island 
        Turning Basin from 1200 to 1500 feet. Truncate the 
        northeast section of the turning basin to minimize 
        seagrass impacts. Deepen from a project depth of 42 
        feet to 50 feet for the LP plan;
           Component 4--Realign the western end of the 
        existing 36-foot main channel about 250 feet to the 
        south, no dredging required; and
           Component 5A--Expand the Sponsor's berthing 
        area by 60 feet and widen the southern edge of 
        Fisherman's Channel (Lummus Island Cut) about 40 feet 
        for a 100-foot increase in total width, reduce the 
        Lummus Island (Middle) Turning Basin to a 1500-foot 
        diameter from the currently authorized 1600-foot 
        diameter, and deepen from a project depth of 42 feet to 
        50 feet for the LP plan.
    Mitigation for channel widening includes construction of 
artificial reef areas and filling existing borrow sites for 
seagrass restoration. Based upon the extent of impacts and the 
ratios discussed, restoration of approximately 24 acres of 
seagrass beds would occur as compensation for unavoidable 
impacts. Seagrass impacts include the permanent loss (removal) 
of 0.2 acres of mixed seagrass beds and the indirect loss of 
7.7 acres of seagrass due to the natural equilibration of side 
slopes for a total of 7.9 acres. In order to replace local 
seagrass functions and values, restoration would be implemented 
within Biscayne Bay, preferably in areas where seagrass once 
occurred and is now absent due to past borrow site excavation 
for causeway construction. New impacts to low relief 
hardbottom/reef and high relief hardbottom/reef total 1.4 and 
3.1 acres, respectively. Based on the Habitat Equivalency 
Analyses calculations, direct impacts to hardbottom/reef 
habitats would require the construction of artificial reef 
habitat at an effective mitigation ratio of 2:1 for high relief 
hardbottom/reef habitat and an effective mitigation ratio of 
1.3:1 for low relief hardbottom/reef habitat. Construction of 
mitigation reefs would occur in two different designs to 
reflect the differences in the habitat structure of the two 
types of hardbottom/reefs impacted. For the high relief reef/
reef habitat development of a total of 6.2 acres would occur. 
For the low relief hardbottom/reef habitat development of a 
total of 1.82 acres would take place. Reef construction would 
occur at proposed artificial sites located south of the 
entrance channel. The sponsor will have responsibility for five 
years of post-construction monitoring of both the seagrass and 
reef mitigation sites.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The recommended plan 
would consist of dredging approximately 6.0 million cubic yards 
of limestone and sands. Mitigation for impacts to entrance 
channel reef areas and seagrass beds is described in the 
paragraph above.
    Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: Public and 
agency views including correspondence and informal comments 
received to date from coordination of the Draft GRR/EIS and 
public meeting on May 6, 2003, have been addressed and are 
included in Appendix N of the final EIS. Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection/State Clearinghouse letter dated May 
14, 2003, described the project at this stage as consistent 
with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) based on 
information contained in the Draft GRR and EIS. All subsequent 
environmental documents prepared for this project must be 
reviewed to determine the project's continued consistency with 
the FCMP. The state's continued concurrence with the project 
will be based, in part, on the adequate resolution of issues 
identified during this and subsequent reviews. The Department's 
Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources issued a state water 
quality certification in the form of a Consolidated Notice of 
Intent to Issue an Environmental Resource Permit and 
Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands on December 23, 
2002, for the channel maintenance dredging and deepening 
project to complete construction of the 42-foot depth along the 
Lummus Island Cut (phase II dredging--not proposed new work). 
The potential environmental impacts of the project have been 
addressed in the permit, water quality certification and 
authorization to use sovereign submerged lands (Permit No. 
0173770-001-EI), pursuant to Chapters 161, 253, and 373, 
Florida Statutes. Final agency action on the permit application 
will constitute the State of Florida's final consistency 
determination. Local agencies included Miami-Dade County 
Department of Environmental Resources management, South Florida 
Regional Planning Council, and the City of Miami. Non-
Government Organizations/Institutions included the Biscayne Bay 
Pilots, and the Biscayne Bay Regional Coordination Team 
(formerly the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative).
    Additionally, numerous national and local environmental 
organizations were coordinated with through the draft EIS 
review and public meeting processes. Reviewers and commenter 
included: The Sierra Club; Save the Manatee; Tropical Audubon 
Society; Surfrider Foundation; Caribbean Conservation Corps and 
Reefkeeper International. Reviewers and Commenter expressed 
concerns about impacts of the project to seagrass and coral 
reef habitats, sufficiency of the mitigation plan presented in 
the DEIS as well as impacts to endangered, threatened and 
protected marine species that inhabit the project area. These 
comments are addressed in Appendix N of the FEIS.
    The sponsor, the Miami-Dade County Florida Seaport 
Department (Port of Miami), in a letter dated April 26, 2004, 
strongly supports the findings and recommendations of the 
General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement 
with one reservation. Regarding the calculation of the cost-
sharing from depths of 0 to 42 feet in Component 5A of the GRR, 
the sponsor believes the recommended widening in this area is 
required for navigational safety due to surge effects and 
conditions due to currents and winds and therefore should be 
cost-shared as a general navigation feature.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Public and agency 
views including correspondence and informal comments received 
to date from coordination of the Draft GRR/EIS and public 
meeting on May 6, 2003, have been addressed and are included in 
Appendix N of the final EIS. As a result of that coordination 
seagrass mitigation has increased from 6.3 acres in the draft 
to 24 acres in the final EIS. Monitoring of those proposed 
seagrass rehabilitation sites has increased from three years to 
five years from the date the mitigation site construction is 
completed. Mitigation monitoring for artificial reef areas has 
increased from three years to five years. The monitoring will 
be conducted by the sponsor and will include coordination with 
resource agencies. Federal agencies included the U.S. Coast 
Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Park 
Service--Biscayne Bay National Park.
    Status of NEPA Document: Coordination of the draft EIS for 
public review occurred from March 14, 2003 through May 20, 2003 
and comments provided during that review period were 
incorporated in the final report. Coordination of the final EIS 
occurred along with the proposed report of the Chief of 
Engineers and the report of the district engineer from 31 Aug 
04 through 30 Nov 04 with receipt of the Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection Clearinghouse Consistency 
Determination.
    Estimated Implementation Costs:

Corps of Engineers......................................    $ 75,140,000
Miami-Dade County Seaport Department....................      50,130,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     125,270,000

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average Annual
              Account                   Equivalent       Average Annual
                                         Benefits            Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic..........................        $14,740,000       $10,650,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.4 (Current Discount Rate: 5.375%)

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

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

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

Corps of Engineers......................................     $11,840,000
Non-Federal (IDNR)......................................       6,380,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      18,220,000

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: The non-Federal O&M; 
costs consist primarily of future monitoring of sediment 
deposition and maintenance dredging if necessary at 
approximately year 26.
    Estimated Effects: Beneficial effects consist of 
approximately 800 average annual habitat units, with no average 
annual adverse effects.
    Project economic life: 50 years.
    Benefit-Cost Ratio: N/A (Current Discount Rate: 5.875%)
    Direct Beneficiaries: Residents of Peoria, East Peoria, 
Tazewell and Peoria Counties, the Illinois River valley, and 
the Nation will benefit from the restored habitat. Wide, 
aquatic and riparian ecosystems are very important vanishing 
resources. The functions they provide are more significant in 
the Illinois River valley because of their scarcity resulting 
from the impacts of sedimentation. The restored aquatic habitat 
would be especially valuable for helping to reestablish the 
health of the Illinois River, once a nationally renowned 
fishery. The Illinois River valley is part of the integrally 
significant Mississippi Flyway, a major migration route for 
waterfowl, shorebirds, and neotropical migrant birds. The 
restored shoreline and terrestrial habitats would be especially 
valuable as resting, nesting, and feeding areas for these 
migratory birds. These functions include wildlife habitat and 
travel corridors for terrestrial and aquatic species including 
endangered species, neo-tropical migratory birds, shorebirds, 
herons and egrets, and waterfowl.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final 
Chief's report was signed on 28 July 2003.
    (17) Wood River Levee System Reconstruction Project, 
Madison County, Illinois.
    Location of Study Area: The study area is located in the 
Mississippi River flood plain of Madison County, Illinois, 
upstream of the city of East St. Louis.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 
potential for levee failure is a major problem. As time 
continues to pass without a comprehensive reconstruction being 
undertaken for the Wood River Drainage and Levee System the 
probability that the project will fail continues to increase. 
The Wood River Drainage and Levee District has remained a good 
steward of this Federal infrastructure. They have historically 
and continue to provide routine operation and maintenance of 
the system and take action to repair as circumstances require 
in accordance with the agreements under which they assumed 
Sponsorship responsibility. However, as all parts of this 
integral system continue to degrade with time the chances of 
multiple failures occurring simultaneously continue to 
increase. This serious situation truly creates a ``pay me now'' 
or ``pay me later'' scenario. The opportunity exists to 
proactively take action to reconstruct the system now in order 
to prevent a future catastrophe caused by system deterioration.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in 
detail included three plans; the no-action, reconstruction, and 
replacement alternatives.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The Recommended Plan 
includes replacement of 163 existing relief wells, construction 
of 60 new relief wells, and reconstruction/replacement of 
various components of 26 closure structures, 38 gravity drains, 
and 7 pump stations. Relief well work is considered a design 
deficiency and has been approved under existing project 
authority. The remaining reconstruction work requires new 
authorization.
    Physical Data on Project Features: Wood River Drainage and 
Levee District (Levee District) lies in southwestern Illinois, 
on the left bank of the Mississippi River flood plain, within 
Madison County, Illinois, between river miles 195 and 203 above 
the Ohio River. The levee district is protected by an urban 
design levee, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis and 
St. Charles counties in Missouri. This system includes 
approximately 21 miles of main line levee, 170 relief wells, 26 
closure (road and railroad) structures, 41 gravity drains and 7 
pump stations. Only 163 wells are included in the 
reconstruction project as 7 wells are 8-inch diameter PVC 
wells, installed in 1985 as a part of the Wood River 
Alterations, Design Memorandum No. 16; L&D; 26(R) and are not 
included as part of the replacement/rehabilitation 
alternatives. The study area lies in the Mississippi River 
flood plain of Madison County, Illinois, just upstream of the 
city of East St. Louis. There are approximately 13,700 acres of 
bottomland within the District and 4,700 acres of hill land 
tributary to the levee units.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The Wood River Drainage and Levee District is the local 
sponsor. The levee district strongly supports the project and 
will fund the local share of the project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: As a result of the 
public review, the District received responses from three 
agencies. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources 
indicated no concerns. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Marion, Illinois indicated no comment. Comments were received 
from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency; coordination 
will continue as necessary with that agency as the project 
moves forward.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment 
has been included as part of the Final General Reevaluation 
Report, dated March 2006. These documents were released for 
public review and comment on 10 January 2005 and comments were 
received by the close of the public comment period on 15 
February 2005.
    Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended Plan:

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

    Estimated Effects of the Recommended Plan

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


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


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

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

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

    Estimated Effects:

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

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

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

    Estimated Effects of the NED Plan:

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average Annual
                                                                                Equivalent       Average Annual
                  Account                               Purposes                Beneficial      Adverse Effects
                                                                                 Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Economic Development Plan.........  FDR..........................             $3,350            $1,096
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: FDR = Flood Damage Reduction.
Average Annual Adverse Effects = Average Annual Costs.
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 3.1 (Current Discount Rate: 5-1/8%)
NED plan recommended? Yes.

    The NED plan would reduce existing damages in the study 
area by up to 86% and would have a fully funded cost of about 
$20.6M for project completion in FY 2013.
    Direct Beneficiaries: The residents in Cynthiana, and to a 
lesser extent, Paris and Millersburg are the direct 
beneficiaries of the project.
    Relationship to Other Plans: A Flood Warning System for the 
entire Licking River Basin was completed under Section 205 of 
the Continuing Authorities Program in 2004. The Corps 
constructed Cave Run Reservoir is located in the basin, along 
with three local protection projects in Salyersville, Newport 
and Dayton, Kentucky.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of 
Engineers Report was signed on 24 October 2006.
    (20) Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana.
    Location of the Study Area: This study focuses on the 
replacement of Bayou Sorrel Lock located on the Morgan City-to-
Port Allen Alternate Route of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. 
Bayou Sorrel Lock is located in Iberville Parish in south 
central Louisiana, approximately 20 miles south of Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Bayou 
Sorrel Lock is an integral feature of the Atchafalaya Basin, 
Louisiana Project feature of the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries project. The project flood flow line was revised 
because of changes and projected changes in the Atchafalaya 
Basin and Atchafalaya Bay. The top of wall of Bayou Sorrel Lock 
is 5 feet lower than the current approved project flood flow 
line and 8 feet below the project flood design grade. The lock 
is stable for its original design loading conditions and is in 
good operating condition; however, the structure cannot be 
raised to accommodate the higher flow line. The lock must be 
replaced or other structural measures must be implemented to 
pass the project flood. These measures have been authorized for 
construction under the authority of the Flood Control, 
Mississippi River and Tributaries project. There is a need to 
develop and implement a plan to safely pass the project flood 
at Bayou Sorrel Lock. There also is a need to increase the 
capacity of Bayou Sorrel Lock to reduce the cost to navigation 
caused by delays at the lock, which averaged 4.7 hours per tow 
in 1999 and are projected to climb to 12.7 hours by the year 
2010. Although delays cannot be eliminated, they can be 
significantly reduced with a larger chamber.
    Lockage congestion at Bayou Sorrel results from both the 
growth in traffic volumes and the increase in the size and 
configuration of the tows. The traffic congestion in Bayou 
Sorrel causes excessive delays and has increased lock transit 
time to a point where it is the highest west of the Mississippi 
River. Lockage delays represent a significant economic loss to 
the shipping industry and, ultimately, to the consumer.
    The need to develop and implement a plan to safely pass the 
project flood at Bayou Sorrel Lock provides an opportunity to 
address current and projected delays to barge tows at the lock. 
The portion of the cost of the construction of a new navigation 
lock at Bayou Sorrel that would be allocated to navigation 
could be decreased if the new lock also provided for the flood 
control objective.
    Alternative Plans Considered:
    Flood Control Plans: Three plans were considered for 
passing the Atchafalaya Basin project flood in the vicinity of 
Bayou Sorrel Lock; (1) an independent float-in floodgate 
located on the flood side of the lock, (2) a replacement-in-
kind lock, that is, a lock with the same chamber dimensions as 
the existing Bayou Sorrel Lock, 56 feet wide by 796 feet long, 
and (3) flood fighting.
    Flood Control/Navigation Plans: Alternative navigation 
plans include (1) the construction of a larger replacement lock 
at Bayou Sorrel Lock; 75 feet and 110 feet wide, (2) the 
replacement of bridges crossing the Atchafalaya River; and (3) 
small scale improvements to increase the navigation efficiency 
at the other locks in the GIWW system.
    Description of the Recommended Plan: The recommended plan, 
which is the National Economic Development (NED) plan, provides 
for: construction of a new, larger lock located adjacent to the 
existing lock at Bayou Sorrel, construction of approach 
channels to the new lock, closure of the existing lock, 
measures to mitigate the impacts of the project on fish and 
wildlife resources, erosion protection, and mooring buoy 
facilities.
    Physical Data on Project Features:
    New Lock. The new lock would have a U-shaped concrete 
chamber, with dimensions of 75 feet by 1,200 feet. The sill 
depth of the lock would be at an elevation of -15 feet NGVD. 
Each set of lock gates would consist of two, 70-degree steel 
sector gate leaves, which would be electrically operated. 
Emptying and filling of the lock would be accomplished by the 
controlled opening of the gates. The guide walls, 1,200 feet 
long on the west side of the lock and 400 feet long on the east 
side, would be constructed of a high density synthetic material 
attached to timber piles. The gates and gate bays on the 
floodway side of the lock, which tie into the East Atchafalaya 
Basin Protection Levee, would have an elevation of 31.7 feet 
NGVD, and the chamber walls and landside gates and gate bays 
would have an elevation of 26.8 feet NGVD.
    Closure of Existing Lock. When the new lock structure is 
completed and becomes operational, the existing lock would be 
closed by an earthen levee extending from the East Atchafalaya 
Basin Protection Levee south of the existing lock across the 
floodway side approach channel to the floodway end of the new 
lock. The existing lock would be abandoned in place and its 
approach channels and chamber would be filled with dredged 
material during periodic maintenance of the Morgan City-to-Port 
Allen Alternate Route.
    Approach Channels. The construction of the new lock would 
require the construction of new approach channels on the 
northern, or protected, side of the lock and on the southern, 
or floodway side, of the lock. The Atchafalaya Basin Floodway 
East Access Channel, which currently joins the south approach 
channel of the existing lock immediately south of the lock, 
would be relocated west of its existing alignment and extended 
southward to tie into the Morgan City-to-Port Allen Alternate 
Route about 5,000 feet south of the new lock. During high 
water, cross currents from the East Access Channel cause 
significant problems to tows approaching the south guide wall. 
Relocating the channel west and extending its junction with the 
new lock's south approach channel will allow barge traffic 
ample time to negotiate the cross currents before reaching the 
lock guide walls.
    The northern approach channel to the new lock, on the 
protected side of the floodway levee, would parallel the 
existing northern approach channel for about 3,500 feet and 
then merge with the existing navigation channel.
    Erosion Protection. Bank stabilization extending 1\1/2\ 
miles to the north and south of Bayou Sorrel Lock will be 
placed to minimize the effect on residences of marine 
transportation activities in the vicinity of Bayou Sorrel Lock. 
Hydraulic analysis required a minimum 2-foot blanket of stone 
from the waters edge to natural ground elevation to protect 
against the most severe wave damage resulting from prop-wash. 
Geotextile separator fabric will be placed between the existing 
bankline and the stone paving.
    Mooring Buoy Facility. In connection with the erosion 
protection feature of the recommended plan a floating mooring 
buoy facility will be incorporated to provide a safe location 
for barges to utilize if needed when using the Lock. The 
locations will include 14 mooring buoys in the vicinity of the 
new lock and 13 mooring buoys north of the Bayou Sorrel Bridge. 
In order to place the 13 mooring buoys north of the Bayou 
Sorrel Bridge dredging will be required to provide at least 9-
feet in the vicinity of the mooring buoy.
    Disposal Areas. Material to be dredged from the new tailbay 
channel would be placed into two existing borrow pits. There 
would be impacts from the conversion of bottomland hardwood 
forest to open water resulting from the channel cut, but no net 
adverse impacts associated with the dredged material disposal. 
The new forebay channel would be cut through existing disposal 
areas and bottomland hardwood forest. Dredged material from 
this new channel would be placed in existing disposal areas to 
the west of the lock. After the new lock is operational, the 
East Access Channel would be relocated. Relocating this channel 
would also impact existing disposal areas and bottomland 
hardwood forest. Dredged material from this channel would be 
placed into the old lock's forebay and tailbay channels and the 
old lock chamber. Mitigation credit would come from the 
planting and management of disposal areas. The area between the 
new forebay channel and the relocated East Access Channel would 
become an uneconomic remnant of real estate to be acquired in 
fee by the Government. This area would be planted and managed 
as a hardwood forest. Mitigation credit would also come from 
eliminating the need for dredged material disposal in the 
Atchafalaya Basin. In the absence of a new Federal project, 
cypress swamp and bottomland hardwood would continue to be 
converted to disposal areas. With the project, existing 
channels would be used for disposal of material dredged during 
routine maintenance, for up to 35 years after project 
completion. These disposal areas would be planted and managed 
as hardwood forest when they are filled to capacity.
    Mitigation Features. The recommended plan was developed 
with the objective of avoiding and minimizing adverse impacts 
to fish and wildlife habitats and compensating for remaining 
adverse impacts. Most of the impacts of the project could 
result from dredging of the connecting channels, relocating the 
East Access Channel, and dredged material disposal. A primary 
focus of mitigation planning was to minimize adverse impacts to 
cypress swamp and bottomland hardwood forest within the 
Atchafalaya Basin. The habitat assessment models do not 
adequately capture the environmental effects of the conversion 
of wet, bottomland hardwood forest to more upland-type habitat 
that does not get periodically flooded. Also, the habitat 
assessment models cannot adequately capture the effect that 
dredged material disposal areas have on nearby cypress swamps 
by blocking-off headwater flows. In order to mitigate for these 
two effects, additional mitigation is planned. A new ditch 
would be constructed through existing dredged material disposal 
sites to connect the East Access Channel with the swamp to the 
west of the disposal sites. A sediment trap would also be built 
on an existing ditch located along the northern boundary of 
existing disposal sites. These features would be built during 
project construction and would serve two purposes--mitigation 
and environmental restoration. The costs associated with 
planting and reforestation are those costs necessary for 
preparing the mitigation areas for planting, reducing competing 
vegetation, replanting as necessary to replace dead seedlings, 
and monitoring the mitigation sites.
    Views of the Federal and Regional Agencies: The U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service do not oppose the recommended plan. The 
Environmental Protection Agency gave the EIS its highest rating 
of ``LO'', or Lack of Objection. The Louisiana Department of 
Transportation has responded by letter in support of the 
feasibility report.
    Status of NEPA Document: An EIS has been prepared for the 
project. The draft EIS was filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) on 15 November 2002, and the final EIS 
was filed with the EPA on 23 July 2004.
    Estimated Implementation Costs: The total estimated cost of 
implementing the recommended plan is $97,500,000. The only new 
costs authorized by this bill to carry out this project are the 
$9,680,000 allocated to navigation improvements needed to 
reduce delays. The costs of construction of the inland 
navigation improvements of the project are to be paid half from 
amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 
half from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust 
Fund. The remainder of the proposed modification of the Bayou 
Sorrel Lock project allocated to safely pass the project flood 
in the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway is a feature of the 
authorized Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries 
project, and as such, no additional authority is required.
    Description of O&M; costs: The Corps would assume operation 
of the lock as part of the Federal operation and maintenance of 
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
    Estimated effects of navigation feature:

Total Average Annual Benefits...........................     $16,586,115
Total Average Annual Cost...............................         863,784
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
Average Annual Net Benefits.............................      15,722,331
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 19.2: 1

    Direct Beneficiaries: Residents of the Bayou Sorrel 
community and the Inland Waterway users.
    Relationship to Other Plans: Bayou Sorrel Lock is an 
integral feature of the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana Project 
feature of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project. The 
lock must be replaced or other structural measures must be 
implemented to pass the project flood. These measures have been 
authorized for construction under the Flood Control, 
Mississippi River and Tributaries project. The need to develop 
and implement a plan to safely pass the project flood provides 
an opportunity to address current and projected delays to barge 
tows at the lock.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final 
Chief's report was signed on 3 January 2005.
    (21) Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana.
    Location of the Study Area: The study area is located in 
south Louisiana between the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers. 
Bayou Lafourche forms the eastern study boundary and Bayou du 
Large and Louisiana Highway 311 form the western boundary. The 
eastern and western boundaries form the apex of a triangle at 
Thibodaux, Louisiana. The southern boundary is the Gulf of 
Mexico.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: Hurricanes 
and tropical storms cause widespread flooding of residential 
and commercial property in the study area. Residential 
communities, commercial and agricultural developments, and 
industries in the study area are generally located along 
alluvial ridges at elevations ranging from 4 or 5 feet to less 
than 1 foot above sea level. The Terrebonne Levee and 
Conservation District maintains about 20 miles of forced 
drainage levees in various communities, including flood control 
structures and drainage pumping stations. The existing levees 
have a maximum elevation of 7 feet above sea level and protect 
against weak tidal and rainfall events, but not hurricanes. The 
three most recent flooding events (Isidore and Lili in 2002, 
and Bill in 2003) have been from the southeast, confirming the 
study findings that prevailing flood events are from that 
direction causing extensive damage (in excess of $170,000,000) 
in Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes.
    The Morganza to the Gulf project will protect a population 
of over 120,000 and safeguard an area of 1700 square miles 
containing residential, commercial and industrial property, and 
unique Louisiana coastal area. Opportunities to be realized 
from a completed project also include enhancement of the 
environmental habitat, navigation industry, commercial and 
recreational fishing, salinity intrusion, and fresh water and 
sediment diversion, as well as coastal preservation and 
restoration.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Eight alternative plans were 
evaluated. A preliminary screening focused detailed efforts on 
the plans that provided the most benefit. Two structural 
alternatives and various non-structural alternatives were 
evaluated in detail. The structural alternatives, known as the 
Reconnaissance and the Highway 57 Alignments, involved raising 
existing levees and constructing new levees to provide reliable 
protection against 50-, 
85-, 100- and 500-year flood frequency events. The structural 
plans included earthen levees, sector-gated floodgate 
structures, and environmental water control structures to 
maintain tidal ebb and flow. The non-structural plans involved 
relocating, purchasing and elevating structures.
    Description of the Selected Plan: The recommended plan, 
known as the Highway 57 Alignment, is the National Economic 
Development (NED) plan. It consists of the construction of 
approximately 72 miles of levee south of Houma, Louisiana, 
varying in elevation from +15.0 ft NGVD to +9.0 ft. NGVD. Also 
required for flood protection is the construction of nine 56-
foot-wide sector gate structures in various waterways and three 
125-foot floodgates in the GIWW. Another significant feature of 
the plan is the 110-ft-wide x 800-ft multipurpose lock 
structure and an abutting floodgate for the Houma Navigation 
Canal. Two existing 56-foot-wide floodgates would require 
removal and replacement: one at Bayou Terrebonne and one at the 
Humble Canal. At twelve locations along the levee alignment, a 
series of 6-foot by 6-foot concrete box culverts will be 
constructed through the earthen levees to maintain tidal ebb 
and flow. Six existing pump stations would be modified during 
construction. Construction would require 1,265 acres of 
perpetual levee right-of-way, 1,415 acres of borrow area, 433 
acres of temporary construction easement and 289 acres of fee-
owned land for all flood control structures, including the 
lock. At twelve locations along the levee alignment, a series 
of 6-foot by 6-foot concrete box culverts will be constructed 
through the earthen levees to maintain tidal ebb and flow. 
Several plans were generated as possible mitigation 
alternatives by the Habitat Evaluation Team, a team composed of 
Federal, state and local environmental commenting agencies. 
Alternatives were generated for fresh marsh and brackish marsh. 
The focus of the plans was to restore marsh to offset direct 
impacts rather than rely on possible future marsh improvement 
by manipulating hydrology.
    Views of States, and Non-Federal Interests: The Louisiana 
Department of Transportation and Development (lead sponsor), 
Terrebonne Parish, City of Houma, Terrebonne Levee and 
Conservation District, and Congressional representatives 
strongly support the project. The sponsor has indicated a 
strong desire to cost-share in the design and construction of 
this project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: No outstanding 
coordination issues exist with other Federal or Regional 
Agencies. None of the agencies objected to the project. The 
project will mitigate for all direct adverse impacts resulting 
from construction.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Programmatic EIS (PEIS) 
and Feasibility Report was filed with the EPA on 26 April 2002.
    Estimated Implementation Costs:

Corps of Engineers......................................    $576,355,000
Non-Federal.............................................     310,345,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     886,700,000

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

                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Average Annual
                                        Equivalent       Average Annual
              Account                   Beneficial      Adverse Effects
                                         Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purposes
NED Hurricane Protection..........            $80,772                N/A
                                   -------------------------------------
Total.............................             80,772               N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years.
Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.72 (Discount Rate: 5.875%)

    Direct Beneficiaries: This project will directly benefit 
the residents and businesses of Terrebonne and Lafourche 
Parishes, and help preserve the Louisiana coastal ecosystem.
    Relationship to Other Plans: This plan is consistent with 
the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act 
program, the Lower Atchafalaya Basin project, Donaldsonville to 
the Gulf project, and the Louisiana Coastal Area Study to 
include all contained projects within the study.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: Signed 23 
August 2002; and a supplemental Chief of Engineers Report 
addressing the sponsor's request for credit for in-kind 
services was signed July 22, 2003.
    (22) Port of Iberia, Louisiana.
    Location of Study Area: The study area is bounded by the 
cities of Lafayette and New Iberia, to the north; the 
Atchafalaya River to the east; the Vermilion River and FWB to 
the west; and the Weeks Bay/Vermilion Bay complex and the Gulf 
of Mexico to the south. Major communities in the study area 
include New Iberia, Lafayette, Jeanerette, Franklin, Abbeville, 
and numerous smaller communities.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: This study 
focused on examining opportunities to alleviate the problems 
stemming from the shallow depth of water access to and from the 
POI by improving navigation access. Rigs and platforms designed 
for the shallow offshore environment were light and could use 
navigation channels with the same width and depth as those used 
for inland waterborne commerce. New structures that 
economically extract the hydrocarbons from the deep-sea bottom 
are much larger and heavier than the traditional shallow rigs. 
These large structures require deeper navigation waterways to 
the Gulf of Mexico than shallow water rigs.
    Some of the ports along the Gulf of Mexico that were 
traditionally leaders in shallow water rig component 
fabrication and rehabilitation have found themselves shut out 
of the deepwater market due to insufficient draft in existing 
navigation channels. The POI is one such port. The POI has 
facilities, infrastructure, and skilled labor in place for 
fabricating deepwater topsides, but many of the major producers 
will not consider bids submitted by the POI fabricators due to 
draft restrictions.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The plan formulation 
rationale is used to evaluate a range of alternatives that 
would satisfy the planning objectives identified previously. 
The POI, Louisiana Navigation Reconnaissance Report evaluated a 
range of alternative alignments from the POI to the Gulf of 
Mexico and recommended a single economically feasible alignment 
for further analysis, known as the FWB Alignment. In 
feasibility, various channel dimensions were investigated to 
improve navigation from the port and facilitate the 
construction and transportation of larger, heavier deepwater 
platforms to the Gulf of Mexico. A preliminary screening was 
performed and one channel dimension was selected for detailed 
analysis. The feasibility analysis evaluated several 
alternatives for dredge disposal.
    Several alternatives existed for routing POI vessel traffic 
to the Gulf of Mexico (Coastal Engineering and Environmental 
Consultants, Inc. 2001 and USACE August 2002). All alternatives 
used the existing channel, known as the Commercial Canal, and 
connected with the GIWW. The first alternative was to route 
vessel traffic west on the GIWW and south through the Vermilion 
River Cutoff to the Gulf of Mexico. The second alternative was 
to route the vessel traffic southwest through Vermilion Bay and 
into the Gulf of Mexico. The third alternative was to route 
vessel traffic east on the GIWW and south through the Lower 
Atchafalaya River. Cursory investigations that explored the 
maintenance of navigation channels through Vermilion Bay and 
the Lower Atchafalaya River revealed that the existence of 
fluid mud rendered these channels inefficient and, in the case 
of Vermilion Bay, increased the likelihood of saltwater 
intrusion. The Lower Atchafalaya River route requires an 
increased travel distance and would likely incur added 
transportation delays because of existing structures. Thus, 
enough information existed to rule out these three alternatives 
from further study.
    The FWB Alignment incorporates four existing channels--
Commercial Canal, west on the GIWW and then south on FWB to the 
Gulf of Mexico--in order to reduce costs. Vessel dimensions are 
used to determine both depth and width of a navigation channel. 
Several proposed channel dimensions were evaluated based on 
current traffic patterns and projected vessel sizes based on 
traffic analysis prepared for the USACE. It was determined that 
the 150-foot channel would adequately serve the majority of 
vessel traffic and therefore, was the maximum channel width 
evaluated. Prior to selection of the 16-foot channel depth 18 
and 20-feet NAVD88 channels were considered, plus 3 feet of 
advanced maintenance and overdepth dredging.
    In response to the marsh loss and erosion in the study 
area, the USACE and other resource agencies concluded that all 
dredged material excavated from the inshore channels for the 
construction and maintenance of this project would be confined 
behind rock dikes and used to reestablish the bank line of the 
eroding channels. Any material not in the confined bank line 
disposal area would then be used for wetland restoration in 
broken marsh areas and shallow open water areas.
    Given the substantive uncertainties that exist with regards 
to projecting market conditions and the associated share of the 
business the Port of Iberia may garner over the next 50 years, 
scenarios were used as the basis for initial decision-making 
for federal investments at the Port of Iberia.
    An incremental analysis was conducted on alternative 
channel depths. The selection of the channel depths is based on 
the size of the deepwater fabrication topsides that POI is 
projected to win. The largest units--12,000 to 15,000-ton 
deepwater topsides fabricated for floating production storage 
and offloading (FPSO) and floating production systems (FPS)--
are comprised of distinct modules, which can be transported on 
two or three separate barges. Allowing for multiple barge tows 
of topside movements means that all projected benefits will 
accrue to the 16-foot channel. The larger topsides projected 
for the GOM market are in the 12,000 to 15,000 ton range. Only 
1-2 larger topsides are projected to be fabricated at POI and 
they are comprised of a 10,000 ton module and 5,000 tons of 
add-on components. The 16-foot channel will accommodate the 
10,000 ton module and therefore the 16-foot channel will 
accommodate all the contracts that are projected to be 
constructed by POI fabricators. Incremental benefits of channel 
depths beyond 16 feet are zero, but there are additional 
construction costs plus incremental maintenance and thus net 
benefits will decrease with larger projects.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The plan that reasonably 
maximizes net contributions to economic development is 
designated as the NED Plan. Due to the uncertainty of 
projections of both the GOM market and the POI market share, a 
scenario approach was taken to evaluate the project benefits. 
Of the 24 possible scenarios, a total of 17 (71 percent of all 
possible outcomes) are expected to produce positive net 
benefits and in every one of these outcomes the 16-foot channel 
alternative produces the highest average annual net benefits 
and corresponding BCR. The range of average annual net benefits 
is from a maximum of $14,193,000 to a minimum of $562,000 and 
the range of BCR is from a maximum of 2.16 to a minimum of 
1.05, all for the 71 percent of positive outcomes. Given these 
results, the 16-foot channel alternative is identified as the 
NED plan and best meets the Federal Criteria for recommending 
authorization.
    The recommended plan would provide for the enlargement of 
GIWW (20 miles), FWB (18 miles) and bar channel (7.5 miles) and 
Commercial Canal (7.5 miles), with an additional 7 miles 
through the Port of Iberia itself. The enlarged channel would 
provide a 16-foot depth and a 150-foot width. Two new concrete 
barge floodgates with concrete receiving structures would be 
constructed for salinity control and navigation--one at each 
end of the FWB Bypass Channel. The least-cost environmentally 
acceptable method of enlarging the channels to 16-feet deep and 
150-feet wide was developed. Dredged material would be used to 
reestablish the bank line, create marsh, and nourish the 
shoreline resulting in net positive environmental impacts. The 
GIWW and FWB channel bank lines would be stabilized to +3.5-
feet NAVD88 and +5-feet NAVD88, respectively, with rock 
armoring that would settle to +1.4-feet NAVD88 (which 
corresponds to the adjacent marsh elevation) within 5 years. 
Removals would be required for impacted facilities including 
oil and gas pipelines and electrical lines. Private and 
commercial bulkheads impacted by the channel enlargement would 
be replaced or modified as appropriate. The recommended plan 
includes features such as floodgates and other features 
designed to accommodate a 20-foot navigation depth in the 
anticipation that channel improvements will be warranted in the 
future.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
Coordination with state, local agencies and the public was 
maintained throughout the study to assure that all aspects of 
the water resource problems were addressed. The following 
statement was provided by the Port of Iberia on 7 March 2006:
    The Local Sponsor's interest in navigation improvements for 
the POI and Acadiana Region has been established since the 
early 1900s. In the early years of the port, access to the Gulf 
of Mexico was primarily needed for recreational and commercial 
fisheries but as the oil & gas industry developed and matured, 
the POI systematically became a ``hub'' for the central Gulf of 
Mexico offshore oil & gas fabrication and service industry. For 
many years the POI, Iberia Parish, Acadiana Business Community, 
and the State of Louisiana have invested millions of dollars of 
infrastructure in support of the jobs and economic well-being 
of the POI. Currently the POI requires significant waterway and 
channel improvements for it to continue to support and service 
the oil & gas industry as the industry moves further out into 
the Gulf of Mexico.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Other Federal 
agencies including The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service support 
the project. There are no outstanding issues.
    Status of NEPA Document: Team members representing various 
Federal and state resource agencies were invited to actively 
participate and take ownership in the navigation study early in 
the process. Invoking the EOPs early in the study process 
supported National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance 
and promoted public acceptance toward the feasibility study. 
Inviting the resource agencies and stakeholders to be actively 
involved in the decision-making process during the entire plan 
formulation process allowed for early resolution of some of the 
controversial issues of the project hence making the review 
process smoother.
    Identification of channel alignment and dredge material 
disposal was accomplished with the help of various agency 
participants as well as stakeholders to ensure a plan was 
pursued that would ensure balance and synergy among human 
development activities and natural systems. The entire dredge 
material disposal plan was considered precedent setting by the 
resource agencies and the majority of the public involved in 
portions of the study process. As a result, the project 
delivery team (PDT) recognized the interdependence of life and 
the physical environment and incorporated this relationship 
into the study process for the best possible outcome. With 
involvement from individuals outside of the USACE, the 
environmental consequences related to deepening existing 
navigation channels allowed a win-win alternative to be 
identified early in the study process. Existing data was used 
to exclude unreasonable alternatives, thus minimizing study 
time and cost.
    The recommended plan meets the majority of the sponsor and 
stakeholder needs while fully engaging nearly all of the EOPs 
to culminate in a positive environmental output. The EOPs are 
consistent with NEPA, the Army's Environmental Strategy with 
its four pillars of prevention, compliance, restoration and 
conservation, and other environmental statutes and Water 
Resource Development Act that govern USACE activities.
    Estimated Implementation Costs:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Estimated Effects of the NER Plan:

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

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

                        Recreation Plan Features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Direct Beneficiaries: The project includes 60 miles of 
levee and floodwalls and protects 32 square miles of urban 
industrial, commercial, and residential area, including 5,000 
significant structures, 94,000 jobs, and $16 billion in fixed 
investment. Beneficiaries include the multiple protected 
communities, cities, counties, and states.
    Relationship to Other Plans: The Kansas Citys Metropolitan 
Levee System was initially authorized by the 1936 Flood Control 
Act and modified by subsequent acts as a system to provide 
uniform flood protection to the industrial and commercial areas 
at the confluence of the Missouri and Kansas Rivers. The system 
was designed to pass a related set of design discharges on the 
Kansas and Missouri Rivers and has been analyzed and modified 
subsequently as a system with uniform levels of protection. The 
effects of reservoirs upstream in the Missouri and Kansas River 
Basins were taken into account in the analysis for this study.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of 
Engineers Report was signed on 19 December 2006.
    (27) Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri.
    Location of Study Area: The Swope Park Industrial area is 
near the intersection of 75th Terrace and Manchester Trafficway 
in southeastern Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. The 
upstream study boundary is at river mile 18.84 from the mouth 
of the Blue River and the downstream boundary is at river mile 
18.25.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The 50-acre 
industrial park was built in the early 1960s and is within an 
area with a 1 percent chance of flooding each year. Of the 10 
structures in the park, 6 are within the regulated floodway 
boundary. Study objectives included investigating the 
feasibility of developing an environmentally, socially, and 
technically acceptable project to reduce recurring flood 
damages in the Swope Park area. The project area also presents 
an opportunity to contribute to Jackson County's Blue River 
Parkway by allowing the establishment of additional riparian 
habitat in conjunction with the flood control project.
    Alternative Plans Considered: The initial screening of 
potential solutions included evaluation of flood insurance/
floodplain regulation, flood warning systems and temporary 
evacuation, floodproofing of the structures, permanent 
evacuation/buy-out of the area, upstream detention dams, 
levees, floodwalls, channel modification and no Federal action.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The report recommends a 
levee and a floodwall system estimated to be 90 percent 
reliable in protecting the area from a flood which has a 1-
percent chance of occurring in any year. The proposed project 
is also estimated to be 64-percent reliable in protecting 
against a flood with 0.2-percent chance of occurrence in any 
year. The recommended plan, which is the National Economic 
Development (NED) plan, accommodates the sponsor's newly 
developed access plan which changes the primary Industrial Area 
access to the south end. The recommended plan incorporates a 
floodwall and levee on an alignment that protects the 
industrial park and revised access corridor and then ties to 
high ground. The alignment also encloses and borders the 
interior drainage pond at the east end of the site. The project 
area also presents an opportunity to contribute to Jackson 
County's Blue River Parkway by allowing restoration of 
currently degraded riparian habitat and establishment of 
additional riparian habitat in conjunction with the flood 
control project. The plan would reduce flood damage costs, 
reduce the threat to loss of life, reduce health and safety 
services disruptions, and preserve the environmental resources 
of the area.
    Physical Data on Project Features: The reporting officers 
recommend construction of a combined floodwall and levee on an 
alignment that protects the Swope Industrial Park and access 
corridor, then ties in to high ground. The recommended plan 
consists of 1,215 meters of reinforced concrete floodwall and 
869 meters of compacted earthen levee for a combined project 
length of 2,084 meters. The alignment encloses and borders an 
interior drainage pond at the east end of the site and protects 
the sponsor's newly developed access plan which changes the 
primary access from the northwest to the southwest side. 
Interior drainage to the ponding area would pass through a 
total of 1,100 meters of reinforced concrete pipe ranging in 
diameter from 30 to 135 centimeters. A rolling-gate closure 
would be constructed at the existing 75th Street entrance. 
Environmental design features include selected riparian and 
woodland tree plantings on 5.3 hectares and creation of a small 
wetland.
    Views of State, and Non-Federal Interests: The Draft 
Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (EA) was 
distributed for a 30-day public review from August 6, 2002, 
until 9 September 2002. During a public meeting in Kansas City, 
Missouri, on 22 August 2002, all public and local entities 
expressed strong support. Extensive coordination was conducted 
with all known local, regional, and State stakeholders.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: Coordination with 
Federal agencies included US EPA Region VII and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service. No negative comments or concerns were 
expressed during the agency review process.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Kansas City District Engineer 
signed a Finding of No Significant Impact on 10 January 2003.
    Estimated Implementation Costs:

Corps of Engineers......................................     $11,037,000
Non-Federal.............................................       5,943,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      16,980,000

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Average annual
                                            equivalent    Average annual
                 Account                    beneficial        adverse
                                              effects         effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NED Flood Damage Reduction..............      $1,402,000        $922,000
      Total.............................       1,402,000        922,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project economic life: 50 years
Benefit-cost ratio: 1.5 (current discount rate = 5.375 percent)

    Direct Beneficiaries: The direct beneficiaries of the plan 
are the approximately 9 business enterprises and their 
employees in approximately 400 jobs who would receive improved 
economic viability and increased safety and stability of 
employment with a reduced threat of flooding.
    Current Status of Chief Engineers Report: A final Chief's 
report was signed on 30 December 2003.
    (28) New Jersey Shore Protection, Great Egg Harbor Inlet to 
Townsends Inlet, New Jersey.
    Location of Study Area: This study area extends 
approximately 16 miles from Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends 
Inlet, and includes the municipalities of Ocean City, Upper 
Township, and Sea Isle City.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in Study: The study 
investigated methods of reducing impacts from coastal erosion 
and storms. The recommended plan calls for construction of a 
beachfill with a berm and dune along the study area oceanfront 
utilizing sand from an offshore borrow source and periodic 
nourishment for a period of 50 years.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Alternatives investigated in 
detail included two plans: the no-action plan and the National 
Economic Development (NED) Plan.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The selected plan for 
South End Ocean City consists of a berm and dune utilizing sand 
obtained from an offshore borrow source. The dune crest will 
have a top elevation of +3.9 meters (+12.8 ft) NAVD88, while 
the berm will extend from the seaward toe of the dune for a 
distance of 30.5 meters (100 feet) at an elevation of 2.1 
meters (7.0 ft) NAVD88 before sloping down at 1V:25H to 
elevation -0.38 meters (-1.25ft) NAVD88. The remainder of the 
design template parallels the existing profile slope to the 
depth of closure. The total width from the seaward toe of the 
dune to Mean High Water (MHW) is 66 meters (218 feet).
    The plan extends from 34th Street to 59th Street for a 
total length of 4,268 meters (14,000 feet or 2.6 miles). 
Initial sand quantity is estimated at 1,218,000 cu meters 
(1,603,000 cu yds) which includes design fill quantity of 
912,000 cu meters (1,192,000 cu yds) plus advanced nourishment 
of 306,000 cu meters (403,000 cu yds). Periodic nourishment of 
306,000 cu meters (403,000 cu yds) is scheduled to occur every 
3 years synchronized with the existing Federal beachfill 
project at Ocean City (Great Egg Harbor Inlet to 34th Street).
    The selected plan for Ludlam Island consists of a berm and 
dune utilizing sand obtained from an offshore borrow source. 
The dune crest will have a top elevation of +4.5 meters (+14.8 
ft) NAVD88, while the berm width will extend from the seaward 
toe for a distance of 15 meters (50 ft) at an elevation of 1.8 
meters (6.0 ft) NAVD88 before sloping down (varying from 1V:30H 
to 1V:50H) to elevation -0.38 meters (-1.25 ft) NAVD88. The 
remainder of the design template parallels the existing profile 
slope to the depth of closure. The total width from the seaward 
toe of the dune to Mean High Water (MHW) varies depending upon 
location from 58 to 87 meters (190 to 285 feet).
    The plan extends from 38 meters (125 feet) north of Seaview 
Avenue in Strathmere to Pleasure Ave (just beyond 93rd Street) 
in Sea Isle City for a total length of 10,507 meters (6.5 
miles). In addition, there is a taper of 224 meters (734 feet) 
into Corson's Inlet State Park and a taper of 20 meters (66 
feet) into the terminal groin south of 93rd Street. Total 
length of beachfill, including tapers, is 10,751 meters (6.7 
miles). The plan also includes the extension of two stormwater 
outfall pipes at both 84th and 88th Street in Sea Isle City by 
46 meters (150 feet).
    Initial sand quantity is 3,911,000 cu meters (5,146,000 cu 
yds) which includes design fill quantity of 2,528,000 cu meters 
(3,326,000 cu yds) plus advanced nourishment of 1,383,000 cu 
meters (1,820,000 cu yds). Periodic nourishment of 1,383,000 cu 
meters (1,820,000 cu yds) is scheduled to occur every 5 years.
    Views of States, Non-Federal Interests and Other Countries: 
The non-Federal sponsor for the New Jersey Shore Protection 
Program is the NJ Department of Environmental Protection 
(NJDEP). NJDEP coordinates with the appropriate municipal 
governments to fulfill non-Federal project requirements, 
including cost-sharing, LERRD, etc. State and affected 
municipal governments support this project.
    Views of Federal and Regional Agencies: The DEIS was made 
available for public review and filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency on May 11, 2001. Public notification of the 
availability of the DEIS was made through a public notice, 
District press release, the District internet website, and 
public workshop meetings held in Sea Isle City and Ocean City. 
A Planning Aid Report and a Section 2(b) Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act Report were received from the USFWS. These 
reports provided official USFWS comments on the project 
pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. A Coastal 
Zone Management Federal Consistency determination was provided 
by the NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program on 27 February 2006.
    Status of NEPA Document: The Final Environmental Assessment 
was included as part of the Final Feasibility Report, dated 
September 2001.
    Estimated Implementation Costs of Recommended Plan:

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

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

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

    Environmental benefits are not quantified monetarily and 
therefore environment specific costs are not included in the 
project benefit/cost ratio.
    Estimated Annual O&M; Costs: There are no Federal annual O&M; 
costs. The local sponsor, the NJDEP, will be responsible for 
all O&M; costs for the NER plan estimated at $175,000 annually.
    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Cost: O&M; responsibilities 
include:
    --Clearing drainage pipes along Philips Drive and the 
connecting swales in the LSC freshwater wetland complex.
    --Clearing the culvert opening for the tidal creek on 
Freedom Way.
    --Clearing accumulated debris, such as trash left behind by 
park visitors.
    --Maintaining signage along the perimeter trail.
    --Maintaining additional LSP staff to oversee the 
constructed habitat features.
    --Mowing, trash collection and, as needed, replacements or 
rehabilitation of any of its components.
    Direct Beneficiaries: The State, residents in the 
surrounding area and all Liberty Science Center visitors are 
the direct beneficiaries of the project.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of 
Engineers Report was signed on 26 Aug 2006.
    (30) Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets, New Jersey.
    Location of Study Area: The study area is located in Ocean 
County, New Jersey, and extends approximately 24 miles from 
Manasquan Inlet south to Barnegat Inlet.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: The 
principal cause of economic damages along the Atlantic Coast of 
New Jersey is storms. Storm damage includes wave attack, 
inundation and storm-induced erosion. Major storms have 
occurred in September 1944, March 1962, March 1984, September 
1985, October 1991, December 1992, and March 1993. The 1962 
Northeaster caused damage estimated at $43,400,000 (1996 
dollars) in the study area. Storm activity during the 1970s and 
1980s was relatively low and coastal development during this 
period accelerated. This has increased the potential for storm 
damages exceeding the 1962 storm despite progress made in some 
areas to minimize losses associated with storm damage. Such 
advances include structural and building code improvements. 
However, many portions of the developed coast remain vulnerable 
due to the proximity of structures to the beach. The December 
1992 storm caused extensive beach and dune erosion within the 
study area, and damages estimated at approximately $10,000,000 
according to records provided by the Federal Insurance 
Administration.
    Alternative Plans Considered: Both non-structural and 
structural alternatives were considered, including permanent 
evacuation from areas subject to storm damage, regulation of 
future development, berm restoration, dune restoration, berm 
and dune restoration with groin field, berm and dune 
restoration with offshore detached breakwater, berm and dune 
restoration with submerged reef, berm and dune restoration with 
perched beach, berm and dune restoration with geotextile tube 
core, seawall/bulkhead, offshore submerged feeder berm, and 
beach dewatering.
    Description of Recommended Plan: The recommended plan is 
the National Economic Development plan and consists of a berm 
and dune utilizing sand obtained from offshore borrow sources. 
In all areas except northern Point Pleasant Beach and Seaside 
Heights, the dune crest will have an elevation of +22 ft NAVD, 
and the berm will extend 75 ft from the seaward toe of the dune 
at an elevation of +8.5 ft NAVD. In northern Point Pleasant 
Beach and Seaside Heights the dune will have an elevation of 
+18 ft NAVD and the berm will extend 100 ft from the seaward 
toe of the dune at an elevation of +8.5 ft NAVD at Seaside 
Heights and +11.5 ft NAVD at northern Point Pleasant Beach. In 
all areas, the berm will slope at 1 V: 10 H from the berm crest 
down to approximately Mean High Water (MHW) at elevation +1.5 
ft NAVD. Below MHW, the design template parallels the existing 
profile slope to the depth of closure.
    The plan extends from the Manasquan Inlet south jetty in 
Point Pleasant Beach southward to the northern boundary of 
Island Beach State Park in Berkeley Township for a total length 
of approximately 14 miles. Initial sand quantity is estimated 
at 10,689,000 cu yards. Periodic nourishment estimated at 
961,000 cubic yards is scheduled to occur every 4 years.
    Physical Data on Protect Features: See following table.

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

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

Corps of Engineers......................................     $46,735,000
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.......      25,165,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................      71,900,000

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

Discount Rate...........................................            7.0%
Period of Economic Analysis.............................        50 years
Price Level.............................................  September 2000
Base Year...............................................            2006
Average Annual Benefits:
    Storm Damage Reduction..............................      $8,294,000
    Local Costs Foregone................................        $865,000
    Recreation..........................................      $2,011,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Total Average Annual Benefits...................     $11,170,000
Average Annual Costs:
    Initial Construction (includes $76,000 in monitoring 
      costs)............................................      $4,260,000
Periodic Nourishment (includes $264,000 in monitoring 
    costs)..............................................      $1,795,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
        Subtotal Average Annual Cost (includes $340,000 
          in monitoring costs)..........................      $6,055,000
    Interest During Construction (IDC)..................        $195,000
    Operations and Maintenance (OMRR&R;).................        $100,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
            Total Average Annual Cost...................      $6,350,000
Net Benefits............................................      $4,820,000
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR).............................             1.8

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Direct Beneficiaries: Those that work and live within the 
flood-prone regions of Union Beach.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: The Chief of 
Engineers Report was signed on 4 January 2006.
    (32) South River, New Jersey.
    Location of Study Area: The South River watershed is 
located within the lower Raritan River Basin in Middlesex 
County, New Jersey. The South River is the first major 
tributary of the Raritan River, located approximately 8.3 miles 
upstream of the Raritan River's mouth at Raritan Bay. The South 
River is formed by the confluence of the Matchaponix and 
Manalapan Brooks, just above Duhernal Lake, and flows northward 
from Duhernal Lake a distance of approximately 7 miles, at 
which point it splits into two branches, the Old South River 
and the Washington Canal. Both branches flow northward into the 
Raritan River. The study investigates flooding and ecosystem 
degradation problems facing the communities of South River, 
Sayreville, and East Brunswick, New Jersey.
    Problems and Opportunities Identified in the Study: 
Periodic hurricanes and storms have caused severe flooding 
along the South River. Flood damages downstream of Duhernal 
Lake are primarily due to storm surges with additional damages 
associated with basin runoff. The communities repeatedly 
affected by storm surges are the Boroughs of South River and 
Sayreville, the Township of Old Bridge, and the Historic 
Village of Old Bridge in East Brunswick Township. There are 
approximately 1,247 structures (1,082 residential; 165 
commercial) in the 100-year floodplains of these communities 
and 1,597 structures in the 500-year floodplains (1,399 
residential; 198 commercial). Storm surges create the greatest 
damages in the study area occurring during hurricanes and 
northeasters that generate sustained onshore winds through 
multiple tidal cycles. For example, the northeaster of March 
1993 (a 25-year event) resulted in approximately $17 million 
damage (2001 dollars) and closed the highway bridge connecting 
the Boroughs of South River and Sayreville.
    The area under consideration for ecosystem restoration 
encompasses 1,278 acres along the Old South River and the 
Washington Canal and includes the 380-acre Clancy Island 
bounded by these waterways and by the Raritan River. Wetland 
plant communities account for 786 acres (61 percent) of the 
study area land cover. Uplands account for the remaining 492 
acres, of which 234 acres are occupied by residential, 
commercial, and industrial development. These wetlands and 
uplands are ecologically degraded. Approximately 527 acres (41 
percent of the study area) are dominated by monotypic stands of 
common reed (Phragmites australis). Other wetland communities 
are scattered around the site in a patchwork of fragmented 
parcels. The uplands are dominated by low quality scrub-shrub 
land cover. The current degraded ecological conditions appear 
to be the result of (1) construction and maintenance dredging 
associated with the Federal navigation channels in the South 
River, Washington Canal, and Raritan River, and (2) clay 
excavation and industrial activity associated with the defunct 
Sayreville brick industry.
    Alternative Plans Considered: In addition to the No Action 
Plan, numerous structural and non-structural alternatives were 
considered to reduce damages associated with hurricanes and 
storm surges. These include: a storm surge barrier/gate at the 
confluences of the South River and Washington Canal with the 
Raritan River; multiple levee and floodwall configurations; 
stream modification; detention basin; acquisition of flood-
prone properties; floodplain zoning; flood proofing; and a 
flood warning system.
    Ecosystem restoration alternatives included the following: 
control of Phragmites, an invasive weed; restoration of salt 
marsh habitat; restoration of tidal creeks and permanently 
flooded ponds; restoration of intertidal mudflats; and 
restoration of wetland forest/scrub-shrub habitat.
    Description of Recommended Plan: Economic analysis of the 
hurricane and storm damage reduction plans indicated that the 
levee/floodwall system with upstream storm surge barrier would 
result in the greatest net benefits. Subsequent optimization of 
this plan determined that a 500-year level of protection would 
provide the greatest net benefits. Consequently, the levee/
floodwall system with upstream storm surge barrier providing a 
500-year level of protection was designated the National 
Economic Development (NED) plan and selected as the recommended 
plan. Using a combination of levees, floodwalls, and a storm 
surge barrier, structural protection will extend to an 
elevation of +21.5 feet NGVD. The levees will extend 10,712 
feet in length, and the floodwalls will extend 1,655 feet in 
length. The storm surge barrier will span the South River for a 
length of 320 feet and will have a clear opening of 80 feet. 
Interior drainage features will also be provided.
    Implementation of the recommended hurricane and storm 
damage reduction plan will result in some unavoidable impacts 
to the natural resources in the South River study area. To 
offset these impacts, mitigation will be provided. Based on an 
analysis of the acreages, costs, benefits, and incremental 
cost/output for each of the mitigation alternative plans 
developed, the selected mitigation plan will entail the 
conversion of 11.1 acres of degraded wetland Phragmites and 
disturbed habitat to a combination of wetland scrub-shrub (7.8 
acres) and salt marsh (3.3 acres).
    The National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan will restore 
100 percent of the 379 acres of degraded wetlands in the 
potential restoration areas. The NER plan will restore the 
following habitats: low emergent marsh (151 acres: 40 percent), 
wetland forest/scrub-shrub (170 acres: 45 percent; plus an 
additional 19 acres, or 5 percent, as upland forest/scrub-
shrub), mudflat (19 acres: 5 percent), and open water (19 
acres: 5 percent).
    Physical Data on Project Features:

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

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

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

Corps of Engineers......................................     $79,500,000
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.......      42,800,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     122,300,000

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

Benefit-Cost Summary for Selected Plan:
    Discount Rate.......................................          5.375%
    Period of Economic Analysis.........................        50 years
    Price Level.........................................    October 2004
    Base Year...........................................            2010
Average Annual Benefits:
    Storm Damage Reduction..............................     $10,260,800
    Ecosystem Restoration...............................   334.9 AAHU's*
Average Annual Costs:
    Storm Damage Reduction:
        Initial Construction............................      $3,478,600
        Interest During Constructiond...................       $ 440,200
        Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R;)..............       $ 244,200
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
            Total Average Annual Costs..................      $4,163,000
        Net Benefits....................................      $6,097,800
        Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR).....................             2.5
    Ecosystem Restoration:
        Initial Construction............................      $3,051,300
        Interest During Construction....................       $ 377,500
        Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R;)..............         $88,900
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
            Total Average Annual Costs..................      $3,517,700
    Benefits............................................    334.9 AAHU's
    Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction and Ecosystem 
      Restoration:
        Initial Construction............................      $6,529,900
        Interest During Construction....................       $ 817,700
        Operation and Maintenance (OMRR&R;)..............       $ 333,100
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
            Total Average Annual Costs..................      $7,680,700

* AAHU's = Average Annual Habitat Units

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

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

    Description of Non-Federal O&M; Costs: The Albuquerque 
Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority and Bernalillo 
County will assume responsibility for the operation and 
maintenance of facilities constructed by this project. An 
operation and maintenance agreement between the two 
organizations will designate the responsibilities.
    Estimated Effects:
    Average annual benefits: $1,697,200
    Benefit to cost ratio: 1.4
    Discount Rate: 5\5/8\ percent, 50-year planning period.
    Direct Beneficiaries: Residents and businesses located with 
the southwest valley of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County.
    Current Status of Chief of Engineers Report: A final 
Chief's report was signed on 29 November 2004.
    (34) Montauk Point, New York.
    Project Location/Congressional District: The study area is 
located at Montauk, in the Town of East Hampton, Suffolk 
County, New York, between the Atlantic Ocean and Block Island 
Sound at the easternmost end of the south fork of Long Island 
(see figure). The study area extends far enough southwest and 
northwest to fully evaluate down drift effects, in order to 
prevent any adverse impacts, and make sure the project is 
environmentally sustainable. The critical area of study 
consists of the fronting bluff, covering about 900 feet of 
shoreline. The project protects the entire historic Montauk 
Point Lighthouse Complex situated on a 70-foot-high bluff 
underlain with glacial till.
    Problems and Opportunities: In the absence of Federal 
action, the study area will be subject to continued erosion of 
the shoreline. Because the present shore protection measures 
were not designed to withstand major storm events over a 
substantial duration, i.e. lack of buried toe, inadequate stone 
size, insufficient overtopping protection, it is expected that 
the revetment now in place will fail in the foreseeable future. 
As a result of future projected revetment instability and 
subsequent bluff erosion, the historic structure, a functioning 
lighthouse, as well as the associated artifacts within the 
vicinity, will be in critical danger if a long-term protection 
plan is not implemented. Opportunities exist to complement, 
enhance and augment local efforts in a collaborative planning 
environment.
    Final Array of Alternatives/Comparison of Alternatives:
    1. No Action: The No Action Plan (no Federal action through 
the Corps of Engineers) would consist of a continuation of the 
without-project condition, which includes the eventual 
displacement of the existing revetment and subsequent erosion 
of the exposed bluff. If allowed to occur, progressive 
instability of the bluff would result in the irrecoverable loss 
of the lighthouse and its associated structures, along with 
archaeological resources.
    2. Stone Revetment: A riprap stone revetment was proposed 
for long-term erosion control. The plan consists of 840 feet of 
revetment protection. The protection covers the most vulnerable 
bluff area that would directly endanger the lighthouse complex 
due to bluff failure without the project.
    3. Offshore Breakwater: The purpose of an offshore 
breakwater is to reduce the storm wave height offshore of the 
revetment toe, thus reducing the wave impact force and runup 
elevation on the bluff. Shoreline recession would be reduced 
with the construction of an offshore breakwater. The existing 
revetment and terracing of the upper bluff would provide an 
acceptable level of protection with the offshore breakwaters in 
place. Breakwaters would be particularly difficult to construct 
due to difficult site access and in-water construction.
    4. T-groins with Beachfill: Similar to a nearer-to-shore 
segmented breakwater system with shore-attached groins, T-
Groins are considered as a second breakwater alternative. 
Similar to the breakwater alternative presented, the purpose of 
T-groins is to reduce the storm wave height, thus reducing the 
wave impact force and runup elevation on the bluff. The 
consistent beach and shoreline recession would be reduced with 
the construction of T-groins and beach fill. The existing 
revetment and terracing of the upper bluff would provide a 
reasonable level of protection with the T-groins in place. T-
groins would be difficult to construct due to difficult site 
access, however, land-based equipment could be utilized. 
Protective beach fill would require renourishment at a rate 
that is difficult to predict until it is constructed and 
monitored.
    5. Beach Fill: For this design, a construction berm with an 
elevation of +11 feet NGVD and 150-feet in width is created. 
Approximately 200,000 cubic yards of beach fill would be 
placed. This alternative was considered not feasible for many 
reasons, including high longshore transport rates requiring 
constant renourishment, environmental impacts from frequent 
renourishment and potential adverse impacts to surfing 
interests. This alternative was rejected because the protection 
would not be reliable.
    6. Relocation: Moving the Montauk Point Lighthouse complex 
would preserve the existing structures, but allow for the 
eventual destruction of the bluff. Prior to the relocation of 
the existing buildings, the arrangement and relationships of 
the structures on the landscape as well as the view to and from 
the lighthouse and bluff would be documented. In addition, 
subsurface archeological investigations would be required at 
the current site as well as at the new lighthouse location. The 
relocation of the Montauk Point Lighthouse complex would have 
an adverse effect on the above and below ground resources. 
Moving the Lighthouse complex would have an adverse impact on 
the archaeological resources and compromise the integrity of 
the lighthouse and associated structures. The New York State 
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has 
objected to any alternative which would involve relocation of 
the lighthouse.
    Recommended Plan: Based on the advantages and disadvantages 
of each of the alternatives discussed, including an evaluation 
of environmental quality, other social effects, regional 
economic development, and national economic development (see 
Table 1), as well as the estimated costs of construction and 
periodic nourishment required as well as benefits provided with 
the potential alternatives (see Table 2), the selected plan for 
protection of Montauk Point and the lighthouse complex and 
bluff is the stone revetment. The stone revetment alternative 
has the lowest annual cost and highest net benefits of the 
alternatives considered. Revetments are a proven method of 
shore protection in this area and have a record of acceptance 
by state and local agencies. In addition, by re-using some of 
the stone already on site in the existing structure, cost 
savings will be realized. Environmental impacts are 
insignificant as are impacts to fishing and surfing interests.

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


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

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

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

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

                                           TABLE 4: NED PLAN SELECTION
                                       [Oct 2004 PL, 5.375% discount rate]
---------------------------------------------------------------