< Back to H.R. 1495 (110th Congress, 2007–2009)

Text of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007

This bill was enacted after a congressional override of the President's veto on November 9, 2007. The text of the bill below is as of Oct 16, 2007 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill).

Source: GPO

I

One Hundred Tenth Congress of the United States of America

At the First Session

H. R. 1495

AN ACT

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.

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

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

Title I—Water Resources Projects

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.

Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.

Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.

Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.

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

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.

Sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.

Sec. 1009. Small projects to prevent or mitigate damage caused by navigation projects.

Sec. 1010. Small projects for aquatic plant control.

Title II—General Provisions

Sec. 2001. Non-Federal contributions.

Sec. 2002. Funding to process permits.

Sec. 2003. Written agreement for water resources projects.

Sec. 2004. Compilation of laws.

Sec. 2005. Dredged material disposal.

Sec. 2006. Remote and subsistence harbors.

Sec. 2007. Use of other Federal funds.

Sec. 2008. Revision of project partnership agreement; cost sharing.

Sec. 2009. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction.

Sec. 2010. Watershed and river basin assessments.

Sec. 2011. Tribal partnership program.

Sec. 2012. Wildfire firefighting.

Sec. 2013. Technical assistance.

Sec. 2014. Lakes program.

Sec. 2015. Cooperative agreements.

Sec. 2016. Training funds.

Sec. 2017. Access to water resource data.

Sec. 2018. Shore protection projects.

Sec. 2019. Ability to pay.

Sec. 2020. Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration.

Sec. 2021. Small flood damage reduction projects.

Sec. 2022. Small river and harbor improvement projects.

Sec. 2023. Protection of highways, bridge approaches, public works, and nonprofit public services.

Sec. 2024. Modification of projects for improvement of the quality of the environment.

Sec. 2025. Remediation of abandoned mine sites.

Sec. 2026. Leasing authority.

Sec. 2027. Fiscal transparency report.

Sec. 2028. Support of Army civil works program.

Sec. 2029. Sense of Congress on criteria for operation and maintenance of harbor dredging projects.

Sec. 2030. Interagency and international support authority.

Sec. 2031. Water resources principles and guidelines.

Sec. 2032. Water resource priorities report.

Sec. 2033. Planning.

Sec. 2034. Independent peer review.

Sec. 2035. Safety assurance review.

Sec. 2036. Mitigation for fish and wildlife and wetlands losses.

Sec. 2037. Regional sediment management.

Sec. 2038. National shoreline erosion control development program.

Sec. 2039. Monitoring ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 2040. Electronic submission of permit applications.

Sec. 2041. Project administration.

Sec. 2042. Program administration.

Sec. 2043. Studies and reports for water resources projects.

Sec. 2044. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local actions.

Sec. 2045. Project streamlining.

Sec. 2046. Project deauthorization.

Sec. 2047. Federal hopper dredges.

Title III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.

Sec. 3002. Cook Inlet, Alaska.

Sec. 3003. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.

Sec. 3004. Seward Harbor, Alaska.

Sec. 3005. Sitka, Alaska.

Sec. 3006. Tatitlek, Alaska.

Sec. 3007. Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Sec. 3008. Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, Arizona.

Sec. 3009. Tucson drainage area, Arizona.

Sec. 3010. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.

Sec. 3011. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.

Sec. 3012. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.

Sec. 3013. Red-Ouachita River Basin Levees, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Sec. 3014. Cache Creek Basin, California.

Sec. 3015. CALFED stability program, California.

Sec. 3016. Compton Creek, California.

Sec. 3017. Grayson Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California.

Sec. 3018. Hamilton Airfield, California.

Sec. 3019. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, California.

Sec. 3020. Kaweah River, California.

Sec. 3021. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.

Sec. 3022. Llagas Creek, California.

Sec. 3023. Magpie Creek, California.

Sec. 3024. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.

Sec. 3025. Petaluma River, Petaluma, California.

Sec. 3026. Pinole Creek, California.

Sec. 3027. Prado Dam, California.

Sec. 3028. Redwood City Navigation Channel, California.

Sec. 3029. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.

Sec. 3030. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.

Sec. 3031. Sacramento River bank protection, California.

Sec. 3032. Salton Sea restoration, California.

Sec. 3033. Santa Ana River Mainstem, California.

Sec. 3034. Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California.

Sec. 3035. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.

Sec. 3036. Seven Oaks Dam, California.

Sec. 3037. Upper Guadalupe River, California.

Sec. 3038. Walnut Creek Channel, California.

Sec. 3039. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.

Sec. 3040. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.

Sec. 3041. Yuba River Basin project, California.

Sec. 3042. South Platte River basin, Colorado.

Sec. 3043. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland.

Sec. 3044. St. George’s Bridge, Delaware.

Sec. 3045. Brevard County, Florida.

Sec. 3046. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.

Sec. 3047. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.

Sec. 3048. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.

Sec. 3049. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.

Sec. 3050. Peanut Island, Florida.

Sec. 3051. Port Sutton, Florida.

Sec. 3052. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.

Sec. 3053. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida.

Sec. 3054. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.

Sec. 3055. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.

Sec. 3056. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho.

Sec. 3057. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.

Sec. 3058. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.

Sec. 3059. Cache River Levee, Illinois.

Sec. 3060. Chicago River, Illinois.

Sec. 3061. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, Illinois.

Sec. 3062. Emiquon, Illinois.

Sec. 3063. Lasalle, Illinois.

Sec. 3064. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.

Sec. 3065. Cedar Lake, Indiana.

Sec. 3066. Koontz Lake, Indiana.

Sec. 3067. White River, Indiana.

Sec. 3068. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.

Sec. 3069. Perry Creek, Iowa.

Sec. 3070. Rathbun Lake, Iowa.

Sec. 3071. Hickman Bluff stabilization, Kentucky.

Sec. 3072. Mcalpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana.

Sec. 3073. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.

Sec. 3074. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed.

Sec. 3075. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.

Sec. 3076. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, regional visitor center, Louisiana.

Sec. 3077. Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana.

Sec. 3078. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.

Sec. 3079. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.

Sec. 3080. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.

Sec. 3081. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.

Sec. 3082. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet relocation assistance, Louisiana.

Sec. 3083. Violet, Louisiana.

Sec. 3084. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana.

Sec. 3085. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.

Sec. 3086. Cumberland, Maryland.

Sec. 3087. Poplar Island, Maryland.

Sec. 3088. Detroit River shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.

Sec. 3089. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.

Sec. 3090. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.

Sec. 3091. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.

Sec. 3092. Ada, Minnesota.

Sec. 3093. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.

Sec. 3094. Grand Marais, Minnesota.

Sec. 3095. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.

Sec. 3096. Granite Falls, Minnesota.

Sec. 3097. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.

Sec. 3098. Red Lake River, Minnesota.

Sec. 3099. Silver Bay, Minnesota.

Sec. 3100. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.

Sec. 3101. Two Harbors, Minnesota.

Sec. 3102. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.

Sec. 3103. Jackson County, Mississippi.

Sec. 3104. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.

Sec. 3105. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.

Sec. 3106. L–15 levee, Missouri.

Sec. 3107. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.

Sec. 3108. River Des Peres, Missouri.

Sec. 3109. Lower Yellowstone project, Montana.

Sec. 3110. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota.

Sec. 3111. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Sec. 3112. Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.

Sec. 3113. Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, Nebraska.

Sec. 3114. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada.

Sec. 3115. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.

Sec. 3116. Passaic River basin flood management, New Jersey.

Sec. 3117. Cooperative agreements, New Mexico.

Sec. 3118. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico.

Sec. 3119. Buffalo Harbor, New York.

Sec. 3120. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and Connecticut.

Sec. 3121. Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers watershed management, New York.

Sec. 3122. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.

Sec. 3123. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.

Sec. 3124. New York State Canal System.

Sec. 3125. Susquehanna River and Upper Delaware River watershed management, New York.

Sec. 3126. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.

Sec. 3127. Wahpeton, North Dakota.

Sec. 3128. Ohio.

Sec. 3129. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio.

Sec. 3130. Mahoning River, Ohio.

Sec. 3131. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3132. Arkansas River Corridor, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3133. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3134. Oklahoma lakes demonstration program, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3135. Ottawa County, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3136. Red River chloride control, Oklahoma and Texas.

Sec. 3137. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.

Sec. 3138. Upper Willamette River watershed ecosystem restoration, Oregon.

Sec. 3139. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.

Sec. 3140. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3141. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3142. Solomon’s Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3143. South Central Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3144. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3145. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.

Sec. 3146. Missouri River Restoration, South Dakota.

Sec. 3147. Cedar Bayou, Texas.

Sec. 3148. Freeport Harbor, Texas.

Sec. 3149. Lake Kemp, Texas.

Sec. 3150. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.

Sec. 3151. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.

Sec. 3152. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.

Sec. 3153. Proctor Lake, Texas.

Sec. 3154. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.

Sec. 3155. Connecticut River restoration, Vermont.

Sec. 3156. Dam remediation, Vermont.

Sec. 3157. Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other nonnative plant control, Vermont.

Sec. 3158. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Sec. 3159. Upper Connecticut River basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Sec. 3160. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.

Sec. 3161. Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Sec. 3162. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.

Sec. 3163. Duwamish/Green, Washington.

Sec. 3164. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge, Washington and Idaho.

Sec. 3165. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho.

Sec. 3166. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.

Sec. 3167. Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia.

Sec. 3168. Greenbrier River basin, West Virginia.

Sec. 3169. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.

Sec. 3170. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.

Sec. 3171. Mcdowell County, West Virginia.

Sec. 3172. Parkersburg, West Virginia.

Sec. 3173. Green Bay Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Sec. 3174. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.

Sec. 3175. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.

Sec. 3176. Upper basin of Missouri River.

Sec. 3177. Upper Mississippi River System environmental management program.

Sec. 3178. Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system new technology pilot program.

Sec. 3179. Continuation of project authorizations.

Sec. 3180. Project reauthorizations.

Sec. 3181. Project deauthorizations.

Sec. 3182. Land conveyances.

Sec. 3183. 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. Eurasian milfoil.

Sec. 4006. Fire Island, Alaska.

Sec. 4007. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.

Sec. 4008. Kuskokwim River, Alaska.

Sec. 4009. Nome Harbor, Alaska.

Sec. 4010. St. George Harbor, Alaska.

Sec. 4011. Susitna River, Alaska.

Sec. 4012. Valdez, Alaska.

Sec. 4013. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.

Sec. 4014. Searcy County, Arkansas.

Sec. 4015. Aliso Creek, California.

Sec. 4016. Fresno, Kings, and Kern counties, California.

Sec. 4017. Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge, Alameda, California.

Sec. 4018. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California.

Sec. 4019. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.

Sec. 4020. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.

Sec. 4021. Orick, California.

Sec. 4022. Shoreline study, Oceanside, California.

Sec. 4023. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.

Sec. 4024. Sacramento River, California.

Sec. 4025. San Diego County, California.

Sec. 4026. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.

Sec. 4027. South San Francisco Bay Shoreline, California.

Sec. 4028. Twentynine Palms, California.

Sec. 4029. Yucca Valley, California.

Sec. 4030. Selenium studies, Colorado.

Sec. 4031. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware.

Sec. 4032. Delaware inland bays and tributaries and Atlantic coast, Delaware.

Sec. 4033. Collier County Beaches, Florida.

Sec. 4034. Lower St. Johns River, Florida.

Sec. 4035. Herbert Hoover Dike supplemental major rehabilitation report, Florida.

Sec. 4036. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.

Sec. 4037. Meriwether County, Georgia.

Sec. 4038. Boise River, Idaho.

Sec. 4039. Ballard’s Island Side Channel, Illinois.

Sec. 4040. Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 4041. Salem, Indiana.

Sec. 4042. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.

Sec. 4043. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.

Sec. 4044. Louisville, Kentucky.

Sec. 4045. Vidalia Port, Louisiana.

Sec. 4046. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Sec. 4047. Clinton River, Michigan.

Sec. 4048. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.

Sec. 4049. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.

Sec. 4050. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Sec. 4051. Northeast Mississippi.

Sec. 4052. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.

Sec. 4053. Bayonne, New Jersey.

Sec. 4054. Carteret, New Jersey.

Sec. 4055. Gloucester County, New Jersey.

Sec. 4056. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.

Sec. 4057. Batavia, New York.

Sec. 4058. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.

Sec. 4059. Finger Lakes, New York.

Sec. 4060. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.

Sec. 4061. Newtown Creek, New York.

Sec. 4062. Niagara River, New York.

Sec. 4063. Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.

Sec. 4064. Upper Delaware River watershed, New York.

Sec. 4065. Lincoln County, North Carolina.

Sec. 4066. Wilkes County, North Carolina.

Sec. 4067. Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Sec. 4068. Flood damage reduction, Ohio.

Sec. 4069. Lake Erie, Ohio.

Sec. 4070. Ohio River, Ohio.

Sec. 4071. Toledo Harbor dredged material placement, Toledo, Ohio.

Sec. 4072. Toledo Harbor, Maumee River, and Lake Channel project, Toledo, Ohio.

Sec. 4073. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.

Sec. 4074. Walla Walla River basin, Oregon.

Sec. 4075. Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4076. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4077. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction.

Sec. 4078. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4079. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4080. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.

Sec. 4081. Woonsocket local protection project, Blackstone River basin, Rhode Island.

Sec. 4082. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.

Sec. 4083. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.

Sec. 4084. Savannah River, South Carolina and Georgia.

Sec. 4085. Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Sec. 4086. Cleveland, Tennessee.

Sec. 4087. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.

Sec. 4088. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.

Sec. 4089. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis, Tennessee.

Sec. 4090. Abilene, Texas.

Sec. 4091. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.

Sec. 4092. Port of Galveston, Texas.

Sec. 4093. Grand County and Moab, Utah.

Sec. 4094. Southwestern Utah.

Sec. 4095. Ecosystem and hydropower generation dams, Vermont.

Sec. 4096. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.

Sec. 4097. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia.

Sec. 4098. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.

Sec. 4099. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.

Sec. 4100. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.

Sec. 4101. Debris removal.

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. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.

Sec. 5011. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program.

Sec. 5012. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.

Sec. 5013. Great Lakes tributary models.

Sec. 5014. Great Lakes navigation and protection.

Sec. 5015. Saint Lawrence Seaway.

Sec. 5016. Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project.

Sec. 5017. Estuary restoration.

Sec. 5018. Missouri River and tributaries, mitigation, recovery, and restoration, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Sec. 5019. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River basins, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Sec. 5020. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program.

Sec. 5021. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland.

Sec. 5022. Hypoxia assessment.

Sec. 5023. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy evaluation and monitoring program.

Sec. 5024. Lock and dam security.

Sec. 5025. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake River salmon survival.

Sec. 5026. Wage surveys.

Sec. 5027. Rehabilitation.

Sec. 5028. Auburn, Alabama.

Sec. 5029. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.

Sec. 5030. Alaska.

Sec. 5031. Barrow, 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. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.

Sec. 5036. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.

Sec. 5037. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.

Sec. 5038. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.

Sec. 5039. California.

Sec. 5040. Calaveras River and Littlejohn Creek and tributaries, Stockton, California.

Sec. 5041. Cambria, California.

Sec. 5042. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.

Sec. 5043. Dana Point Harbor, California.

Sec. 5044. East San Joaquin County, California.

Sec. 5045. Eastern Santa Clara basin, California.

Sec. 5046. LA–3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation, California.

Sec. 5047. Lancaster, California.

Sec. 5048. Los Osos, California.

Sec. 5049. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.

Sec. 5050. Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California.

Sec. 5051. San Francisco, California.

Sec. 5052. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.

Sec. 5053. San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and Suisun Marsh ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 5054. St. Helena, California.

Sec. 5055. Upper Calaveras River, Stockton, California.

Sec. 5056. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.

Sec. 5057. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut.

Sec. 5058. Stamford, Connecticut.

Sec. 5059. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.

Sec. 5060. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.

Sec. 5061. East Central and Northeast Florida.

Sec. 5062. Florida Keys water quality improvements.

Sec. 5063. Lake Worth, Florida.

Sec. 5064. Big Creek, Georgia, watershed management and restoration program.

Sec. 5065. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District.

Sec. 5066. Savannah, Georgia.

Sec. 5067. Idaho, Montana, rural Nevada, New Mexico, rural Utah, and Wyoming.

Sec. 5068. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho.

Sec. 5069. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 5070. Reconstruction of Illinois and Missouri flood protection projects.

Sec. 5071. Illinois River basin restoration.

Sec. 5072. Promontory Point third-party review, Chicago shoreline, Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 5073. Kaskaskia River basin, Illinois, restoration.

Sec. 5074. Southwest Illinois.

Sec. 5075. Calumet region, Indiana.

Sec. 5076. Floodplain mapping, Missouri River, Iowa.

Sec. 5077. Paducah, Kentucky.

Sec. 5078. Southern and eastern Kentucky.

Sec. 5079. Winchester, Kentucky.

Sec. 5080. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Sec. 5081. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.

Sec. 5082. East Atchafalaya basin and Amite River basin region, Louisiana.

Sec. 5083. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock project, Louisiana.

Sec. 5084. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.

Sec. 5085. Southeast Louisiana region, Louisiana.

Sec. 5086. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.

Sec. 5087. Charlestown, Maryland.

Sec. 5088. St. Mary’s River, Maryland.

Sec. 5089. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.

Sec. 5090. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.

Sec. 5091. Crookston, Minnesota.

Sec. 5092. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.

Sec. 5093. Itasca County, Minnesota.

Sec. 5094. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Sec. 5095. Northeastern Minnesota.

Sec. 5096. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.

Sec. 5097. Mississippi.

Sec. 5098. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.

Sec. 5099. Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois.

Sec. 5100. St. Louis, Missouri.

Sec. 5101. St. Louis Regional Greenways, St. Louis, Missouri.

Sec. 5102. Missoula, Montana.

Sec. 5103. St. Mary project, Glacier County, Montana.

Sec. 5104. Lower Platte River watershed restoration, Nebraska.

Sec. 5105. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.

Sec. 5106. Atlantic Coast of New York.

Sec. 5107. College Point, New York City, New York.

Sec. 5108. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.

Sec. 5109. Hudson River, New York.

Sec. 5110. Mount Morris Dam, New York.

Sec. 5111. North Hempstead and Glen Cove North Shore watershed restoration, New York.

Sec. 5112. Rochester, New York.

Sec. 5113. North Carolina.

Sec. 5114. Stanly County, North Carolina.

Sec. 5115. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.

Sec. 5116. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Sec. 5117. Ohio River basin environmental management.

Sec. 5118. Toussaint River navigation project, Carroll Township, Ohio.

Sec. 5119. Statewide comprehensive water planning, Oklahoma.

Sec. 5120. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.

Sec. 5121. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5122. Clinton County, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5123. Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5124. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5125. Northeast Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5126. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York.

Sec. 5127. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Sec. 5128. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina.

Sec. 5129. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.

Sec. 5130. East Tennessee.

Sec. 5131. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.

Sec. 5132. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.

Sec. 5133. Nashville, Tennessee.

Sec. 5134. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.

Sec. 5135. Tennessee River partnership.

Sec. 5136. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.

Sec. 5137. Upper Mississippi embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

Sec. 5138. Texas.

Sec. 5139. Bosque River watershed, Texas.

Sec. 5140. Dallas County region, Texas.

Sec. 5141. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas.

Sec. 5142. Harris County, Texas.

Sec. 5143. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.

Sec. 5144. Onion Creek, Texas.

Sec. 5145. Connecticut River dams, Vermont.

Sec. 5146. Lake Champlain Canal, Vermont and New York.

Sec. 5147. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.

Sec. 5148. Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia.

Sec. 5149. James River, Virginia.

Sec. 5150. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.

Sec. 5151. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.

Sec. 5152. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington.

Sec. 5153. Willapa Bay, Washington.

Sec. 5154. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.

Sec. 5155. Central West Virginia.

Sec. 5156. Southern West Virginia.

Sec. 5157. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.

Sec. 5158. Additional assistance for critical projects.

Title VI—Florida Everglades

Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida.

Sec. 6002. Pilot projects.

Sec. 6003. Maximum costs.

Sec. 6004. Credit.

Sec. 6005. Outreach and assistance.

Sec. 6006. Critical restoration projects.

Sec. 6007. 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.

Sec. 7014. Hurricane and storm damage reduction.

Sec. 7015. Larose to Golden Meadow.

Sec. 7016. Lower Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

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.

Title IX—National levee safety program

Sec. 9001. Short title.

Sec. 9002. Definitions.

Sec. 9003. Committee on Levee Safety.

Sec. 9004. Inventory and inspection of levees.

Sec. 9005. Limitations on statutory construction.

Sec. 9006. Authorization of appropriations.

2.

Definition of Secretary

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

I

Water Resources Projects

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)

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.

(4)

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.

(5)

Salt River (Rio Salado Oeste), Maricopa County, Arizona

The project for environmental restoration, Salt River (Rio Salado Oeste), Maricopa County, 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.

(6)

Salt river (va shly’ay akimel), maricopa county, arizona

(A)

In general

The project for environmental restoration, Salt River (Va Shly’ay 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.

(B)

Coordination with federal reclamation projects

The Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall coordinate the design and construction of the project described in subparagraph (A) with the Bureau of Reclamation and any operating agent for any Federal reclamation project in the Salt River Basin to avoid impacts to existing Federal reclamation facilities and operations in the Salt River Basin.

(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, glenn county, california

The project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Hamilton City, Glenn County, 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)

Silver strand shoreline, imperial beach, california

The project for storm damage reduction, Silver Strand Shoreline, 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 $20,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,065,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000.

(14)

Central and southern florida, indian river lagoon, florida

(A)

In general

The Secretary may carry out the project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and protection of water quality, Central and Southern Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, 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, in accordance with section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680) and the recommendations of the report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 6, 2004.

(B)

Deauthorizations

The following projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act:

(i)

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.

(ii)

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.

(iii)

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.

(15)

Comprehensive everglades restoration plan, central and southern florida, picayune strand restoration project, collier county, florida

The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, Picayune Strand Restoration Project, Collier County, 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.

(16)

Comprehensive everglades restoration plan, central and southern florida, site 1 Impoundment Project, Palm Beach County, Florida

The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, Site 1 Impoundment Project, Palm Beach County, 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.

(17)

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).

(18)

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.

(19)

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.

(20)

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.

(21)

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.

(22)

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.

(23)

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 $9,600,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid ½ from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and ½ from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

(24)

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)

Operation and maintenance

The operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the Houma Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway floodgate features of the project described in subparagraph (A) that provide for inland waterway transportation shall be a Federal responsibility in accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212).

(25)

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; except that the Secretary, in consultation with Vermillion and Iberia Parishes, Louisiana, and consistent with the mitigation plan in the report, shall use available dredged material and rock placement on the south bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the west bank of the Freshwater Bayou Channel to provide incidental storm surge protection that does not adversely affect the mitigation plan.

(26)

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.

(27)

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.

(28)

Argentine, east bottoms, fairfax-jersey creek, and north kansas levees units, missouri river and tributaries at kansas cities, missouri and kansas

The project for flood damage reduction, Argentine, East Bottoms, Fairfax-Jersey Creek, and North Kansas Levees units, Missouri River and tributaries at Kansas Cities, 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.

(29)

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.

(30)

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.

(31)

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.

(32)

New jersey shore protection study, manasquan inlet to barnegat inlet, new jersey

The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey Shore Protection Study, 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.

(33)

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.

(34)

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.

(35)

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.

(36)

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.

(37)

Hocking river basin, Monday creek, ohio

(A)

In general

The project for ecosystem restoration, Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, 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.

(B)

Wayne national forest

(i)

In general

The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, may construct other project features on property that is located in the Wayne National Forest, Ohio, owned by the United States and managed by the Forest Service as described in the report of the Corps of Engineers entitled Hocking River Basin, Ohio, Monday Creek Sub-Basin Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment.

(ii)

Cost

Each project feature carried out on Federal land shall be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained at Federal expense.

(iii)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out this subparagraph $1,270,000.

(38)

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.

(39)

Pawleys island, south carolina

The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawleys 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.

(40)

Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas

(A)

In general

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.

(B)

Navigational servitude

In carrying out the project under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall enforce the navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel (including the removal or relocation of any facility obstructing the project) consistent with the cost sharing requirements of section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).

(41)

Gulf intracoastal waterway, brazos river to port o’connor, matagorda bay re-route, texas

The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O’Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of $17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid ½ from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and ½ from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

(42)

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 ½ from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and ½ from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

(43)

Lower colorado river basin phase i, texas

The project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem 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.

(44)

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.

(45)

Craney island eastward expansion, norfolk harbor and channels, hampton roads, virginia

(A)

In general

The project for navigation, Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Hampton Roads, Virginia: Report of Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $712,103,000.

(B)

Non-federal share

Notwithstanding sections 101 and 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 and 2213), the Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 50 percent.

(46)

Centralia, chehalis river, lewis county, washington

(A)

In general

The project for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Chehalis River, Lewis County, Washington: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 27, 2004, at a total cost of $123,770,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $74,740,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $49,030,000.

(B)

Credit

The Secretary shall—

(i)

credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project up to $6,500,000 for the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest in accordance with the project study plan dated November 28, 1999; and

(ii)

credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

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)

Fort yukon, alaska

Project for flood damage reduction, Fort Yukon, Alaska.

(4)

Little colorado river levee, arizona

Project for flood damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.

(5)

Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas

Project for flood damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.

(6)

Barrel springs wash, palmdale, california

Project for flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, California.

(7)

Borrego springs, california

Project for flood damage reduction, Borrego Springs, California.

(8)

Colton, california

Project for flood damage reduction, Colton, California.

(9)

Dunlap stream, yucaipa, california

Project for flood damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, Yucaipa, California.

(10)

Hunts canyon wash, palmdale, california

Project for flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, California.

(11)

Ontario and chino, california

Project for flood damage reduction, Ontario and Chino, California.

(12)

Santa venetia, california

Project for flood damage reduction, Santa Venetia, California.

(13)

Whittier, California

Project for flood damage reduction, Whittier, California.

(14)

Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california

Project for flood damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.

(15)

Bibb County and City of Macon Levee, Georgia

Project for flood damage reduction, Bibb County and City of Macon Levee, Georgia.

(16)

Fort wayne and vicinity, indiana

Project for flood damage reduction, St. Mary’s and Maumee Rivers, Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana.

(17)

St. francisville, lousiana

Project for flood damage reduction, St. Francisville, Louisiana.

(18)

Salem, massachusetts

Project for flood damage reduction, Salem, Massachusetts.

(19)

Cass river, michigan

Project for flood damage reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, Michigan.

(20)

Crow river, rockford, minnesota

Project for flood damage reduction, Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.

(21)

Marsh creek, minnesota

Project for flood damage reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.

(22)

South branch of the wild rice river, borup, minnesota

Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.

(23)

Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri

Project for flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri.

(24)

Acid brook, pompton lakes, new jersey

Project for flood damage reduction, Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.

(25)

Canisteo river, addison, new york

Project for flood damage reduction, Canisteo River, Addison, New York.

(26)

Cohocton river, campbell, new york

Project for flood damage reduction, Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.

(27)

Dry and otter creeks, cortland, new york

Project for flood damage reduction, Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland, New York.

(28)

East river, silver beach, new york city, new york

Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach, New York City, New York.

(29)

East valley creek, andover, new york

Project for flood damage reduction, East Valley Creek, Andover, New York.

(30)

Sunnyside brook, westchester county, new york

Project for flood damage reduction, Sunnyside Brook, Westchester County, New York.

(31)

Little yankee and mud run, trumbull county, ohio

Project for flood damage reduction, Little Yankee and Mud Run, Trumbull County, Ohio.

(32)

Little neshaminy creek, warrington, pennsylvania

Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrington, Pennsylvania.

(33)

Southampton creek watershed, southampton, pennsylvania

Project for flood damage reduction, Southampton Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania.

(34)

Spring creek, lower macungie township, pennsylvania

Project for flood damage reduction, Spring Creek, Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania.

(35)

Yardley aqueduct, silver and brock creeks, yardley, pennsylvania

Project for flood damage reduction, Yardley Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania.

(36)

Surfside beach, south carolina

Project for flood damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South Carolina.

(37)

Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee

A project for flood damage reduction, Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee.

(38)

Congelosi ditch, missouri city, texas

Project for flood damage reduction, Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas.

(39)

Dilley, texas

Project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas.

(40)

Cheyenne, wyoming

Project for flood damage reduction, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

(b)

Special Rules

(1)

Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas

The Secretary may proceed with the project for the Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(5), notwithstanding that the project is located within the boundaries of the flood control project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950, (64 Stat. 172) and modified by section 99 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41).

(2)

Ontario and chino, california

The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Ontario and Chino, California, referred to in subsection (a)(11) 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)(12) 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)(13) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

(5)

Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california

The Secretary shall review the locally prepared plan for the project for flood damage, Wildwood Creek, California, referred to in subsection (a)(14) and, if the Secretary determines that the plan meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the plan is feasible, the Secretary may use the plan to carry out the project and shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

(6)

Fort wayne and vicinity, indiana

In carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, St. Mary’s and Maumee Rivers, Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana, referred to in subsection (a)(16) the Secretary shall—

(A)

provide a 100-year level of flood protection at the Berry Thieme, Park-Thompson, Woodhurst, and Tillman sites along the St. Mary’s River; and

(B)

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.

(7)

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)(22) 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.

(8)

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)(24) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

(9)

Sandy creek, tennessee

Consistent with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 24, 1948, on the West Tennessee Tributaries project, in carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, Sandy Creek, Tennessee, referred to in section (a)(37)—

(A)

Sandy Creek shall not be considered to be an authorized channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries project; and

(B)

the project shall not be considered to be part of the West Tennessee Tributaries project.

(10)

Dilley, texas

The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred to in subsection (a)(39) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

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)

Aliso creek, california

Projects for emergency streambank protection, Aliso Creek, California.

(2)

St. johns bluff training wall, duval county, florida

Project for emergency streambank protection, St. Johns Bluff Training Wall, Duval County, Florida.

(3)

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Iberville Parish, Louisiana

Projects for emergency streambank protection, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.

(4)

Ouachita and black rivers, arkansas and louisiana

Projects for emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.

(5)

Piney point lighthouse, st. mary’s county, maryland

Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney Point Lighthouse, St. Mary’s County, Maryland.

(6)

Pug hole lake, minnesota

Project for emergency streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.

(7)

Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri

Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri.

(8)

Platte river, platte city, missouri

Project for emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City, Missouri.

(9)

Rush creek, parkville, missouri

Project for emergency streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri, including measures to address degradation of the creek bed.

(10)

Dry and otter creeks, cortland county, new york

Project for emergency streambank protection, Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland County, New York.

(11)

Keuka lake, hammondsport, new york

Project for emergency streambank protection, Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, New York.

(12)

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.

(13)

Owego creek, tioga county, new york

Project for emergency streambank protection, Owego Creek, Tioga County, New York.

(14)

Howard road outfall, shelby county, tennessee

Project for emergency streambank protection, Howard Road outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee.

(15)

Mitch farm ditch and lateral d, shelby county, tennessee

Project for emergency streambank protection, Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee.

(16)

Wolf river tributaries, shelby county, tennessee

Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf River tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee.

(17)

Johnson creek, arlington, texas

Project for emergency streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.

(18)

Wells river, newbury, vermont

Project for emergency streambank protection, Wells River, Newbury, Vermont.

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)

Barrow harbor, alaska

Project for navigation, Barrow Harbor, Alaska.

(2)

Coffman cove, alaska

Project for navigation, Coffman Cove, Alaska.

(3)

Kotzebue harbor, alaska

Project for navigation, Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska.

(4)

Nome harbor, alaska

Project for navigation, Nome Harbor, Alaska.

(5)

Old harbor, alaska

Project for navigation, Old Harbor, Alaska.

(6)

Little rock port, arkansas

Project for navigation, Little Rock Port, Arkansas River, Arkansas.

(7)

Mississippi river ship channel, louisiana

Project for navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.

(8)

East basin, cape cod canal, sandwich, massachusetts

Project for navigation, East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich, Massachusetts.

(9)

Lynn harbor, lynn, massachusetts

Project for navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.

(10)

Merrimack river, haverhill, massachusetts

Project for navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.

(11)

Oak bluffs harbor, oak bluffs, massachusetts

Project for navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.

(12)

Woods hole great harbor, falmouth, massachusetts

Project for navigation, Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, Massachusetts.

(13)

Au sable river, michigan

Project for navigation, Au Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.

(14)

Clinton river, michigan

Project for navigation, Clinton River, Michigan.

(15)

Ontonagon river, michigan

Project for navigation, Ontonagon River, Ontonagon, Michigan.

(16)

Outer channel and inner harbor, menominee harbor, michigan and wisconsin

Project for navigation, Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor, Michigan and Wisconsin.

(17)

Sebewaing river, michigan

Project for navigation, Sebewaing River, Michigan.

(18)

Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan

Project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, Michigan.

(19)

Tower harbor, tower, minnesota

Project for navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota.

(20)

Olcott harbor, olcott, new york

Project for navigation, Olcott Harbor, Olcott, New York.

(21)

Milwaukee harbor, wisconsin

Project for navigation, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

(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)(18), 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)(19) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

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.

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)

San diego river, california

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, California, including efforts to address aquatic nuisance species.

(7)

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.

(8)

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.

(9)

Suisun marsh, san pablo bay, california

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Suisun Marsh, San Pablo Bay, California.

(10)

Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, california

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to address aquatic nuisance species.

(11)

Biscayne bay, florida

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida.

(12)

Clam bayou and dinkins bayou, sanibel island, florida

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clam Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida.

(13)

Mountain park, georgia

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mountain Park, Georgia.

(14)

Chattahoochee fall line, georgia and alabama

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall Line, Georgia and Alabama.

(15)

Longwood cove, gainesville, georgia

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville, Georgia.

(16)

City park, university lakes, louisiana

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes, Louisiana.

(17)

Lawrence gateway, massachusetts

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration at the Lawrence Gateway quadrant project along the Merrimack and Spicket Rivers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in accordance with the general conditions established by the project approval of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, including filling abandoned drainage facilities and making improvements to the drainage system on the Lawrence Gateway to prevent continued migration of contaminated sediments into the river systems.

(18)

Milford pond, Milford, Massachusetts

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Milford Pond, Milford, Massachusetts.

(19)

Mill pond, littleton, massachusetts

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts.

(20)

Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts.

(21)

Clinton river, michigan

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clinton River, Michigan.

(22)

Kalamazoo river watershed, battle creek, michigan

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Kalamazoo River watershed, Battle Creek, Michigan.

(23)

Rush lake, minnesota

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota.

(24)

South fork of the crow river, hutchinson, minnesota

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota.

(25)

St. louis, missouri

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, St. Louis, Missouri.

(26)

Mobley dam, tongue river, montana

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mobley Dam, Tongue River, Montana.

(27)

S and H dam, tongue river, montana

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, S and H Dam, Tongue River, Montana.

(28)

Vandalia dam, milk river, montana

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Vandalia Dam, Milk River, Montana.

(29)

Truckee river, reno, nevada

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including features for fish passage in Washoe County.

(30)

Grover’s mill pond, new jersey

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grover’s Mill Pond, New Jersey.

(31)

Caldwell County, North Carolina

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Caldwell County, North Carolina.

(32)

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

(33)

Dugway creek, bratenahl, ohio

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.

(34)

Johnson creek, gresham, oregon

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.

(35)

Beaver creek, beaver and salem, pennsylvania

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver and Salem, Pennsylvania.

(36)

Cementon dam, lehigh river, pennsylvania

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, Lehigh River, Pennsylvania.

(37)

Ingham spring dam, solebury township, pennsylvania

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.

(38)

Saucon creek, northampton county, pennsylvania

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon Creek, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

(39)

Stillwater lake dam, monroe county, pennsylvania

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Stillwater Lake Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.

(40)

Blackstone river, rhode island

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.

(41)

Wilson branch, cheraw, south carolina

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South Carolina.

(42)

White river, bethel, vermont

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont.

(43)

College lake, lynchburg, virginia

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, College Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia.

(b)

Special rules

(1)

Black lake, alaska

The Secretary shall carry out the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Black Lake, Alaska referred to in subsection (a)(2) if the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate.

(2)

Truckee river, reno, nevada

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, referred to in subsection (a)(29) shall be $6,000,000 and the Secretary shall carry out the project if the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate.

(3)

Blackstone river, rhode island

The Secretary shall carry out the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island, referred to in subsection (a)(40) if the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate.

(4)

College lake, lynchburg, virginia

The Secretary shall carry out the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, College Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia, referred to in subsection (a)(43) if the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate.

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)

Nicholas canyon, los angeles, california

Project for shoreline protection, Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.

(3)

Sanibel island, florida

Project for shoreline protection, Sanibel Island, Florida.

(4)

Apra harbor, guam

Project for shoreline protection, Apra Harbor, Guam.

(5)

Piti, cabras island, guam

Project for shoreline protection, Piti, Cabras Island, Guam.

(6)

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.

(7)

Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard, pennsylvania

Project for shoreline protection, Delaware River in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Pennsylvania.

(8)

Port aransas, texas

Project for shoreline protection, Port Aransas, Texas.

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.

1009.

Small projects to prevent or mitigate damage caused by navigation projects

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 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i):

(1)

Tybee Island, Georgia.

(2)

Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.

1010.

Small projects for aquatic plant control

(a)

In general

The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for aquatic nuisance plant control in the Republican River Basin, Nebraska, under section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610).

(b)

Special rule

In carrying out the project under subsection (a), the Secretary may control and eradicate riverine nuisance plants.

II

General Provisions

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).

.

2002.

Funding to process permits

Section 214(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 119 Stat. 2169; 120 Stat. 318; 120 Stat. 3197) is amended by striking 2008 and inserting 2009.

2003.

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:

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 may credit an in-kind contribution under subparagraph (A) only 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, relocations, 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—

(1)

a legally constituted public body (including a federally recognized Indian tribe); or

(2)

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 June 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)

Agreements and 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 cooperation, 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.

2004.

Compilation of laws

(a)

Compilation of laws enacted after November 8, 1966

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 April 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 on the Internet.

2005.

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 appropriate, the Secretary may combine portions of separate water resources projects with appropriate combined cost-sharing among the various water resources projects in a partnership agreement for a facility under this subsection if the facility serves to manage dredged material from multiple water resources projects located in the geographic region of the facility.

(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 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b).

(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, relocations, and rights-of-way 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.

2006.

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 State of Hawaii, 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.

2007.

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 the Federal agency that provides the funds determines that the funds are authorized to be used to carry out the study or project.

2008.

Revision of project partnership agreement; cost sharing

(a)

Federal allocation

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

(b)

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.

(c)

Cost estimates

The estimated Federal and non-Federal costs of water resources 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.

2009.

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.).

2010.

Watershed and river basin assessments

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 a semicolon; 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).

2011.

Tribal partnership program

(a)

Program

Section 203(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269(b); 114 Stat. 2589) is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (1) by inserting carry out water-related planning activities and after the Secretary may;

(2)

in paragraph (1)(B) 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; and

(3)

in paragraph (2)—

(A)

by striking and at the end of subparagraph (A);

(B)

by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); and

(C)

by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:

(B)

watershed assessments and planning activities; and

.

(b)

Authorization of Appropriations

Section 203(e) of such Act is amended by striking 2006 and inserting 2012.

2012.

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,.

2013.

Technical assistance

Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (a) by striking The Secretary and inserting the following:

(a)

Federal State Cooperation

(1)

Comprehensive plans

The Secretary

;

(2)

by inserting after the last sentence in subsection (a) the following:

(2)

Technical assistance

(A)

In general

At the request of a governmental agency or non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide, at Federal expense, technical assistance to such agency or non-Federal interest in managing water resources.

(B)

Types of assistance

Technical assistance under this paragraph may include provision and integration of hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses.

;

(3)

in subsection (b)(1) by striking this section each place it appears and inserting subsection (a)(1);

(4)

in subsection (b)(2) by striking Up to ½ 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 $2,000,000;

(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.

.

2014.

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;

(25)

Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation;

(26)

Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania;

(27)

Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; and

(28)

Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation.

.

2015.

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 may 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.

2016.

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.

2017.

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 $3,000,000 for each fiscal year.

2018.

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).

2019.

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 December 31, 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).

2020.

Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration

Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679) is amended—

(1)

by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:

(a)

General authority

(1)

In general

The Secretary may carry out a project to restore and protect an aquatic ecosystem or estuary if the Secretary determines that the project—

(A)
(i)

will improve the quality of the environment and is in the public interest; or

(ii)

will improve the elements and features of an estuary (as defined in section 103 of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2902)); and

(B)

is cost-effective.

(2)

Dam removal

A project under this section may include removal of a dam.

; and

(2)

in subsection (e) by striking $25,000,000 and inserting $50,000,000.

2021.

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 $55,000,000.

2022.

Small river and harbor improvement projects

Section 107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(b)) is amended by striking $4,000,000 and inserting $7,000,000.

2023.

Protection of highways, bridge approaches, public works, and nonprofit public services

Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) is amended by striking $1,000,000 and inserting $1,500,000.

2024.

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 $40,000,000.

2025.

Remediation of abandoned mine sites

Section 560(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2336(f)) is amended by striking $7,500,000 and inserting $20,000,000.

2026.

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.

2027.

Fiscal transparency report

(a)

In General

On the third Tuesday of January of each year beginning January 2008, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on—

(1)

the expenditures by the Corps for the preceding fiscal year and estimated expenditures by the Corps for the current fiscal year; and

(2)

for projects and activities that are not scheduled for completion in the current fiscal year, the estimated expenditures by the Corps necessary in the following fiscal year for each project or activity to maintain the same level of effort being achieved in the current fiscal year.

(b)

Contents

In addition to the information described in subsection (a), the report shall contain a detailed accounting of the following information:

(1)

With respect to activities carried out with funding provided under the Construction appropriations account for the Secretary, information on—

(A)

projects currently under construction, including—

(i)

allocations to date;

(ii)

the number of years remaining to complete construction;

(iii)

the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that construction schedule; and

(iv)

a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects to complete during the current fiscal year; and

(B)

projects for which there is a signed partnership agreement and completed planning, engineering, and design, including—

(i)

the number of years the project is expected to require for completion; and

(ii)

estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that construction schedule.

(2)

With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland and intracoastal waterways identified by section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804)—

(A)

the estimated annual cost to maintain each waterway for the authorized reach and at the authorized depth;

(B)

the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance of locks and dams to ensure navigation without interruption; and

(C)

the actual expenditures to maintain each waterway.

(3)

With respect to activities carried out with funding provided under the Investigations appropriations account for the Secretary—

(A)

the number of active studies;

(B)

the number of completed studies not yet authorized for construction;

(C)

the number of initiated studies; and

(D)

the number of studies expected to be completed during the fiscal year.

(4)

Funding received and estimates of funds to be received for interagency and international support activities under section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a).

(5)

Recreation fees and lease payments.

(6)

Hydropower and water storage receipts.

(7)

Deposits into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

(8)

Other revenues and fees collected by the Corps of Engineers.

(9)

With respect to permit applications and notifications, a list of individual permit applications and nationwide permit notifications, including—

(A)

the date on which each permit application is filed;

(B)

the date on which each permit application is determined to be complete;

(C)

the date on which any permit application is withdrawn; and

(D)

the date on which the Corps of Engineers grants or denies each permit.

(10)

With respect to projects that are authorized but for which construction is not complete, a list of such projects for which no funds have been allocated for the 5 preceding fiscal years, including, for each project—

(A)

the authorization date;

(B)

the last allocation date;

(C)

the percentage of construction completed;

(D)

the estimated cost remaining until completion of the project; and

(E)

a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay.

2028.

Support of Army civil works program

(a)

In General

Notwithstanding section 2361 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary may provide assistance through contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants to—

(1)

the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, for establishment and operation of the Southeastern Water Resources Institute to study sustainable development and utilization of water resources in the southeastern United States;

(2)

Lewis and Clark Community College, Illinois, for the Great Rivers National Research and Education Center (including facilities that have been or will be constructed at one or more locations in the vicinity of the confluence of the Illinois River, the Missouri River, and the Mississippi River), a collaborative effort of Lewis and Clark Community College, the University of Illinois, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, and other entities, for the study of river ecology, developing watershed and river management strategies, and educating students and the public on river issues; and

(3)

the University of Texas at Dallas for support and operation of the International Center for Decision and Risk Analysis to study risk analysis and control methods for transboundary water resources management in the southwestern United States and other international water resources management problems.

(b)

Authorization of Appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection (a)(1) $2,000,000, to carry out subsection (a)(2) $2,000,000, and to carry out subsection (a)(3) $5,000,000.

2029.

Sense of Congress on criteria for operation and maintenance of harbor dredging projects

(a)

Findings

Congress finds the following:

(1)

Insufficient maintenance dredging results in inefficient water transportation and harmful economic consequences.

(2)

The estimated dredging backlog at commercial harbors in the Great Lakes alone is 16,000,000 cubic yards.

(3)

Approximately two-thirds of all shipping in the United States either starts or finishes at small harbors.

(4)

Small harbors often have a greater proportional impact on local economies than do larger harbors.

(5)

Performance metrics can be valuable tools in the budget process for water resources projects.

(6)

The use of a single performance metric for water resources projects can result in a budget biased against small and rural communities.

(b)

Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that the operations and maintenance budget of the Corps of Engineers should reflect the use of all available economic data, rather than a single performance metric.

2030.

Interagency and international support authority

Section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a) is amended—

(1)

by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:

(a)

In General

The Secretary may engage in activities (including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies, international organizations, or foreign governments to address problems of national significance to the United States.

;

(2)

in subsection (b) by striking Secretary of State and inserting Department of State; and

(3)

in subsection (d)—

(A)

by striking $250,000 for fiscal year 2001 and inserting $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and

(B)

by striking or international organizations and inserting , international organizations, or foreign governments.

2031.

Water resources principles and guidelines

(a)

National water resources planning policy

It is the policy of the United States that all water resources projects should reflect national priorities, encourage economic development, and protect the environment by—

(1)

seeking to maximize sustainable economic development;

(2)

seeking to avoid the unwise use of floodplains and flood-prone areas and minimizing adverse impacts and vulnerabilities in any case in which a floodplain or flood-prone area must be used; and

(3)

protecting and restoring the functions of natural systems and mitigating any unavoidable damage to natural systems.

(b)

Principles and guidelines

(1)

Principles and guidelines defined

In this subsection, the term principles and guidelines means the principles and guidelines contained in the document prepared by the Water Resources Council pursuant to section 103 of the Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a–2), entitled Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, and dated March 10, 1983.

(2)

In general

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue revisions, consistent with paragraph (3), to the principles and guidelines for use by the Secretary in the formulation, evaluation, and implementation of water resources projects.

(3)

Considerations

In developing revisions to the principles and guidelines under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall evaluate the consistency of the principles and guidelines with, and ensure that the principles and guidelines address, the following:

(A)

The use of best available economic principles and analytical techniques, including techniques in risk and uncertainty analysis.

(B)

The assessment and incorporation of public safety in the formulation of alternatives and recommended plans.

(C)

Assessment methods that reflect the value of projects for low-income communities and projects that use nonstructural approaches to water resources development and management.

(D)

The assessment and evaluation of the interaction of a project with other water resources projects and programs within a region or watershed.

(E)

The use of contemporary water resources paradigms, including integrated water resources management and adaptive management.

(F)

Evaluation methods that ensure that water resources projects are justified by public benefits.

(4)

Consultation and public participation

In carrying out paragraph (2), the Secretary shall—

(A)

consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Council on Environmental Quality; and

(B)

solicit and consider public and expert comments.

(5)

Publication

The Secretary shall—

(A)

submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives copies of—

(i)

the revisions to the principles and guidelines for use by the Secretary; and

(ii)

an explanation of the intent of each revision, how each revision is consistent with this section, and the probable impact of each revision on water resources projects carried out by the Secretary; and

(B)

make the revisions to the principles and guidelines for use by the Secretary available to the public, including on the Internet.

(6)

Effect

Subject to the requirements of this subsection, the principles and guidelines as revised under this subsection shall apply to water resources projects carried out by the Secretary instead of the principles and guidelines for such projects in effect on the day before date of enactment of this Act.

(7)

Applicability

After the date of issuance of the revisions to the principles and guidelines, the revisions shall apply—

(A)

to all water resources projects carried out by the Secretary, other than projects for which the Secretary has commenced a feasibility study before the date of such issuance;

(B)

at the request of a non-Federal interest, to a water resources project for which the Secretary has commenced a feasibility study before the date of such issuance; and

(C)

to the reevaluation or modification of a water resources project, other than a reevaluation or modification that has been commenced by the Secretary before the date of such issuance.

(8)

Existing studies

Revisions to the principles and guidelines issued under paragraph (2) shall not affect the validity of any completed study of a water resources project.

(9)

Recommendation

Upon completion of the revisions to the principles and guidelines for use by the Secretary, the Secretary shall make a recommendation to Congress as to the advisability of repealing subsections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–17).

2032.

Water resource priorities report

(a)

In general

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage from flooding, including—

(1)

the risk to human life;

(2)

the risk to property; and

(3)

the comparative risks faced by different regions of the United States.

(b)

Inclusions

The report under subsection (a) shall include—

(1)

an assessment of the extent to which programs in the United States relating to flooding address flood risk reduction priorities;

(2)

the extent to which those programs may be encouraging development and economic activity in flood-prone areas;

(3)

recommendations for improving those programs with respect to reducing and responding to flood risks; and

(4)

proposals for implementing the recommendations.

2033.

Planning

(a)

Matters to Be Addressed in Planning

Section 904 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281) is amended—

(1)

by striking Enhancing and inserting the following:

(a)

In General

Enhancing

; and

(2)

by adding at the end the following:

(b)

Assessments

For all feasibility reports for water resources projects completed after December 31, 2007, the Secretary shall assess whether—

(1)

the water resources project and each separable element is cost-effective; and

(2)

the water resources project complies with Federal, State, and local laws (including regulations) and public policies.

.

(b)

Planning Process Improvements

The Chief of Engineers—

(1)

shall adopt a risk analysis approach to project cost estimates for water resources projects; and

(2)

not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, shall—

(A)

issue procedures for risk analysis for cost estimation for water resources projects; and

(B)

submit to Congress a report that includes any recommended amendments to section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280).

(c)

Benchmarks

(1)

In general

Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall establish benchmarks for determining the length of time it should take to conduct a feasibility study for a water resources project and its associated review process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Chief of Engineers shall use such benchmarks as a management tool to make the feasibility study process more efficient in all districts of the Corps of Engineers.

(2)

Benchmark goals

The Chief of Engineers shall establish, to the extent practicable, under paragraph (1) benchmark goals for completion of feasibility studies for water resources projects generally within 2 years. In the case of feasibility studies that the Chief of Engineers determines may require additional time based on the project type, size, cost, or complexity, the benchmark goal for completion shall be generally within 4 years.

(d)

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 the residual risk of loss of human life and residual risk to human safety following completion of the proposed project;

(3)

a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of the proposed project; and

(4)

calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are evaluated in an equitable manner.

(e)

Centers of Specialized Planning Expertise

(1)

Establishment

The Secretary may establish centers of expertise to provide specialized planning expertise for water resources projects to be carried out by the Secretary in order to enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts of the Corps of Engineers.

(2)

Duties

A center of expertise established under this subsection shall—

(A)

provide technical and managerial assistance to district commanders of the Corps of Engineers for project planning, development, and implementation;

(B)

provide agency peer reviews of new major scientific, engineering, or economic methods, models, or analyses that will be used to support decisions of the Secretary with respect to feasibility studies for water resources projects;

(C)

provide support for independent peer review panels under section 2034; and

(D)

carry out such other duties as are prescribed by the Secretary.

(f)

Completion of Corps of Engineers Reports

(1)

Alternatives

(A)

In general

Feasibility and other studies and assessments for a water resources project shall include recommendations for alternatives—

(i)

that, as determined in coordination with the non-Federal interest for the project, promote integrated water resources management; and

(ii)

for which the non-Federal interest is willing to provide the non-Federal share for the studies or assessments.

(B)

Constraints

The alternatives contained in studies and assessments described in subparagraph (A) shall not be constrained by budgetary or other policy.

(C)

Reports of chief of engineers

The reports of the Chief of Engineers shall identify any recommendation that is not the best technical solution to water resource needs and problems and the reason for the deviation.

(2)

Report completion

The completion of a report of the Chief of Engineers for a water resources project—

(A)

shall not be delayed while consideration is being given to potential changes in policy or priority for project consideration; and

(B)

shall be submitted, on completion, to—

(i)

the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate; and

(ii)

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

(g)

Completion Review

(1)

In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later than 120 days after the date of completion of a report of the Chief of Engineers that recommends to Congress a water resources project, the Secretary shall—

(A)

review the report; and

(B)

provide any recommendations of the Secretary regarding the water resources project to Congress.

(2)

Prior reports

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, with respect to any report of the Chief of Engineers recommending a water resources project that is complete prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete review of, and provide recommendations to Congress for, the report in accordance with paragraph (1).

2034.

Independent peer review

(a)

Project Studies Subject to Independent Peer Review

(1)

In general

Project studies shall be subject to a peer review by an independent panel of experts as determined under this section.

(2)

Scope

The peer review may include a review of the economic and environmental assumptions and projections, project evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in evaluation of economic or environmental impacts of proposed projects, and any biological opinions of the project study.

(3)

Project studies subject to peer review

(A)

Mandatory

A project study shall be subject to peer review under paragraph (1) if—

(i)

the project has an estimated total cost of more than $45,000,000, including mitigation costs, and is not determined by the Chief of Engineers to be exempt from peer review under paragraph (6);

(ii)

the Governor of an affected State requests a peer review by an independent panel of experts; or

(iii)

the Chief of Engineers determines that the project study is controversial considering the factors set forth in paragraph (4).

(B)

Discretionary

(i)

Agency request

A project study shall be considered by the Chief of Engineers for peer review under this section if 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.

(ii)

Deadline for decision

A decision of the Chief of Engineers under this subparagraph whether to conduct a peer review shall be made within 21 days of the date of receipt of the request by the head of the Federal or State agency under clause (i).

(iii)

Reasons for not conducting peer review

If the Chief of Engineers decides not to conduct a peer review following a request under clause (i), the Chief shall make publicly available, including on the Internet, the reasons for not conducting the peer review.

(iv)

Appeal to Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality

A decision by the Chief of Engineers not to conduct a peer review following a request under clause (i) shall be subject to appeal by a person referred to in clause (i) to the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality if such appeal is made within the 30-day period following the date of the decision being made available under clause (iii). A decision of the Chairman on an appeal under this clause shall be made within 30 days of the date of the appeal.

(4)

Factors to consider

In determining whether a project study is controversial under paragraph (3)(A)(iii), 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.

(5)

Project studies excluded from peer review

The Chief of Engineers may exclude a project study from peer review under paragraph (1)—

(A)

if the project study does not include an environmental impact statement and is a project study subject to peer review under paragraph (3)(A)(i) that 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. 1531 et seq.) or the critical habitat of such species designated under such Act;

(B)

if the project study—

(i)

involves only the rehabilitation or replacement of existing hydropower turbines, lock structures, or flood control gates within the same footprint and for the same purpose as an existing water resources project;

(ii)

is for an activity for which there is ample experience within the Corps of Engineers and industry to treat the activity as being routine; and

(iii)

has minimal life safety risk; or

(C)

if the project study does not include an environmental impact statement and is a project study 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), or section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

(6)

Determination of total cost

For purposes of determining the estimated total cost of a project under paragraph (3)(A), the total 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 total 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 is required to be reviewed under this section.

(b)

Timing of Peer Review

(1)

In general

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 signing of the feasibility cost-sharing agreement for the study and ending on the date established under subsection (e)(1)(A) for the peer review and shall be accomplished concurrent with the conducting of the project study.

(2)

Factors to consider

In any case in which 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—

(A)

the without-project conditions are identified;

(B)

the array of alternatives to be considered are identified; and

(C)

the preferred alternative is identified.

(3)

Limitation on multiple peer review

Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the Chief of Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a project study.

(c)

Establishment of Panels

(1)

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 conduct a peer review for the project study.

(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

The National Academy of Sciences or any other organization the Chief of Engineers contracts with under paragraph (1) to establish a panel of experts shall apply the National Academy of Science’s policy for selecting committee members to ensure that members selected for the panel of experts have no conflict with the project being reviewed.

(4)

Congressional notification

Upon identification of a project study for peer review under this section, but prior to initiation of the review, the Chief of Engineers shall notify the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives of the review.

(d)

Duties of Panels

A panel of experts established for a peer review for a project study under this section shall—

(1)

conduct the peer review for the project study;

(2)

assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief of Engineers;

(3)

receive from the Chief of Engineers the public written and oral comments provided to the Chief of Engineers;

(4)

provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief of Engineers throughout the development of the project study, as requested; and

(5)

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, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief of Engineers, to accompany the publication of the report of the Chief of Engineers for the project.

(e)

Duration of Project Study Peer Reviews

(1)

Deadline

A panel of experts established under this section 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)(5) not more than 60 days after the last day of the public comment period for the draft project study, or, if the Chief of Engineers determines that a longer period of time is necessary, such period of time determined necessary by the Chief of Engineers; and

(B)

terminate on the date of initiation of the State and agency review required by the first section of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887).

(2)

Failure to meet deadline

If a panel of experts 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)(5) on or before the deadline established by paragraph (1) for the peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall complete the project study 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 by electronic means, including the Internet; and

(B)

transmit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a copy of the report, together with any such written response, on the date of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final decision document for the project study.

(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 7 years after such date of enactment.

(i)

Reports

(1)

Initial report

Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the implementation of this section.

(2)

Additional report

Not later than 6 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall update the report under paragraph (1) taking into account any further information on implementation of this section and submit such updated report to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

(j)

Nonapplicability of FACA

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a 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)

a feasibility study or reevaluation study for a water resources project, including the environmental impact statement prepared for the study; and

(B)

any other study associated with a modification of a water resources project that includes an environmental impact statement, including the environmental impact statement prepared for the study.

(2)

Affected state

The term affected State, as used with respect to a water resources 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.

(4)

Total cost

The term total cost, as used with respect to a water resources project, means the cost of construction (including planning and designing) of the project. In the case of a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction or flood damage reduction that includes periodic nourishment over the life of the project, the term includes the total cost of the nourishment.

2035.

Safety assurance review

(a)

Projects subject to safety assurance review

The Chief of Engineers shall ensure that the design and construction activities for hurricane and storm damage reduction and flood damage reduction projects are reviewed by independent experts under this section if the Chief of Engineers determines that a review by independent experts is necessary to assure public health, safety, and welfare.

(b)

Factors

In determining whether a review of design and construction of a project is necessary under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall consider whether—

(1)

the failure of the project would pose a significant threat to human life;

(2)

the project involves the use of innovative materials or techniques;

(3)

the project design lacks redundancy; or

(4)

the project has a unique construction sequencing or a reduced or overlapping design construction schedule.

(c)

Safety assurance review

(1)

Initiation of review

At the appropriate point in the development of detailed engineering and design specifications for each water resources project subject to review under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall initiate a safety assurance review by independent experts on the design and construction activities for the project.

(2)

Selection of reviewers

A safety assurance review under this section shall include participation by experts selected by the Chief of Engineers from among individuals who are distinguished experts in engineering, hydrology, or other appropriate disciplines. The Chief of Engineers shall apply the National Academy of Science’s policy for selecting reviewers to ensure that reviewers have no conflict of interest with the project being reviewed.

(3)

Compensation

An individual serving as an independent reviewer under this section shall be compensated at a rate of pay to be determined by the Secretary and shall be allowed travel expenses.

(d)

Scope of safety assurance reviews

A safety assurance review under this section shall include a review of the design and construction activities prior to the initiation of physical construction and periodically thereafter until construction activities are completed on a regular schedule sufficient to inform the Chief of Engineers on the adequacy, appropriateness, and acceptability of the design and construction activities for the purpose of assuring public health, safety, and welfare. The Chief of Engineers shall ensure that reviews under this section do not create any unnecessary delays in design and construction activities.

(e)

Safety assurance review record

The written recommendations of a reviewer or panel of reviewers under this section and the responses of the Chief of Engineers shall be available to the public, including through electronic means on the Internet.

(f)

Applicability

This section shall apply to any project in design or under construction on the date of enactment of this Act and to any project with respect to which design or construction is initiated during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending 7 years after such date of enactment.

2036.

Mitigation for fish and wildlife and wetlands losses

(a)

Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses

Section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended—

(1)

in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by striking to the Congress and inserting to Congress in any report, and shall not select a project alternative in any report,;

(2)

in the second sentence of paragraph (1) by inserting , and other habitat types are mitigated to not less than in-kind conditions after mitigated in-kind; and

(3)

by adding at the end the following:

(3)

Mitigation requirements

(A)

In general

To mitigate losses to flood damage reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from a water resources project, the Secretary shall ensure that the mitigation plan for each water resources project complies with the mitigation standards and policies established pursuant to the regulatory programs administered by the Secretary.

(B)

Inclusions

A specific mitigation plan for a water resources project under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum—

(i)

a plan for monitoring the implementation and ecological success of each mitigation measure, including the cost and duration of any monitoring, and, to the extent practicable, a designation of the entities that will be responsible for the monitoring;

(ii)

the criteria for ecological success by which the mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful based on replacement of lost functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative characteristics;

(iii)

a description of the land and interests in land to be acquired for the mitigation plan and the basis for a determination that the land and interests are available for acquisition;

(iv)

a description of—

(I)

the types and amount of restoration activities to be conducted;

(II)

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 the mitigation will occur outside the watershed, a detailed explanation for undertaking the mitigation outside the watershed; and

(III)

the functions and values that will result from the mitigation plan; and

(v)

a contingency plan for taking corrective actions in cases in which monitoring demonstrates that mitigation measures are not achieving ecological success in accordance with criteria under clause (ii).

(C)

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 under section 221 of Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b).

(4)

Determination of success

(A)

In general

A mitigation plan under this subsection shall be considered to be successful at the time at which the criteria under paragraph (3)(B)(ii) are achieved under the plan, as determined by monitoring under paragraph (3)(B)(i).

(B)

Consultation

In determining whether a mitigation plan is successful under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consult annually with appropriate Federal agencies and each State in which the applicable project is located on at least the following:

(i)

The ecological success of the mitigation as of the date on which the report is submitted.

(ii)

The likelihood that the mitigation will achieve ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan.

(iii)

The projected timeline for achieving that success.

(iv)

Any recommendations for improving the likelihood of success.

(5)

Monitoring

Mitigation monitoring shall continue until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation has met the ecological success criteria.

.

(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), the status of such mitigation, and the results of the consultation under subsection (d)(4)(B) of such section.

(2)

Projects included

The status report shall include the status of—

(A)

all projects that are under construction as of the date of the report;

(B)

all projects for which the President requests funding for the next fiscal year; and

(C)

all projects that have undergone or completed construction, but have not completed the mitigation required under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

(3)

Availability of information

The Secretary shall make information contained in the status report available to the public, including on the Internet.

(c)

Wetlands mitigation

(1)

In general

In carrying out a water resources project that involves wetlands mitigation and that has impacts that occur within the service area of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, 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).

(2)

Service area

To the maximum extent practicable, the service area of the mitigation bank under paragraph (1) shall be in the same watershed as the affected habitat.

(3)

Responsibility for monitoring

(A)

In general

Purchase of credits from a mitigation bank for a water resources project relieves the Secretary and the non-Federal interest from responsibility for monitoring or demonstrating mitigation success.

(B)

Applicability

The relief of responsibility under subparagraph (A) applies only in any case in which the Secretary determines that monitoring of mitigation success is being conducted by the Secretary or by the owner or operator of the mitigation bank.

2037.

Regional sediment management

(a)

In General

Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended to read as follows:

204.

Regional Sediment Management

(a)

In General

(1)

Sediment use

For sediment obtained through the construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources project, the Secretary shall develop, at Federal expense, regional sediment management plans and carry out projects at locations identified in plans developed under this section, or identified jointly by the non-Federal interest and the Secretary, for use in the construction, repair, modification, or rehabilitation of projects associated with Federal water resources projects for purposes listed in paragraph (3).

(2)

Cooperation

The Secretary shall develop plans under this subsection in cooperation with the appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies.

(3)

Purposes for sediment use in projects

The purposes of using sediment for the construction, repair, modification, or rehabilitation of Federal water resources projects are—

(A)

to reduce storm damage to property;

(B)

to protect, restore, and create aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands; and

(C)

to transport and place suitable sediment.

(b)

Secretarial Findings

Subject to subsection (c), projects carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out in any case in which the Secretary finds that—

(1)

the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify the cost of the project; and

(2)

the project will not result in environmental degradation.

(c)

Determination of Project Costs

(1)

Costs of construction

(A)

In general

Costs associated with construction of a project under this section or identified in a regional sediment management plan shall be limited solely to construction costs that are in excess of the costs necessary to carry out the dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources project in the most cost-effective way, consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria.

(B)

Cost sharing

(i)

In general

Except as provided in clause (ii), the non-Federal share of the construction cost of a project under this section shall be determined as provided in subsections (a) through (d) of section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).

(ii)

Special rule

Construction of a project under this section 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 is located in a disadvantaged community as determined by the Secretary, may be carried out at Federal expense.

(C)

Total cost

The total Federal costs associated with construction of a project under this section may not exceed $5,000,000.

(2)

Operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation costs

Operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with a project under this section are the responsibility of the non-Federal interest.

(d)

Selection of Dredged Material Disposal Method for Environmental Purposes

(1)

In general

In developing and carrying out a Federal water resources project involving the disposal of dredged material, the Secretary may select, with the consent of the non-Federal interest, a disposal method that is not the least cost option if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of the disposal method are reasonable in relation to the environmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion.

(2)

Federal share

The Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined in accordance with subsection (c).

(e)

State and Regional Plans

The Secretary may—

(1)

cooperate with any State in the preparation of a comprehensive State or regional sediment management plan within the boundaries of the State;

(2)

encourage State participation in the implementation of the plan; and

(3)

submit to Congress reports and recommendations with respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out the plan.

(f)

Priority Areas

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give priority to a regional sediment management project in the vicinity of each of the following:

(1)

Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas.

(2)

Fletcher Cove, California.

(3)

Egmont Key, Florida.

(4)

Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.

(5)

Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

(6)

Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York.

(7)

Smith Point Park Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York.

(8)

Morehead City, North Carolina.

(9)

Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio.

(10)

Galveston Bay, Texas.

(11)

Benson Beach, Washington.

(g)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 per fiscal year, of which not more than $5,000,000 per fiscal year may be used for the development of regional sediment management plans authorized by subsection (e) and of which not more than $3,000,000 per fiscal year may be used for construction of projects to which subsection (c)(1)(B)(ii) applies. Such funds shall remain available until expended.

.

(b)

Conforming Repeal

(1)

In general

Section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed.

(2)

Existing projects

The Secretary may complete any project being carried out under section 145 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.

2038.

National shoreline erosion control development program

(a)

In General

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 to read as follows:

3.

Storm and hurricane restoration and impact minimization program

(a)

Construction of Small Shore and Beach Restoration and Protection Projects

(1)

In general

The Secretary may carry out a program for the construction of small shore and beach restoration and protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress that otherwise comply with the first section of this Act if the Secretary determines that such construction is advisable.

(2)

Local cooperation

The local cooperation requirement of the first section of this Act shall apply to a project under this section.

(3)

Completeness

A project under this subsection—

(A)

shall be complete; and

(B)

shall not commit the United States to any additional improvement to ensure the successful operation of the project; except for participation in periodic beach nourishment in accordance with—

(i)

the first section of this Act; and

(ii)

the procedure for projects authorized after submission of a survey report.

(b)

National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct under the program authorized by subsection (a) a national shoreline erosion control development and demonstration program (referred to in this section as the demonstration program).

(2)

Requirements

(A)

In general

The demonstration program shall include provisions for—

(i)

projects consisting of planning, design, construction, and monitoring of prototype engineered and native and naturalized vegetative shoreline erosion control devices and methods;

(ii)

monitoring of the applicable prototypes;

(iii)

detailed engineering and environmental reports on the results of each project carried out under the demonstraton program; and

(iv)

technology transfers, as appropriate, to private property owners, State and local entities, nonprofit educational institutions, and nongovernmental organizations.

(B)

Determination of feasibility

A project under the demonstration program shall not be carried out until the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

(C)

Emphasis

A project under the demonstration program shall emphasize, to the maximum extent practicable—

(i)

the development and demonstration of innovative technologies;

(ii)

efficient designs to prevent erosion at a shoreline site, taking into account the lifecycle cost of the design, including cleanup, maintenance, and amortization;

(iii)

new and enhanced shore protection project design and project formulation tools the purposes of which are to improve the physical performance, and lower the lifecycle costs, of the projects;

(iv)

natural designs, including the use of native and naturalized vegetation or temporary structures that minimize permanent structural alterations to the shoreline;

(v)

the avoidance of negative impacts to adjacent shorefront communities;

(vi)

in areas with substantial residential or commercial interests located adjacent to the shoreline, designs that do not impair the aesthetic appeal of the interests;

(vii)

the potential for long-term protection afforded by the technology; and

(viii)

recommendations developed from evaluations of the program established under the Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962–5 note), including—

(I)

adequate consideration of the subgrade;

(II)

proper filtration;

(III)

durable components;

(IV)

adequate connection between units; and

(V)

consideration of additional relevant information.

(D)

Sites

(i)

In general

Each project under the demonstration program may be carried out at—

(I)

a privately owned site with substantial public access; or

(II)

a publicly owned site on open coast or in tidal waters.

(ii)

Selection

The Secretary shall develop criteria for the selection of sites for projects under the demonstration program, including criteria based on—

(I)

a variety of geographic and climatic conditions;

(II)

the size of the population that is dependent on the beaches for recreation or the protection of private property or public infrastructure;

(III)

the rate of erosion;

(IV)

significant natural resources or habitats and environmentally sensitive areas; and

(V)

significant threatened historic structures or landmarks.

(3)

Consultation

The Secretary shall carry out the demonstration program in consultation with—

(A)

the Secretary of Agriculture, particularly with respect to native and naturalized vegetative means of preventing and controlling shoreline erosion;

(B)

Federal, State, and local agencies;

(C)

private organizations;

(D)

the Coastal Engineering Research Center established by the first section of Public Law 88–172 (33 U.S.C. 426–1); and

(E)

applicable university research facilities.

(4)

Completion of demonstration

After carrying out the initial construction and evaluation of the performance and cost of a project under the demonstration program, the Secretary may—

(A)

amend, at the request of a non-Federal interest of the project, the partnership agreement for a federally authorized shore protection project in existence on the date on which initial construction of the project under the demonstration program is complete to incorporate the project constructed under the demonstration program as a feature of the shore protection project, with the future cost sharing of the project constructed under the demonstration program to be determined by the project purposes of the shore protection project; or

(B)

transfer all interest in and responsibility for the completed project constructed under the demonstration program to a non-Federal interest or another Federal agency.

(5)

Agreements

The Secretary may enter into a partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest or a cooperative agreement with the head of another Federal agency under the demonstration program—

(A)

to share the costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of a project under the demonstration program;

(B)

to share the costs of removing the project, or element of the project if the Secretary determines that the project or element of the project is detrimental to public or private property, public infrastructure, or public safety; or

(C)

to specify ownership of the completed project if the Secretary determines that the completed project will not be part of a Corps of Engineers project.

(6)

Report

Not later than December 31, 2008, and every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report describing—

(A)

the activities carried out and accomplishments made under the demonstration program since the previous report under this paragraph; and

(B)

any recommendations of the Secretary relating to the program.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

(1)

In general

Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary may expend, from any appropriations made available to the Secretary for the purpose of carrying out civil works, not more than $30,000,000 during any fiscal year to pay the Federal share of the costs of construction of small shore and beach restoration and protection projects or small projects under this section.

(2)

Limitation

The total amount expended for a project under this section shall—

(A)

be sufficient to pay the cost of Federal participation in the project (including periodic nourishment as provided for under the first section of this Act), as determined by the Secretary; and

(B)

be not more than $5,000,000.

.

(b)

Repeal

Section 5 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), is repealed.

2039.

Monitoring ecosystem restoration

(a)

In general

In conducting a feasibility study for a project (or a component of a project) for ecosystem restoration, the Secretary shall ensure that the recommended project includes, as an integral part of the project, a plan for monitoring the success of the ecosystem restoration.

(b)

Monitoring plan

The monitoring plan shall—

(1)

include a description of the monitoring activities to be carried out, the criteria for ecosystem restoration success, and the estimated cost and duration of the monitoring; and

(2)

specify that the monitoring shall continue until such time as the Secretary determines that the criteria for ecosystem restoration success will be met.

(c)

Cost share

For a period of 10 years from completion of construction of a project (or a component of a project) for ecosystem restoration, the Secretary shall consider the cost of carrying out the monitoring as a project cost. If the monitoring plan under subsection (b) requires monitoring beyond the 10-year period, the cost of monitoring shall be a non-Federal responsibility.

2040.

Electronic submission of permit applications

(a)

In General

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement a program to allow electronic submission of permit applications for permits under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.

(b)

Limitations

This section does not preclude the submission of a physical copy.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.

2041.

Project administration

(a)

Project Tracking

The Secretary shall assign a unique tracking number to each water resources project under the jurisdiction of the Secretary to be used by each Federal agency throughout the life of the project.

(b)

Report Repository

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall provide to the Library of Congress a copy of each final feasibility study, final environmental impact statement, final reevaluation report, record of decision, and report to Congress prepared by the Corps of Engineers.

(2)

Availability to public

Each document described in paragraph (1) shall be made available to the public, and an electronic copy of each document shall be made permanently available to the public through the Internet.

2042.

Program administration

Sections 101, 106, and 108 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; 119 Stat. 2252–2254), are repealed.

2043.

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.

2044.

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 (c), 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. 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)

Coordination

The Secretary shall seek, to the extent practicable, to 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 Secretary shall notify, to the extent possible, the non-Federal interest of its 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 should be provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency or Indian tribe.

(c)

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.

(d)

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.

2045.

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

The coordinated review process under this section may 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.

(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

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 agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest 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, 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.

(3)

Report to congress

Not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of a report under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall compile and submit a report to 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, describing any deadlines identified in paragraph (1), and any information provided to the Secretary by the Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest involved under paragraph (2).

(i)

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.

2046.

Project deauthorization

Section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is amended—

(1)

in the first sentence—

(A)

by striking two years and inserting year; and

(B)

by striking 7 and inserting 5;

(2)

in the last sentence by striking 30 months after the date and inserting the last date of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which; and

(3)

in the last sentence by striking such 30 month period and inserting such period.

2047.

Federal hopper dredges

(a)

Hopper dredge mcfarland

Section 563 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3784) is amended to read as follows:

563.

Hopper dredge McFarland

(a)

Placement in ready reserve status

Not before October 1, 2009, and not after December 31, 2009, the Secretary shall—

(1)

place the Federal hopper dredge McFarland (referred to in this section as the vessel) in a ready reserve status; and

(2)

use the vessel solely for urgent and emergency purposes in accordance with existing emergency response protocols.

(b)

Routine tests and maintenance

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall periodically perform routine underway dredging tests of the equipment (not to exceed 70 days per year) of the vessel in a ready reserve status to ensure the ability of the vessel to perform urgent and emergency work.

(2)

Maintenance

The Secretary—

(A)

shall not assign any scheduled hopper dredging work to the vessel other than dredging tests in the Delaware River and Bay; but

(B)

shall perform any repairs, including any asbestos abatement, necessary to maintain the vessel in a ready reserve fully operational condition.

(c)

Active status for dredging

The Secretary, in consultation with affected stakeholders, shall place the vessel in active status in order to perform dredging work if the Secretary determines that private industry has failed—

(1)

to submit a responsive and responsible bid for work advertised by the Secretary; or

(2)

to carry out a project as required pursuant to a contract between the industry and the Secretary.

.

(b)

Hopper dredges Essayons and Yaquina

Section 3(c)(7)(B) of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622; 25 Stat. 423), is amended by adding at the end the following: This subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal hopper dredges Essayons and Yaquina of the Corps of Engineers..

III

PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

3001.

Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama

Section 111 of title I of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 Stat. 2944) is amended to read as follows:

111.

Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama

(a)

Construction of New Facilities

(1)

Definitions

In this subsection, the following definitions apply:

(A)

Existing facility

The term existing facility means the administrative and maintenance facility for the project for Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 5, 1884 (24 Stat. 141), in existence on the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

(B)

Parcel

The term Parcel means the land owned by the Corps of Engineers serving as the operations and maintenance facility of the Corps of Engineers in the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in existence on the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

(2)

Authorization

In carrying out the project for Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama, the Secretary is authorized, at Federal expense—

(A)

to purchase land on which the Secretary may construct a new maintenance facility for the project, to be located—

(i)

at a different location from the existing facility; and

(ii)

in the vicinity of the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama;

(B)

at any time during or after the completion of (and relocation to) the new maintenance facility, to demolish the existing facility; and

(C)

to construct on the Parcel a new administrative facility for the project.

(b)

Acquisition and Disposition of Property

The Secretary—

(1)

may acquire any real property necessary for the construction of the new maintenance facility under subsection (a)(2)(A); and

(2)

shall convey to the city of Tuscaloosa fee simple title in and to any portion of the Parcel not required for construction of the new administrative facility under subsection (a)(2)(C) through—

(A)

sale at fair market value;

(B)

exchange for city of Tuscaloosa owned land on an acre-for-acre basis; or

(C)

any combination of a sale under subparagraph (A) and an exchange under subparagraph (B).

(c)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $32,000,000.

.

3002.

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.

3003.

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.

3004.

Seward Harbor, Alaska

The project for navigation, Seward Harbor, Alaska, authorized by section 101(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 274), is modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the existing breakwater by approximately 215 feet, at a total cost of $3,333,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $2,666,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $667,000.

3005.

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 Federal expense. The estimated cost is $6,300,000.

3006.

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.

3007.

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.

3008.

Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, Arizona

The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 303 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) and section 302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2600), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $25,410,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $22,930,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,480,000.

3009.

Tucson drainage area, Arizona

The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation, Tucson drainage area, Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 274), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $66,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $43,350,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $23,350,000.

3010.

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.

3011.

St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri

The project for flood control, St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49 Stat. 1508), is modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake channel stabilization and sediment removal measures on the St. Francis River and tributaries as a nonseparable element of the original project.

3012.

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, including treatment and distributions components, 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)).

3013.

Red-Ouachita River Basin Levees, Arkansas and Louisiana

(a)

In General

Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 173) is amended in the matter under the heading red-ouachita river basin by striking improvements at Calion, Arkansas and inserting improvements at Calion, Arkansas (including authorization for the comprehensive flood-control project for Ouachita River and tributaries, incorporating in the project all flood control, drainage, and power improvements in the basin above the lower end of the left bank Ouachita River levee).

(b)

Modification

Section 3 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 642), is amended in the second sentence of subsection (a) in the matter under the heading lower mississippi river by inserting before the period at the end the following: ; except that the Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, authorized by the first section of the Mississippi River Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534), shall remain as a component of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and afforded operation and maintenance responsibilities as provided under section 3 of that Act (45 Stat. 535).

3014.

Cache Creek Basin, California

(a)

In General

The project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), is modified to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of the new south levee of the Cache Creek settling basin on the storm drainage system of the city of Woodland, including all appurtenant features, erosion control measures, and environmental protection features.

(b)

Objectives

Mitigation under subsection (a) shall restore the preproject capacity of the city of Woodland to release 1,360 cubic feet per second of water to the Yolo Bypass and shall include—

(1)

channel improvements;

(2)

an outlet work through the west levee of the Yolo Bypass; and

(3)

a new low flow cross channel to handle city and county storm drainage and settling basin flows (1,760 cubic feet per second) when the Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condition.

3015.

CALFED stability program, California

(a)

Amendments

Section 103(f)(3) of the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (118 Stat. 1695–1696) is amended—

(1)

in subparagraph (A) by striking within the Delta (as defined in Cal. Water Code §12220);

(2)

by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:

(C)

Justification

(i)

In general

Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962–2), in carrying out levee stability programs and projects pursuant to this paragraph, the Secretary of the Army may determine that the programs and projects are justified by the benefits of the project purposes described in subparagraph (A), and the programs and projects shall require no additional economic justification if the Secretary of the Army further determines that the programs and projects are cost effective.

(ii)

Applicability

Clause (i) shall not apply to any separable element intended to produce benefits that are predominantly unrelated to the project purposes described in subparagraph (A).

; and

(3)

in subparagraph (D)(i) by inserting as described in the Record of Decision after Public Law 84–99 standard).

(b)

Additional authorization of appropriations

In addition to funds made available pursuant to the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108–361) to carry out section 103(f)(3)(D) of that Act (118 Stat. 1696), there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out projects described in that section $106,000,000, to remain available until expended.

3016.

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.

3017.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project; and

(2)

to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project.

3018.

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.

3019.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 for such element before the date of an agreement for such planning and design.

3020.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 for the project before the date of the project partnership agreement.

3021.

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.

3022.

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 direct 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) if the detailed project report evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

3023.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

(c)

Cost

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project referred to in subsection (a) shall be $10,000,000.

3024.

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.

3025.

Petaluma River, Petaluma, California

The project for flood damage reduction, Petaluma River, Petaluma, California, authorized by section 112 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2587), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $41,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $26,975,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,525,000.

3026.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3027.

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.

3028.

Redwood City Navigation Channel, California

The Secretary may dredge the Redwood City Navigation Channel, California, on an annual basis, to maintain the authorized depth of –30 feet mean lower low water.

3029.

Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California

(a)

Natomas levee features

(1)

In general

The project for flood control and recreation, Sacramento and American Rivers, California (Natomas Levee features), authorized by section 9159 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1944), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit $20,503,000 to the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency for the nonreimbursed Federal share of costs incurred by the Agency in connection with the project.

(2)

Allocation of credit

The Secretary shall allocate the amount to be credited pursuant to paragraph (1) toward the non-Federal share of such projects as are requested by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.

(b)

Joint federal project at folsom dam

(1)

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) and modified by section 128 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), is 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 March 2007, 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.

(2)

Dam safety

Nothing in this subsection limits 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.

(3)

Transfer of funds

(A)

In general

The Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior are authorized to transfer between the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior 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.

(B)

Terms and conditions

Any transfer made pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed on by the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.

3030.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3031.

Sacramento River bank protection, California

Section 202 of the River Basin Monetary Authorization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 49) is amended by striking and the monetary authorization and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ; except that the lineal feet in the second phase shall be increased from 405,000 lineal feet to 485,000 lineal feet..

3032.

Salton Sea restoration, California

(a)

Definitions

In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1)

Salton Sea Authority

The term Salton Sea Authority means the joint powers authority established under the laws of the State by a joint power agreement signed on June 2, 1993.

(2)

Salton Sea Science Office

The term Salton Sea Science Office means the office established by the United States Geological Survey and located on the date of enactment of this Act in La Quinta, California.

(3)

State

The term State means the State of California.

(b)

Pilot projects

(1)

In general

(A)

Review

The Secretary shall review the plan approved by the State, entitled the Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program Preferred Alternative Report and Funding Plan, and dated May 2007 to determine whether the pilot projects described in the plan are feasible.

(B)

Implementation

(i)

In general

Subject to clause (ii), if the Secretary determines that the pilot projects referred to in subparagraph (A) meet the requirements described in that subparagraph, the Secretary may—

(I)

enter into an agreement with the State; and

(II)

in consultation with the Salton Sea Authority and the Salton Sea Science Office, carry out pilot projects for improvement of the environment in the area of the Salton Sea.

(ii)

Requirement

The Secretary shall be a party to each contract for construction entered into under this subparagraph.

(2)

Local participation

In prioritizing pilot projects under this section, the Secretary shall—

(A)

consult with the State, the Salton Sea Authority, and the Salton Sea Science Office; and

(B)

take into consideration the priorities of the State and the Salton Sea Authority.

(3)

Cost sharing

Before carrying out a pilot project under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a written agreement with the State that requires the non-Federal interest for the pilot project to pay 35 percent of the total costs of the pilot project.

(c)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $30,000,000, of which not more than $5,000,000 shall be used for any one pilot project under this section.

3033.

Santa Ana River Mainstem, California

The project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem (including Santiago Creek, California), 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 Appropriation Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329–111) and section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3713), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $1,800,000,000 and to clarify that the Santa Ana River Interceptor Line is an element of the project.

3034.

Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California

The project for flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara streams, Lower Mission Creek, California, authorized by section 101(b)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,000,000.

3035.

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.

3036.

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 modified to direct the Secretary—

(1)

to include ecosystem restoration benefits in the calculation of benefits for the Seven Oaks Dam, California, portion of the project; and

(2)

to conduct a study of water conservation and water quality at the Seven Oaks Dam.

3037.

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 $256,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $136,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $119,300,000.

3038.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project; and

(2)

to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project.

3039.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3040.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project and to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project.

3041.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3042.

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,.

3043.

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.

3044.

St. George’s Bridge, Delaware

Section 102(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4612) is amended by adding at the end the following: The Secretary shall assume ownership responsibility for the replacement bridge not later than the date on which the construction of the bridge is completed and the contractors are released of their responsibility by the State. In addition, the Secretary may not carry out any action to close or remove the St. George’s Bridge, Delaware, without specific congressional authorization..

3045.

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 to authorize the Secretary to include the mid-reach as an element of the project from the Florida department of environmental protection monuments 75.4 to 118.3, a distance of approximately 7.6 miles. The restoration work shall only be undertaken upon a determination by the Secretary, following completion of the general reevaluation report authorized by section 418 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637), that the shoreline protection is feasible.

(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 may credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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.

.

3046.

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 modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3047.

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 if the Secretary determines construction of the sediment trap is feasible.

3048.

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 modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3049.

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, with an estimated Federal cost of $30,550,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,450,000.

(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.

3050.

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.

3051.

Port Sutton, Florida

The project for navigation, Port Sutton, Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $12,900,000.

3052.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3053.

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 Reevaluation 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).

3054.

Allatoona Lake, Georgia

(a)

Land Exchange

(1)

In general

The Secretary may exchange land 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 land on the north side of Allatoona Lake that is required for wildlife management and 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 to ensure that land exchanged is of equal value.

(b)

Disposal and Acquisition of Land, Allatoona Lake, Georgia

(1)

In general

The Secretary may—

(A)

sell land above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1); and

(B)

use the proceeds of the sale, without further appropriation, to pay costs associated with the purchase of land required for wildlife management and protection of the water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.

(2)

Terms and conditions

(A)

Willing sellers

Land acquired under this subsection shall be by negotiated purchase from willing sellers only.

(B)

Basis

The basis for all transactions under this subsection shall be a fair market value appraisal acceptable to the Secretary.

(C)

Sharing of costs

Each purchaser of land under this subsection shall share in the associated costs of the purchase, including surveys and associated fees in accordance with the memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1).

(D)

Other conditions

The Secretary may impose on the sale and purchase of land under this subsection such other conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

(c)

Repeal

Section 325 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.

3055.

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.

3056.

Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall carry out additional general construction measures to allow for operation at lower pool levels to satisfy the recreation mission at Dworshak Dam, Idaho.

(b)

Improvements

In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide for appropriate improvements to—

(1)

facilities that are operated by the Corps of Engineers; and

(2)

facilities that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, are leased, permitted, or licensed for use by others.

(c)

Cost Sharing

The Secretary shall carry out this section through a cost-sharing program with Idaho State parks and recreation department at a total estimated project cost of $5,300,000. Notwithstanding section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2313), the Federal share of such cost shall be 75 percent.

3057.

Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho

(a)

In general

The project for flood control, Gooding, Idaho, constructed under the emergency conservation work program established under the Act of March 31, 1933 (16 U.S.C. 585 et seq.), is modified—

(1)

to direct the Secretary to rehabilitate the Gooding Channel project for the purposes of flood control and ecosystem restoration if the Secretary determines that such rehabilitation is not required as a result of improper operation and maintenance of the project by the non-Federal interest and that the rehabilitation and ecosystem restoration is feasible; and

(2)

to direct the Secretary to plan, design, and construct the project at a total cost of $9,000,000.

(b)

Cost sharing

(1)

In general

Costs for reconstruction of a project under this section shall be shared by the Secretary and the non-Federal interest in the same percentages as the costs of construction of the original project were shared.

(2)

Operation, maintenance, and repair costs

The costs of operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of a project carried out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.

(c)

Economic justification

Reconstruction efforts and activities carried out under this section shall not require economic justification.

3058.

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.

3059.

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.

3060.

Chicago River, Illinois

The Federal navigation channel for the North Branch Channel portion of the Chicago River authorized by section 22 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1156), extending from 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet upstream of the Division Street Bridge, Chicago, Illinois, shall be no wider than 66 feet.

3061.

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 and 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:

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 element 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 aquatic pathways.

3062.

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 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).

3063.

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.

3064.

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 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).

(d)

Post construction monitoring and management

Of the Federal funds expended under subsection (b), not less than $500,000 shall remain available for a period of 5 years after the date of completion of construction of the modifications for use in carrying out post construction monitoring and adaptive management.

3065.

Cedar Lake, Indiana

(a)

In general

The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct an aquatic ecosystem restoration project at Cedar Lake, Indiana.

(b)

Complete feasibility report

In planning the project authorized by subsection (a), the Secretary shall expedite completion of the feasibility report for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection, Cedar Lake, Indiana, initiated pursuant to section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

(c)

Authorization

(1)

In general

There is authorized to be appropriated $11,050,000 to carry out the activities authorized by this section.

(2)

Other

The Secretary is authorized to use funds previously appropriated for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection, Cedar Lake, Indiana, under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) to carry out the activities authorized by this section.

3066.

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 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.

3067.

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), is modified—

(1)

to authorize the Secretary to carry out the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Plan, dated February 1994, and revised by the Master Plan Revision Central Indianapolis Waterfront, dated April 2004, at a total cost of $28,545,000; and

(2)

to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3068.

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 authorize the Secretary to carry out ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components of the project, at a Federal cost of $10,000,000.

3069.

Perry Creek, Iowa

(a)

In General

On making a determination described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall increase the Federal contribution by up to $4,000,000 for the project for flood control, Perry Creek, Iowa, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4116) and modified by section 151 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (117 Stat. 1844).

(b)

Determination

A determination referred to in subsection (a) is a determination that a modification to the project described in subsection (a) is necessary for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to certify that the project provides flood damage reduction benefits to at least a 100-year level of flood protection.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $4,000,000.

3070.

Rathbun Lake, Iowa

(a)

Right of First Refusal

The Secretary shall provide, in accordance with the recommendations in the Rathbun Lake Reallocation Report approved by the Chief of Engineers on July 22, 1985, the Rathbun Regional Water Association with the right of first refusal to contract for or purchase any increment of the remaining allocation of 8,320 acre-feet of water supply storage in Rathbun Lake, Iowa.

(b)

Payment of Cost

The Rathbun Regional Water Association shall pay the cost of any water supply storage allocation provided under subsection (a).

3071.

Hickman Bluff stabilization, Kentucky

The project for Hickman Bluff, Kentucky, authorized by chapter II of title II of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for the Department of Defense to Preserve and Enhance Military Readiness Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 85), is modified to authorize the Secretary to repair and restore the project, at Federal expense, with no further economic studies or analyses, at a total cost of not more than $250,000.

3072.

Mcalpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana

Section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) is amended by striking $219,600,000 each place it appears and inserting $430,000,000.

3073.

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.

3074.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3075.

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana

(a)

Acquisition of additional land

The public access feature of the project for flood control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), 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 in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for such feature.

(b)

Modification

(1)

In general

Subject to paragraph (2), effective November 17, 1986, the $32,000,000 limitation on the maximum Federal expenditure for the first costs of the public access feature referred to in subsection (a) shall not apply.

(2)

Cost

The modification under paragraph (1) shall not increase the total authorized cost of the project referred to in subsection (a).

(c)

Technical Amendment

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 shall consider Eagle Point Park, Jeanerette, Louisiana, and the town of Melville, Louisiana, as site alternatives for such recreation features.

3076.

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, regional visitor center, Louisiana

(a)

Project for Flood Control

Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of the report of the Chief of Engineers dated February 28, 1983 (relating to recreational development in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway), the Secretary shall carry out the project for flood control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, authorized by chapter IV of title I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 313) and section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142).

(b)

Visitors Center

(1)

In general

The Secretary, in consultation with the State of Louisiana, shall study, design, and construct a type A regional visitors center in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana.

(2)

Cost sharing

(A)

Cost of type b visitors center

The cost of construction of the visitors center up to the cost of construction of a type B visitors center shall be shared in accordance with the recreation cost-sharing requirement of section 103(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(c)).

(B)

Cost of upgrading

The non-Federal share of the cost of upgrading the visitors center from a type B to type A regional visitors center shall be 100 percent.

(C)

Operation and maintenance

The cost of operation and maintenance of the visitors center shall be a Federal responsibility.

(3)

Donations

In carrying out the project under this subsection, the Mississippi River Commission may accept the donation of cash or other funds, land, materials, and services from any non-Federal government entity or nonprofit corporation, as the Commission determines to be appropriate.

3077.

Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana

The project for navigation, Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), is modified to authorize the Secretary to deepen up to a 1000-foot section of the area on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway west of the Bayou Boeuf Lock and east of the intersection of the Atchafalaya River, at a cost not to exceed $200,000, to provide for ingress and egress to the port of Morgan City at a depth not to exceed 20 feet.

3078.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3079.

Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana

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

3080.

Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana

The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red River Waterway, 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. 2604), is modified—

(1)

to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $33,912,000;

(2)

to authorize the purchase and reforestation of lands that have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses (in addition to the purchase of bottomland hardwood); and

(3)

to incorporate wildlife and forestry management practices to improve species diversity on mitigation land that meets habitat goals and objectives of the United States and the State of Louisiana.

3081.

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 modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the costs of relocating oyster beds in the Davis Pond project area.

3082.

Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet relocation assistance, Louisiana

(a)

Port Facilities Relocation

(1)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development (referred to in this section as the Assistant Secretary) $75,000,000, to remain available until expended, to support the relocation of Port of New Orleans deep draft facilities from the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (referred to in this section as the Outlet), the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to the Mississippi River.

(2)

Administration

(A)

In general

Amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be administered by the Assistant Secretary pursuant to sections 209(c)(2) and 703 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2), 3233).

(B)

Requirement

The Assistant Secretary shall make amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) available to the Port of New Orleans to relocate to the Mississippi River within the State of Louisiana the port-owned facilities that are occupied by businesses in the vicinity that may be impacted due to the treatment of the Outlet under title VII of this Act.

(b)

Revolving Loan Fund Grants

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Assistant Secretary $85,000,000, to remain available until expended, to provide assistance pursuant to sections 209(c)(2) and 703 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2), 3233) to one or more eligible recipients under such Act to establish revolving loan funds to make loans for terms up to 20 years at or below market interest rates (including interest-free loans) to private businesses within the Port of New Orleans that may need to relocate to the Mississippi River within the State of Louisiana due to the treatment of the Outlet under title VII of this Act.

(c)

Requirements

In selecting one or more recipients under subsection (b), the Assistant Secretary shall ensure that each recipient has established procedures to target lending to businesses that will be directly and substantially impacted by the treatment of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet under title VII of this Act.

(d)

Coordination With Secretary

The Assistant Secretary shall ensure that the programs described in subsections (a) and (b) are coordinated with the Secretary to ensure that facilities are relocated in a manner that is consistent with the analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2247).

(e)

Administrative Expenses

The Assistant Secretary may use up to 2 percent of the amounts made available under subsections (a) and (b) for administrative expenses.

3083.

Violet, Louisiana

(a)

Violet diversion project

The Secretary shall design and implement a project for a diversion of freshwater at or near Violet, Louisiana, for the purposes of reducing salinity in the western Mississippi Sound, enhancing oyster production, and promoting the sustainability of coastal wetlands.

(b)

Salinity levels

The project shall be designed to meet, or maximize the ability to meet, the salinity levels identified in the feasibility study of the Corps of Engineers entitled Mississippi and Louisiana Estuarine Areas: Freshwater Diversion to Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound and dated 1984.

(c)

Additional measures

(1)

Recommendations

If the Secretary determines that the diversion of freshwater at or near Violet, Louisiana, will not restore salinity levels to meet the requirements of subsection (b), the Secretary shall recommend additional measures for freshwater diversions sufficient to meet those levels.

(2)

Implementation

The Secretary shall implement measures included in the recommendations developed under paragraph (1) beginning 60 days after the date on which a report containing the recommendations is provided to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

(d)

Non-federal financing requirements

(1)

Estimates

Before October 1 of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall notify the States of Louisiana and Mississippi of each State’s respective estimated costs for that fiscal year for the activities authorized under this section.

(2)

Escrow

The States of Louisiana and Mississippi shall provide the funds described in paragraph (1) by making a deposit into an escrow account, or such other account, of the Treasury as the Secretary determines to be acceptable within 30 days after the date of receipt of the notification from the Secretary under paragraph (1).

(3)

Deposits by Louisiana

(A)

Use of certain funds

The State of Louisiana may use funds available to the State under the coastal impact assistance program authorized under section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1356a) in meeting its cost-sharing responsibilities under this section.

(B)

Failure to provide funds

(i)

In general

If the State of Louisiana does not provide the funds under paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Interior, using funds to be disbursed to the State under the program referred to in subparagraph (A) or under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (title I of Division C of Public Law 109–432; (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; 120 Stat. 3000)), shall deposit such funds as are necessary to meet the requirements for the State under paragraph (2).

(ii)

Deadline for deposit

Any deposit required under clause (i) shall be made prior to any other disbursements made to the State of Louisiana under the programs referred to in clause (i).

(C)

Exception

The State of Louisiana shall not be required to make a deposit of its share in any fiscal year in which the State of Mississippi does not make its deposit following a notification under paragraph (1) or the State of Mississippi notifies the Secretary that it does not intend to make a deposit in that fiscal year.

(4)

Credit

The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

(5)

Federal share

The Federal share of the cost of the project authorized by subsection (a) shall be 75 percent.

(e)

Schedule

(1)

In general

Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall complete the design of the project not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act and shall complete the construction of the project by not later than September 30, 2012.

(2)

Missed deadline

If the Secretary does not complete the design or construction of the project in accordance with paragraph (1), the Secretary shall complete the design or construction as expeditiously as possible.

3084.

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.

.

3085.

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.

3086.

Cumberland, Maryland

Section 580(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 375) is amended—

(1)

by striking $15,000,000 and inserting $25,750,000;

(2)

by striking $9,750,000 and inserting $16,738,000; and

(3)

by striking $5,250,000 and inserting $9,012,000.

3087.

Poplar Island, Maryland

The project for navigation and environmental restoration through the beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, Maryland, authorized by section 537 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776) and modified by section 318 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2604), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the expansion of the project in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at an additional total cost of $260,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $195,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $65,000,000.

3088.

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.

3089.

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:

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 2007.

(2)

Partnership

The term Partnership means the partnership established by the Secretary under subsection (b)(1).

(b)

Partnership

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall establish and lead a partnership of appropriate Federal agencies (including the Environmental Protection Agency) and the State of Michigan (including political subdivisions of the State)—

(A)

to promote cooperation among the Federal Government, State and local governments, and other involved parties in the management of the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair watersheds; and

(B)

to 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 Federal share of the cost of 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)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

.

3090.

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).

3091.

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).

(3)

Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 305).

3092.

Ada, Minnesota

In carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) if the detailed project report evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

3093.

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 modified to direct 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 credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

(c)

Maximum Federal Expenditure

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be $9,000,000.

3094.

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 credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried out for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3095.

Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota

The Secretary shall provide credit in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) 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 for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3096.

Granite Falls, Minnesota

(a)

In General

The Secretary is directed to implement the locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction, Granite Falls, Minnesota, 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. In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent practicable, the existing detailed project report dated 2002 for the project prepared under the authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(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) if the detailed project report evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

(c)

Credit

The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the project the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of execution of a partnership agreement for 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.

3097.

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.

3098.

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.

3099.

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.

3100.

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.

3101.

Two Harbors, Minnesota

(a)

In general

Notwithstanding the requirements of section 107(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), the project for navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota, being carried out under such authority, is justified on the basis of navigation safety.

(b)

Maximum federal expenditures

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be $7,000,000.

3102.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.

3103.

Jackson County, Mississippi

(a)

Modification

Section 331 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 305) is amended by striking $5,000,000 and inserting $9,000,000.

(b)

Applicability of Credit

The credit provided by section 331 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 305) (as amended by subsection (a) of this section) shall apply to costs incurred by the Jackson County Board of Supervisors during the period beginning on February 8, 1994, and ending on the date of enactment of this Act for projects authorized by section 219(c)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 1494).

3104.

Pearl River Basin, Mississippi

(a)

In general

The project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River Basin, including Shoccoe, Mississippi, authorized by section 401(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4132), is modified to authorize the Secretary, subject to subsection (c), to construct the project generally in accordance with the plan described in the Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi, Feasibility Study Main Report, Preliminary Draft, dated February 2007, at a total cost of $205,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $133,770,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $72,030,000.

(b)

Comparison of alternatives

Before initiating construction of the project, the Secretary shall compare the level of flood damage reduction provided by the plan that maximizes national economic development benefits of the project and the locally preferred plan, referred to as the LeFleur Lakes plan, to that portion of Jackson, Mississippi and vicinity, located below the Ross Barnett Reservoir Dam.

(c)

Implementation of plan

(1)

In general

If the Secretary determines under subsection (b) 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 that the locally preferred plan is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible, the Secretary may construct the project identified as the national economic development plan, or the locally preferred plan, or some combination thereof.

(2)

Construction by non-federal interests

The non-Federal interest may carry out the project under section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b–13).

(d)

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) if the detailed project report evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

(e)

Non-federal cost share

If the locally preferred plan is selected for construction of the project, the Federal share of the cost of the project shall be limited to the share as provided by law for the elements of the national economic development plan.

3105.

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 $13,000,000.

3106.

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).

3107.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3108.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3109.

Lower Yellowstone project, Montana

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

3110.

Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota

(a)

Definition of Restoration Project

In this section, the term restoration project means a project that will produce, in accordance with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, substantial ecosystem restoration and related benefits, as determined by the Secretary.

(b)

Projects

The Secretary shall carry out, in accordance with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, restoration projects in the watershed of the Yellowstone River and tributaries in Montana, and in North Dakota, to produce immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration and recreation benefits.

(c)

Local Participation

In carrying out subsection (b), the Secretary shall—

(1)

consult with, and consider the activities being carried out by—

(A)

other Federal agencies;

(B)

Indian tribes;

(C)

conservation districts; and

(D)

the Yellowstone River Conservation District Council; and

(2)

seek the participation of the State of Montana.

(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000.

3111.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 before the date of the partnership agreement for 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 the Federal agency that provides such funds determines that the funds are authorized to be used to carry out the project.

3112.

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 credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project or reimbursement for the costs of any work performed by the non-Federal interest for the project before 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;

(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.

3113.

Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, Nebraska

The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $21,664,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $14,082,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,582,000.

3114.

Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project being carried out, as of the date of enactment of this Act, under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) for environmental restoration of McCarran Ranch, Nevada, shall be $5,775,000.

3115.

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.

3116.

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 modified to direct the Secretary to include the benefits and costs of preserving natural flood storage in any future economic analysis of the project.

3117.

Cooperative agreements, New Mexico

The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with any Indian tribe any land of which is located in the State of New Mexico and occupied by a flood control project that is owned and operated by the Corps of Engineers to assist in carrying out any operation or maintenance activity associated with the flood control project.

3118.

Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico

(a)

Restoration Projects Defined

In this section, the term restoration project means a project that will produce, consistent with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration and recreation benefits.

(b)

Project Selection

The Secretary shall select and shall carry out restoration projects in the Middle Rio Grande from Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir in the State of New Mexico.

(c)

Local Participation

In carrying out subsection (b), the Secretary shall consult with, and consider the activities being carried out by—

(1)

the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program; and

(2)

the Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio Grande Bosque Initiative.

(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.

3119.

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.

3120.

Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and Connecticut

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct projects to increase aquatic habitats within Long Island Sound and adjacent waters, including the construction and restoration of oyster beds and related shellfish habitat.

(b)

Cost Sharing

The non-Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this section shall be 25 percent and may be provided through in-kind services and materials.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section.

3121.

Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers watershed management, New York

(a)

Watershed Management Plan Development

(1)

In general

The Secretary, in consultation with the State of New York and local entities, shall develop watershed management plans for the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake River watershed for the purposes of evaluating existing and new flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration.

(2)

Existing plans

In developing the watershed management plans, the Secretary shall use existing studies and plans, as appropriate.

(b)

Critical Restoration Projects

(1)

In general

The Secretary may participate in any eligible critical restoration project in the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers watershed in accordance with the watershed management plans developed under subsection (a).

(2)

Eligible projects

A critical restoration project shall be eligible for assistance under this section if the project—

(A)

meets the purposes described in the watershed management plans developed under subsection (a); and

(B)

with respect to the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake Rivers watershed in New York, consists of flood damage reduction or ecosystem restoration through—

(i)

bank stabilization of the mainstem, tributaries, and streams;

(ii)

wetland restoration;

(iii)

soil and water conservation;

(iv)

restoration of natural flows;

(v)

restoration of stream stability;

(vi)

structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction measures; or

(vii)

any other project or activity the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

(c)

Cooperative Agreements

In carrying out this section, the Secretary may enter into one or more cooperative agreements to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, or local governments or nonprofit agencies, including assistance for the implementation of projects to be carried out under subsection (b).

(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000, to remain available until expended.

3122.

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.

3123.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of construction of the temporary storage facility for the project.

3124.

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.

.

3125.

Susquehanna River and Upper Delaware River watershed management, New York

(a)

Watershed Management Plan Development

(1)

In general

The Secretary, in consultation with the State of New York, the Delaware or Susquehanna River Basin Commission, as appropriate, and local entities, shall develop watershed management plans for the Susquehanna River watershed in New York State and the Upper Delaware River watershed for the purposes of evaluating existing and new flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration.

(2)

Existing plans

In developing the watershed management plans, the Secretary shall use existing studies and plans, as appropriate.

(b)

Critical Restoration Projects

(1)

In general

The Secretary may participate in any eligible critical restoration project in the Susquehanna River or Upper Delaware Rivers in accordance with the watershed management plans developed under subsection (a).

(2)

Eligible projects

A critical restoration project shall be eligible for assistance under this section if the project—

(A)

meets the purposes described in the watershed management plans developed under subsection (a); and

(B)

with respect to the Susquehanna River or Upper Delaware River watershed in New York, consists of flood damage reduction or ecosystem restoration through—

(i)

bank stabilization of the mainstem, tributaries, and streams;

(ii)

wetland restoration;

(iii)

soil and water conservation;

(iv)

restoration of natural flows;

(v)

restoration of stream stability;

(vi)

structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction measures; or

(vii)

any other project or activity the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

(c)

Cooperative Agreements

In carrying out this section, the Secretary may enter into 1 or more cooperative agreements to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, or local governments or nonprofit agencies, including assistance for the implementation of projects to be carried out under subsection (b).

(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000, to remain available until expended.

3126.

Missouri River restoration, North Dakota

Section 707(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2699) is amended in the first sentence by striking $5,000,000 and all that follows through 2005 and inserting $25,000,000.

3127.

Wahpeton, North Dakota

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allotted for the project for flood damage reduction, Wahpeton, North Dakota, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $12,000,000.

3128.

Ohio

Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 381) is amended—

(1)

by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections (g) and (h), respectively; and

(2)

by inserting after subsection (e) the following:

(f)

Nonprofit Entities

In accordance with 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, with the consent of the affected local government.

.

3129.

Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio

Section 507 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended—

(1)

by inserting (a) In general.— before The Secretary;

(2)

in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection)—

(A)

by striking Repair and rehabilitation and all that follows through Ohio and inserting Correction of structural deficiencies of the Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio, and the appurtenant features to meet the dam safety standards of the State of Ohio; and

(B)

by striking $2,500,000 and inserting $16,000,000; and

(3)

by adding at the end the following:

(b)

Special rules

The project for Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio, authorized by subsection (a)(1) is justified on the basis of public safety.

.

3130.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3131.

Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma

Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the Secretary in October 1999 of all costs associated with present and future water storage costs at Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma, under Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract Number DACW56–79–C–0072 shall satisfy the obligations of the city under that contract.

3132.

Arkansas River Corridor, Oklahoma

(a)

In general

The Secretary is authorized to participate in the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan dated October 2005. The Secretary shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity of Tulsa, Oklahoma, including representatives of Tulsa County and surrounding communities and the Indian Nations Council of Governments.

(b)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section.

3133.

Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma

(a)

Project Goal

(1)

In general

The goal for operation of Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma, shall be to maximize the use of available storage in a balanced approach that incorporates advice from representatives from all the project purposes to ensure that the full value of the reservoir is realized by the United States.

(2)

Recognition of purpose

To achieve the goal described in paragraph (1), recreation is recognized as a project purpose at Lake Eufaula, pursuant to section 4 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 889).

(b)

Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee

(1)

In general

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Secretary shall establish an advisory committee for the Lake Eufaula, Canadian River, Oklahoma project authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635).

(2)

Purpose

The purpose of the committee shall be advisory only.

(3)

Duties

The committee shall provide information and recommendations to the Corps of Engineers regarding the operations of Lake Eufaula for the project purposes for Lake Eufaula.

(4)

Composition

The Committee shall be composed of members that equally represent the project purposes for Lake Eufaula.

(c)

Reallocation Study

(1)

In general

Subject to the appropriation of funds, the Secretary shall perform a reallocation study, at Federal expense, to develop and present recommendations concerning the best value, while minimizing ecological damages, for current and future use of the Lake Eufaula storage capacity for the authorized project purposes of flood control, water supply, hydroelectric power, navigation, fish and wildlife, and recreation.

(2)

Factors for consideration

The reallocation study shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee.

(d)

Pool Management Plan

(1)

In general

Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, to the extent feasible within available project funds and subject to the completion and approval of the reallocation study under subsection (c), the Tulsa district engineer, taking into consideration recommendations of the Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee, shall develop an interim management plan that accommodates all project purposes for Lake Eufaula.

(2)

Modifications

A modification of the plan under paragraph (1) shall not cause significant adverse impacts on any existing permit, lease, license, contract, public law, or project purpose, including flood control operation, relating to Lake Eufaula.

3134.

Oklahoma lakes demonstration program, Oklahoma

(a)

Implementation of Program

Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement an innovative program at the lakes located primarily in the State of Oklahoma that are a part of an authorized civil works project under the administrative jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers for the purpose of demonstrating the benefits of enhanced recreation facilities and activities at those lakes.

(b)

Requirements

In implementing the program under subsection (a), the Secretary, consistent with authorized project purposes, shall—

(1)

pursue strategies that will enhance, to the maximum extent practicable, recreation experiences at the lakes included in the program;

(2)

use creative management strategies that optimize recreational activities; and

(3)

ensure continued public access to recreation areas located on or associated with the civil works project.

(c)

Guidelines

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidelines for the implementation of this section, to be developed in coordination with the State of Oklahoma.

(d)

Report

(1)

In general

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 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 a report describing the results of the program under subsection (a).

(2)

Inclusions

The report under paragraph (1) shall include a description of the projects undertaken under the program, including—

(A)

an estimate of the change in any related recreational opportunities;

(B)

a description of any leases entered into, including the parties involved; and

(C)

the financial conditions that the Corps of Engineers used to justify those leases.

(3)

Availability to public

The Secretary shall make the report available to the public in electronic and written formats.

(e)

Termination

The authority provided by this section shall terminate on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

3135.

Ottawa County, Oklahoma

(a)

In General

There is authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for the purposes set forth in subsection (b).

(b)

Purposes

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated under subsection (a) may be used for the purpose of—

(1)

the buyout of properties and permanently relocating residents and businesses in or near Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville, Oklahoma, from areas determined by the State of Oklahoma to be at risk of damage caused by land subsidence and remaining properties; and

(2)

providing funding to the State of Oklahoma to buyout properties and permanently relocate residents and businesses of Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville, Oklahoma, from areas determined by the State of Oklahoma to be at risk of damage caused by land subsidence and remaining properties.

(c)

Limitation

The use of funds in accordance with subsection (b) shall not be considered to be part of a federally assisted program or project for purposes of Public Law 91–646 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.), consistent with section 2301 of Public Law 109–234 (120 Stat. 455).

(d)

Consistency With State Program

Any actions taken under subsection (b) shall be consistent with the relocation program in the State of Oklahoma under 27A O.S. Supp. 2006, sections 2201 et seq.

(e)

Consideration of remedial action

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall consider, without delay, a remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) for the Tar Creek, Oklahoma, National Priorities List site that includes permanent relocation of residents consistent with the program currently being administered by the State of Oklahoma. Such relocation shall not be subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).

(f)

Estimating costs

In estimating and comparing the cost of a remedial alternative for the Tar Creek Oklahoma, National Priorities List site that includes the permanent relocation of residents, the Administrator shall not include the cost of compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).

(g)

Effect of certain remedies

Inclusion of subsidence remedies, such as permanent relocation within any remedial action, shall not preempt, alter, or delay the right of any sovereign entity, including any State or tribal government, to seek remedies, including abatement, for land subsidence and subsidence risks under State law.

(h)

Amendment

Section 111 of Public Law 108–137 (117 Stat. 1835) is amended—

(1)

by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: Such activities also may include the provision of financial assistance to facilitate the buy out of properties located in areas identified by the State as areas that are or will be at risk of damage caused by land subsidence and associated properties otherwise identified by the State. Any buyout of such properties shall not be considered to be part of a federally assisted program or project for purposes of Public Law 91–646 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.), consistent with section 2301 of Public Law 109–234 (120 Stat. 455–456).; and

(2)

by striking the first sentence of subsection (d) and inserting the following: Non-Federal interests shall be responsible for operating and maintaining any restoration alternatives constructed or carried out pursuant to this section..

3136.

Red River chloride control, Oklahoma and Texas

The project for water quality control in the Arkansas and Red River Basin, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420) and modified by section 1107(a) of the Water Resources Development A of 1986 (100 Stat. 4229) is further modified to direct the Secretary to provide operation and maintenance for the Red River Chloride Control project, Oklahoma and Texas, at Federal expense.

3137.

Waurika Lake, Oklahoma

The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master Conservancy District payable to the United States Government in the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules—

(1)

is set at the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules that existed on June 3, 1986, with respect to the project for Waurika Lake, Oklahoma; and

(2)

may not be adjusted, altered, or changed without a specific, separate, and written agreement between the District and the United States.

3138.

Upper Willamette River watershed ecosystem restoration, Oregon

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall conduct studies and ecosystem restoration projects for the upper Willamette River watershed from Albany, Oregon, to the headwaters of the Willamette River and tributaries.

(b)

Consultation

The Secretary shall carry out ecosystem restoration projects under this section for the Upper Willamette River watershed in consultation with the Governor of the State of Oregon, the heads of appropriate Indian tribes, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and local entities.

(c)

Authorized Activities

In carrying out ecosystem restoration projects under this section, the Secretary shall undertake activities necessary to protect, monitor, and restore fish and wildlife habitat.

(d)

Priority

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give priority to a project to restore the millrace in Eugene, Oregon, and shall include noneconomic benefits associated with the historical significance of the millrace and associated with preservation and enhancement of resources in evaluating the benefits of the project.

(e)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

3139.

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.

3140.

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.

3141.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3142.

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.

3143.

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.

3144.

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.

3145.

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island

The Secretary may use amounts in the Environmental Restoration Account, Formerly Used Defense Sites, under section 2703(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, for the removal of abandoned marine camels at any formerly used defense site under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense that is undergoing (or is scheduled to undergo) environmental remediation under chapter 160 of title 10, United States Code (and other provisions of law), in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, in accordance with the Corps of Engineers prioritization process under the Formerly Used Defense Sites program.

3146.

Missouri River Restoration, South Dakota

(a)

Membership

Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) is amended—

(1)

in clause (vii) by striking and at the end;

(2)

by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and

(3)

by inserting after clause (vii) the following:

(viii)

rural water systems; and

.

(b)

Reauthorization

Section 907(a) of such Act (114 Stat. 2712) is amended in the first sentence by striking 2005 and inserting 2010.

3147.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 before the date of the partnership agreement for 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).

(c)

Project for navigation

Section 349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632) is amended by striking 12 feet deep by 125 feet wide and inserting that is 10 feet deep by 100 feet wide.

3148.

Freeport Harbor, Texas

(a)

In General

The project for navigation, Freeport Harbor, Texas, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to provide that—

(1)

all project costs incurred as a result of the discovery of the sunken vessel COMSTOCK of the Corps of Engineers are a Federal responsibility; and

(2)

the Secretary shall not seek further obligation or responsibility for removal of the vessel COMSTOCK, or costs associated with a delay due to the discovery of the sunken vessel COMSTOCK, from the Port of Freeport.

(b)

Cost Sharing

This section does not affect the authorized cost sharing for the balance of the project described in subsection (a).

3149.

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.

3150.

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 is feasible;

(2)

to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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 for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for 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.

3151.

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.

3152.

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.

3153.

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).

3154.

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 modified to authorize the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), 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.

3155.

Connecticut River restoration, Vermont

Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), as in effect on August 5, 2005, with respect to the study entitled Connecticut River Restoration Authority, dated May 23, 2001, a nonprofit entity may act as the non-Federal interest for purposes of carrying out the activities described in the agreement executed between The Nature Conservancy and the Department of the Army on August 5, 2005.

3156.

Dam remediation, Vermont

Section 543 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2673) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (a)(2) by striking and at the end;

(2)

in subsection (a)(3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and;

(3)

by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:

(4)

may carry out measures to restore, protect, and preserve an ecosystem affected by a dam described in subsection (b).

; and

(4)

by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:

(11)

Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick.

(12)

Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly.

(13)

Curtis Pond, Calais.

(14)

Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield.

(15)

Burr Pond, Sudbury.

(16)

Maidstone Lake, Guildhall.

(17)

Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam.

(18)

Lake Fairlee.

(19)

West Charleston Dam.

(20)

White River, Sharon.

.

3157.

Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other nonnative plant control, Vermont

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

3158.

Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont and New Hampshire

(a)

In General

The Secretary, in cooperation with the States of Vermont and New Hampshire, shall carry out a study and develop a strategy for the use of wetland restoration, soil and water conservation practices, and nonstructural measures to reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and create wildlife habitat in the Upper Connecticut River watershed.

(b)

Cooperative Agreements

In conducting the study and developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may enter into one or more cooperative agreements to provide technical assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and nonprofit organizations with wetland restoration experience. Such assistance may include assistance for the implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation measures.

(c)

Implementation

The Secretary shall carry out development and implementation of the strategy under this section in cooperation with local landowners and local government officials.

(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000, to remain available until expended.

3159.

Upper Connecticut River basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont and New Hampshire

(a)

General Management Plan Development

(1)

In general

The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and in consultation with the States of Vermont and New Hampshire and the Connecticut River Joint Commission, shall conduct a study and develop a general management plan for ecosystem restoration of the Upper Connecticut River ecosystem for the purposes of—

(A)

habitat protection and restoration;

(B)

streambank stabilization;

(C)

restoration of stream stability;

(D)

water quality improvement;

(E)

aquatic nuisance species control;

(F)

wetland restoration;

(G)

fish passage; and

(H)

natural flow restoration.

(2)

Existing plans

In developing the general management plan, the Secretary shall depend heavily on existing plans for the restoration of the Upper Connecticut River.

(b)

Critical Restoration Projects

(1)

In general

The Secretary may participate in any critical restoration project in the Upper Connecticut River basin in accordance with the general management plan developed under subsection (a).

(2)

Eligible projects

A critical restoration project shall be eligible for assistance under this section if the project—

(A)

meets the purposes described in the general management plan developed under subsection (a); and

(B)

with respect to the Upper Connecticut River and Upper Connecticut River watershed, consists of—

(i)

bank stabilization of the main stem, tributaries, and streams;

(ii)

wetland restoration and migratory bird habitat restoration;

(iii)

soil and water conservation;

(iv)

restoration of natural flows;

(v)

restoration of stream stability;

(vi)

implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for coordinating ecosystem restoration, fish passage installation, streambank stabilization, wetland restoration, habitat protection and restoration, or natural flow restoration;

(vii)

water quality improvement;

(viii)

aquatic nuisance species control;

(ix)

improvements in fish migration; and

(x)

conduct of any other project or activity determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.

(c)

Cooperative Agreements

In carrying out this section, the Secretary may enter into one or more cooperative agreements to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, or local governments or nonprofit agencies. Such assistance may include assistance for the implementation of projects to be carried out under subsection (b).

(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

3160.

Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York

Section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2671) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (b)(2)—

(A)

by striking or at the end of subparagraph (D);

(B)

by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (G); and

(C)

by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:

(E)

river corridor assessment, protection, management, and restoration for the purposes of ecosystem restoration;

(F)

geographic mapping conducted by the Secretary using existing technical capacity to produce a high-resolution, multispectral satellite imagery-based land use and cover data set; or

;

(2)

in subsection (e)(2)(A)—

(A)

by striking The non-Federal and inserting the following:

(i)

In general

The non-Federal

; and

(B)

by adding at the end the following:

(ii)

Approval of district engineer

Approval of credit for design work of less than $100,000 shall be determined by the appropriate district engineer.

;

(3)

in subsection (e)(2)(C) by striking up to 50 percent of; and

(4)

in subsection (g) by striking $20,000,000 and inserting $32,000,000.

3161.

Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia

The project for beach erosion control and hurricane protection, Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia, authorized by section 101(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4804) and modified by section 338 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2612), is modified to authorize the Secretary to review the project to determine whether any additional Federal interest exists with respect to the project, taking into consideration conditions and development levels relating to the project in existence on the date of enactment of this Act.

3162.

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 $3,600,000..

3163.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for 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.

3164.

McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge, Washington and Idaho

(a)

Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction

Administrative jurisdiction over the land acquired for the McNary Lock and Dam project and managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under cooperative agreement number DACW68–4–00–13 with the Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, is transferred from the Secretary to the Secretary of the Interior.

(b)

Easements

The transfer of administrative jurisdiction under paragraph (1) shall be subject to easements in existence as of the date of enactment of this Act on land subject to the transfer.

(c)

Rights of Secretary

(1)

In general

Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall retain rights described in subparagraph (B) with respect to the land for which administrative jurisdiction is transferred under paragraph (1).

(2)

Rights

The rights of the Secretary referred to in paragraph (1) are the rights—

(A)

to flood land described in subsection (a) to the standard project flood elevation;

(B)

to manipulate the level of the McNary project pool;

(C)

to access land described in subsection (a) as may be required to install, maintain, and inspect sediment ranges and carry out similar activities;

(D)

to construct and develop wetland, riparian habitat, or other environmental restoration features authorized by section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) and section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330);

(E)

to dredge and deposit fill materials; and

(F)

to carry out management actions for the purpose of reducing the take of juvenile salmonids by avian colonies that inhabit, before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act, any island included in the land described in subsection (a).

(3)

Coordination

Before exercising a right described in any of subparagraphs (C) through (F) of paragraph (2), the Secretary shall coordinate the exercise with the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(d)

Management

(1)

In general

The land described in subsection (a) shall be managed by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the McNary National Wildlife Refuge.

(2)

Cummins property

(A)

Retention of credits

Habitat unit credits described in the memorandum entitled Design Memorandum No. 6, LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION PLAN, Wildlife Compensation and Fishing Access Site Selection, Letter Supplement No. 15, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WALLULA HMU provided for the Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan through development of the parcel of land formerly known as the Cummins property shall be retained by the Secretary despite any changes in management of the parcel on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

(B)

Site development plan

The Director shall obtain prior approval of the Washington State department of fish and wildlife for any change to the previously approved site development plan for the parcel of land formerly known as the Cummins property.

(3)

Madame dorian recreation area

The Director shall continue operation of the Madame Dorian Recreation Area for public use and boater access.

(e)

Administrative Costs

The Director shall be responsible for all survey, environmental compliance, and other administrative costs required to implement the transfer of administrative jurisdiction under subsection (a).

3165.

Snake River project, Washington and Idaho

(a)

In general

The fish and wildlife compensation plan for the Lower Snake River, Washington and Idaho, as authorized by section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), is amended to authorize the Secretary to conduct studies and implement aquatic and riparian ecosystem restorations and improvements specifically for fisheries and wildlife.

(b)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

3166.

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, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project.

3167.

Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia

Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4810, 110 Stat. 3726, 113 Stat. 312) is amended to read as follows:

(ff)

Bluestone lake, ohio river basin, west virginia

(1)

In general

The project for flood control, Bluestone Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia, authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1217) is modified to direct the Secretary to implement Plan C/G, as defined in the Evaluation Report of the District Engineer dated December 1996, to prohibit the release of drift and debris into waters downstream of the project (other than organic matter necessary to maintain and enhance the biological resources of such waters and such nonobtrusive items of debris as may not be economically feasible to prevent being released through such project), including measures to prevent the accumulation of drift and debris at the project, the collection and removal of drift and debris on the segment of the New River upstream of the project, and the removal (through use of temporary or permanent systems) and disposal of accumulated drift and debris at Bluestone Dam.

(2)

Cooperative agreement

In carrying out the downstream cleanup under the plan referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with the West Virginia department of environmental protection for the department to carry out the cleanup, including contracting and procurement services, contract administration and management, transportation and disposal of collected materials, and disposal fees.

(3)

Initial cleanup

The Secretary may provide the West Virginia department of environmental protection up to $150,000 from funds previously appropriated for this purpose for the Federal share of the costs of the initial cleanup under the plan.

.

3168.

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.

3169.

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 standards of the Department of the Interior 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.

.

3170.

Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia

The project for flood control at Milton, West Virginia, authorized by section 580 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790) and modified by section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2612), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the draft report of the Corps of Engineers dated May 2004, at an estimated total cost of $57,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $42,825,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,275,000.

3171.

Mcdowell County, West Virginia

The McDowell County nonstructural component 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 Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modified to direct the Secretary to take measures to provide protection, throughout McDowell County, West Virginia, from the reoccurrence of the greater of—

(1)

the April 1977 flood;

(2)

the July 2001 flood;

(3)

the May 2002 flood; or

(4)

the 100-year frequency event.

3172.

Parkersburg, West Virginia

The Secretary is authorized to carry out the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood control components of the report of the Corps of Engineers, entitled Parkersburg/Vienna Riverfront Park Feasibility Study, dated June 1998, as amended by the limited reevaluation report of the Corps of Engineers, dated March 2004, at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $6,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,000,000.

3173.

Green Bay Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin

The portion of the inner harbor of the Federal navigation channel of the Green Bay Harbor project, authorized by the first section of the Act entitled An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes, approved July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 136), from Station 190+00 to Station 378+00 is authorized to a width of 75 feet and a depth of 6 feet.

3174.

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.

3175.

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.

.

3176.

Upper basin of Missouri River

(a)

Use of Funds

Notwithstanding the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103), funds made available for recovery or mitigation activities in the lower basin of the Missouri River may be used for recovery or mitigation activities in the upper basin of the Missouri River, including the States of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

(b)

Conforming Amendment

The matter under the heading missouri river mitigation, missouri, kansas, iowa, and nebraska of section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), as modified by section 334 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 306), is amended by adding at the end the following: The Secretary may carry out any recovery or mitigation activities in the upper basin of the Missouri River, including the States of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, using funds made available under this paragraph in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and consistent with the project purposes of the Missouri River Mainstem System as authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 897)..

3177.

Upper Mississippi River System environmental management program

Section 1103(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: , including research on water quality issues affecting the Mississippi River (including elevated nutrient levels) and the development of remediation strategies.

3178.

Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system new technology pilot program

(a)

Upper Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation System defined

In this section, the term Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system means the Allegheny, Kanawha, Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers.

(b)

Establishment

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall establish a pilot program to evaluate new technologies applicable to the Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system.

(2)

Inclusions

The program may include the design, construction, or implementation of innovative technologies and solutions for the Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system, including projects for—

(A)

improved navigation;

(B)

environmental stewardship;

(C)

increased navigation reliability; and

(D)

reduced navigation costs.

(3)

Purposes

The purposes of the program shall be—

(A)

to increase the reliability and availability of federally owned and federally operated navigation facilities;

(B)

to decrease system operational risks; and

(C)

to improve—

(i)

vessel traffic management;

(ii)

access; and

(iii)

Federal asset management.

(c)

Federal Ownership Requirement

The Secretary may provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project is federally owned.

(d)

Local Cooperation Agreements

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall enter into local cooperation agreements with non-Federal interests to provide for the design, construction, installation, and operation of the projects to be carried out under the program.

(2)

Requirements

Each local cooperation agreement entered into under this subsection shall include the following:

(A)

Plan

Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a navigation improvement project, including appropriate engineering plans and specifications.

(B)

Legal and institutional structures

Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the project.

(3)

Cost sharing

Total project costs under each local cooperation agreement shall be cost-shared in accordance with the formula relating to the applicable original construction project.

(4)

Expenditures

(A)

In general

Expenditures under the program may include, for establishment at federally owned property, such as locks, dams, and bridges—

(i)

transmitters;

(ii)

responders;

(iii)

hardware;

(iv)

software; and

(v)

wireless networks.

(B)

Exclusions

Transmitters, responders, hardware, software, and wireless networks and other equipment installed on privately owned vessels or equipment shall not be eligible under the program.

(e)

Report

Not later than December 31, 2008, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program carried out under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether the program or any component of the program should be implemented on a national basis.

(f)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,100,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

3179.

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, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818).

(4)

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.

(5)

The project for flood control, Ecorse Creek, Wayne County, Michigan, authorized by section 101(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607).

(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.

3180.

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)

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).

(3)

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).

3181.

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)

Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut

(A)

In general

The portions of a 10-foot channel of the project for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1276) and described in subparagraph (B).

(B)

Description of portions

The portions of the channel referred to in subparagraph (A) are as follows:

(i)

Rectangular portion

An approximately rectangular-shaped section along the northwesterly terminus of the channel. The section is 35-feet wide and about 460-feet long and is further described as commencing at a point N104,165.85, E417,662.71, thence running south 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds east 395.00 feet to a point N103,805.32, E417,824.10, thence running south 00 degrees 38 minutes 06 seconds east 87.84 feet to a point N103,717.49, E417,825.07, thence running north 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds west 480.00 feet, to a point N104,155.59, E417,628.96, thence running north 73 degrees 05 minutes 25 seconds east 35.28 feet to the point of origin.

(ii)

Parallelogram-shaped portion

An area having the approximate shape of a parallelogram along the northeasterly portion of the channel, southeast of the area described in clause (i), approximately 20 feet wide and 260 feet long, and further described as commencing at a point N103,855.48, E417,849.99, thence running south 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds east 133.40 feet to a point N103,743.76, E417,922.89, thence running south 24 degrees 07 minutes 04 seconds east 127.75 feet to a point N103,627.16, E417,975.09, thence running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds west 190.00 feet to a point N103,786.28, E417,871.26, thence running north 17 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds west 72.39 feet to the point of origin.

(C)

Exclusion

Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the Secretary shall realign the 10-foot channel potion of the project referred to in subparagraph (A) to include, immediately north of the area described in subparagraph (B)(ii), a triangular section described as commencing at a point N103,968.35, E417,815.29, thence running south 17 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds east 118.09 feet to a point N103,855.48, E417,849.99, thence running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds west 36.76 feet to a point N103,886.27, E417,829.90, thence running north 10 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds west 83.37 feet to the point of origin.

(4)

Rockland Harbor, Maine

The portion of the project for navigation, Rockland Harbor, Maine, authorized by the Act of June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 202), consisting of a 14-foot channel located in Lermond Cove and beginning at a point with coordinates N99,977.37, E340,290.02, thence running easterly about 200.00 feet to a point with coordinates N99,978.49, E340,490.02, thence running northerly about 138.00 feet to a point with coordinates N100,116.49, E340,289.25, thence running westerly about 200.00 feet to a point with coordinates N100,115.37, E340,289.25, thence running southerly about 138.00 feet to the point of origin.

(5)

Rockport Harbor, Maine

(A)

In General

The portion of the project for navigation, Rockport Harbor, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 11, 1888 (25 Stat. 400), located within the 12-foot anchorage described in subparagraph (B).

(B)

Description of Anchorage

The anchorage referred to in subparagraph (A) is more particularly described as—

(i)

beginning at the westernmost point of the anchorage at N128800.00, E349311.00;

(ii)

thence running north 12 degrees, 52 minutes, 37.2 seconds east 127.08 feet to a point N128923.88, E349339.32;

(iii)

thence running north 17 degrees, 40 minutes, 13.0 seconds east 338.61 feet to a point N129246.51, E349442.10;

(iv)

thence running south 89 degrees, 21 minutes, 21.0 seconds east 45.36 feet to a point N129246.00, E349487.46;

(v)

thence running south 44 degrees, 13 minutes, 32.6 seconds east 18.85 feet to a point N129232.49, E349500.61;

(vi)

thence running south 17 degrees, 40 minutes 13.0 seconds west 340.50 feet to a point N128908.06, E349397.25;

(vii)

thence running south 12 degrees, 52 minutes, 37.2 seconds west 235.41 feet to a point at N128678.57, E349344.79; and

(viii)

thence running north 15 degrees, 32 minutes, 59.3 seconds west 126.04 feet to the point of origin.

(6)

Falmouth harbor, massachusetts

The portion of the project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1172), beginning at a point along the eastern side of the inner harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running north 25 degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 feet to a point N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 22 degrees 7 minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point N201,112.15, E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 1 minute 0.3 seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, E845,674.65, thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 seconds west 665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, thence running south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 160.76 feet to the point of origin.

(7)

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.

(8)

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.

(9)

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.

(10)

Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington

The portion of the project for navigation, Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 664), and section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299), consisting of the last 2,900 linear feet of the inner portion of the waterway and beginning at station 29+00 to station 0+00.

(11)

Oconto harbor, Wisconsin

(A)

In General

The portion of the project for navigation, Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the Act of August 2, 1882 (22 Stat. 196), and the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 664) (commonly known as the River and Harbor Act of 1910), consisting of a 15-foot-deep turning basin in the Oconto River, as described in subparagraph (B).

(B)

Project Description

The project referred to in subparagraph (B) is more particularly described as—

(i)

beginning at a point along the western limit of the existing project, N394,086.71, E2,530,202.71;

(ii)

thence northeasterly about 619.93 feet to a point N394,459.10, E2,530,698.33;

(iii)

thence southeasterly about 186.06 feet to a point N394,299.20, E2,530,793.47;

(iv)

thence southwesterly about 355.07 feet to a point N393,967.13, E2,530,667.76;

(v)

thence southwesterly about 304.10 feet to a point N393,826.90, E2,530,397.92; and

(vi)

thence northwesterly about 324.97 feet to the point of origin.

(b)

Anchorage Area, New London Harbor, Connecticut

The portion of the project for navigation, New London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that consists of a 23-foot waterfront channel and that is further described as beginning at a point along the western limit of the existing project, N188, 802.75, E779, 462.81, thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet to a point N189, 554.87, E780, 612.53, thence running southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a point N189, 319.88, E780, 983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to a point N188, 864.63, E780, 288.08, thence running southeasterly about 567.39 feet to a point N188, 301.88, E780, 360.49, thence running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet to the point of origin, is redesignated as an anchorage area.

(c)

Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut

The project for navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut, authorized by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1829, and by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1029), and section 364 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3733–3734), is modified to redesignate a portion of the 9-foot-deep channel to an anchorage area, approximately 900 feet in length and 90,000 square feet in area, and lying generally north of a line with points at coordinates N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and N107,938.74, E452,265.74.

(d)

Saco River, Maine

The portion of the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine, constructed 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 maneuvering basin located at the head of navigation, is redesignated as an anchorage area.

(e)

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.

(f)

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.

(g)

Rivercenter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Section 38(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C. 59j–1; 102 Stat. 4038) is amended by striking subsection (a) of this section and inserting subsection (a) (except 30 years from such date of enactment, in the case of the area or any part thereof described in subsection (a)(5)).

(h)

Additional Deauthorizations

The following projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, except with respect to any portion of such a project which portion has been completed before such date or is under construction on such date:

(1)

The project for flood protection on Atascadero Creek and its tributaries of Goleta, California, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826).

(2)

The project for the construction of bridge fenders for the Summit and St. Georges Bridge for the Inland Waterway of the Delaware River to the C & D Canal of the Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249).

(3)

The project for flood control, central and southern Florida, Shingle Creek basin, Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).

(4)

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

(5)

The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 649).

(6)

The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148).

(7)

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

(8)

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

(9)

The project for flood control, Hazard, Kentucky, authorized by section 3(a)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (100 Stat. 4014) and section 108 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621).

(10)

The project for flood control, western Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1076) and modified by section 210 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1829).

(11)

The project for flood damage reduction, Tensas-Cocodrie area, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 643).

(12)

The uncompleted portions of the project for navigation improvement for Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1033), and the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481).

(13)

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

(14)

The project for erosion protection and recreation, Fort Livingston, Grande Terre Island, Louisiana, authorized by the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.).

(15)

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

(16)

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

(17)

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

(18)

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

(19)

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

(20)

The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon, authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1991 (104 Stat. 2078).

(21)

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

(22)

The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788).

(23)

The structural portion of the project for flood control, Cypress Creek, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014).

(24)

The project for flood protection, East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1185).

(25)

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

(26)

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

(27)

The project for navigation improvements affecting Lake of the Pines, Texas, for the portion of the Red River below Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 103) and modified by the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635), the Act of May 17, 1950 (64 Stat. 163), and the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).

(28)

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

(29)

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

3182.

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)

Oakland inner harbor tidal canal, california

(1)

In general

The Secretary may convey, by separate quitclaim deeds, as soon as the conveyance of each individual portion is practicable, the title of the United States in and to all or portions of the approximately 86 acres of upland, tideland, and submerged land, commonly referred to as the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, California (referred to in this section as the Canal Property), as follows:

(A)

To the city of Oakland, without consideration, the title of the United States in and to all or portions of that part of the Canal Property that are located within the boundaries of the City of Oakland.

(B)

To the city of Alameda, or to a public entity created by or designated by the city of Alameda that is eligible to hold title to real property, without consideration, the title of the United States in and to all or portions of that part of the Canal Property that are located within the boundaries of the city of Alameda.

(C)

To the owners of lands adjacent to the Canal Property, or to a public entity created by or designated by one or more of the adjacent land owners that are eligible to hold title to real property, at fair market value, the title of the United States in and to all or portions of that part of the Canal Property that are located within the boundaries of the city in which the adjacent land is located.

(2)

Requirement

The Secretary may reserve and retain from any conveyance under this subsection a right-of-way or other rights as the Secretary determines to be necessary for the operation and maintenance of the authorized Federal channel in the Canal Property.

(3)

Annual Reports

Until the date on which each conveyance described in paragraph (1) is complete, the Secretary shall submit, by not later than November 30 of each year, to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives an annual report that describes the efforts of the Secretary to complete that conveyance during the preceding fiscal year.

(4)

Form

A conveyance made under this subsection may be, in whole or in part, in the form of an easement.

(5)

Right of first refusal

For any property on which an easement is granted under this subsection, should the Secretary seek to dispose of the property, the holder of the easement shall have the right of first refusal to the property without cost or consideration.

(6)

Repeal

Section 205 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4633; 110 Stat. 3748) is repealed.

(c)

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.

(d)

Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas

(1)

In general

As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the Tulsa District of the Corps of Engineers, shall transfer to Pleasant Township, Coffey County, Kansas, for use as the New Strawn Cemetery, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the land described in paragraph (3).

(2)

Reversion

If the land transferred under this subsection ceases at any time to be used as a nonprofit cemetery or for another public purpose, the land shall revert to the United States.

(3)

Description

The land to be conveyed under this subsection is a tract of land near John Redmond Lake, Kansas, containing approximately 3 acres and lying adjacent to the west line of the Strawn Cemetery located in the SE corner of the NE1/4 of section 32, township 20 south, range 14 east, Coffey County, Kansas.

(e)

Pike County, Missouri

(1)

Definitions

In this subsection, the following definitions apply:

(A)

Federal land

The term Federal land means the 2 parcels of Corps of Engineers land totaling approximately 42 acres, located on Buffalo Island in Pike County, Missouri, and consisting of Government Tract Numbers MIS–7 and a portion of FM–46.

(B)

Non-federal land

The term non-Federal land means the approximately 42 acres of land, subject to any existing flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream and northwest, about 200 feet from Drake Island (also known as Grimes Island).

(2)

Land Exchange

Subject to paragraph (3), on conveyance by S.S.S., Inc., to the United States of all right, title, and interest in and to the non-Federal land, the Secretary shall convey to S.S.S., Inc., all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the Federal land.

(3)

Conditions

(A)

Deeds

(i)

Non-federal land

The conveyance of the non-Federal land to the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.

(ii)

Federal land

The conveyance of the Federal land to S.S.S., Inc., shall be—

(I)

by quitclaim deed; and

(II)

subject to any reservations, terms, and conditions that the Secretary determines to be necessary to allow the United States to operate and maintain the Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.

(iii)

Legal descriptions

The Secretary shall provide a legal description of the Federal land, and S.S.S., Inc., shall provide a legal description of the non-Federal land, for inclusion in the deeds referred to in clauses (i) and (ii).

(B)

Removal of improvements

(i)

In general

The Secretary may require the removal of, or S.S.S., Inc., may voluntarily remove, any improvements to the non-Federal land before the completion of the exchange or as a condition of the exchange.

(ii)

No liability

If S.S.S., Inc., removes any improvements to the non-Federal land under clause (i)—

(I)

S.S.S., Inc., shall have no claim against the United States relating to the removal; and

(II)

the United States shall not incur or be liable for any cost associated with the removal or relocation of the improvements.

(C)

Administrative costs

The Secretary shall require S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs associated with the exchange.

(D)

Cash equalization payment

If the appraised fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the Federal land exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the non-Federal land, S.S.S., Inc., shall make a cash equalization payment to the United States.

(E)

Deadline

The land exchange under subparagraph (B) shall be completed not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

(f)

Union Lake, Missouri

(1)

In General

The Secretary shall offer to convey to the State of Missouri, before June 30, 2007, all right, title, and interest in and to approximately 205.50 acres of land described in paragraph (2) purchased for the Union Lake Project that was deauthorized as of January 1, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 40906), in accordance with section 1001(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)).

(2)

Land Description

The land referred to in paragraph (1) is described as follows:

(A)

Tract 500

A tract of land situated in Franklin County, Missouri, being part of the SW1/4 of section 7, and the NW1/4 of the SW1/4 of section 8, township 42 north, range 2 west of the fifth principal meridian, consisting of approximately 112.50 acres.

(B)

Tract 605

A tract of land situated in Franklin County, Missouri, being part of the N1/2 of the NE, and part of the SE of the NE of section 18, township 42 north, range 2 west of the fifth principal meridian, consisting of approximately 93.00 acres.

(3)

Conveyance

On acceptance by the State of Missouri of the offer by the Secretary under paragraph (1), the land described in paragraph (2) shall immediately be conveyed, in its current condition, by Secretary to the State of Missouri.

(g)

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.

(h)

Lookout point project, 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.

(i)

Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina

(1)

In General

The Secretary shall convey, at fair market value, to the State of South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the parcels of land described in paragraph (2)(A) that are 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

(A)

In general

Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the parcels of land referred to in paragraph (1) are the parcels contained in the portion of land described in Army Lease Number DACW21–1–92–0500.

(B)

Retention of interests

The United States shall retain—

(i)

ownership of all land included in the lease referred to in subparagraph (A) that would have been acquired for operational purposes in accordance with the 1971 implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint Acquisition Policy; and

(ii)

such other land as is determined by the Secretary to be required for authorized project purposes, including easement rights-of-way to remaining Federal land.

(C)

Survey

The cost of the survey shall be paid by the State.

(3)

Costs of conveyance

(A)

In general

The State shall be responsible for all costs, including real estate transaction and environmental costs, associated with the conveyance under this subsection.

(B)

Form of contribution

As determined appropriate by the Secretary, in lieu of payment of compensation to the United States under subparagraph (A), the State may perform certain environmental or real estate actions associated with the conveyance under this subsection if those actions are performed in close coordination with, to the satisfaction of, and in compliance with the laws of the United States.

(4)

Additional Terms and Conditions

(A)

No effect on shore management policy

The Shoreline Management Policy (ER–1130–2–406) of the Corps of Engineers may not be changed or altered for any proposed development of land conveyed under this subsection.

(B)

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 in effect as of the date of the conveyance.

(C)

Land not conveyed

The State shall continue to manage the land that is subject to Army Lease Number DACW21–1–92–0500 and that is not conveyed under this subsection in accordance with the terms and conditions of Army Lease Number DACW21–1–92–0500.

(j)

Denison, Texas

(1)

In General

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 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

Not later than 90 days after the date of acceptance by the city of Denison, Texas, of an offer under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall convey the land surveyed under paragraph (2) by quitclaim deed to the city of Denison, Texas.

(k)

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.

3183.

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)

Lake Texoma, Oklahoma

(1)

Release

Any reversionary interest relating to public parks and recreation on the land conveyed by the Secretary to the State of Oklahoma at Lake Texoma pursuant to the Act entitled An Act to authorize the sale of certain lands to the State of Oklahoma (67 Stat. 63), shall terminate on the date of enactment of this Act.

(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, an amended deed, or any other appropriate instrument to release each reversionary interest to which paragraph (1) applies.

(3)

Preservation of Reserved Rights

A release of a reversionary interest under this subsection shall not affect any other right of the United States in any deed of conveyance pursuant to the Act referred to in paragraph (1).

(c)

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, roads, or improvements as a precondition of any release or extinguishment of the deed reservations.

(2)

Conveyance

The Secretary may convey to the city of Lowell, Oregon, 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).

(d)

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).

(e)

Lower granite pool, Washington

(1)

Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use Restrictions

With respect to property covered by each deed described in paragraph (2)—

(A)

the reversionary interests and use restrictions relating to port or industrial purposes are extinguished; and

(B)

the human habitation or other building structure use restriction is extinguished in each area in which the elevation is above the standard project flood elevation.

(2)

Deeds

The deeds referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:

(A)

Auditor’s File Numbers 432576, 443411, 499988, and 579771 of Whitman County, Washington.

(B)

Auditor’s File Numbers 125806, 138801, 147888, 154511, 156928, and 176360 of Asotin County, Washington.

(f)

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.

(g)

No Effect on Other Rights

Nothing in this section affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of Engineers for authorized project purposes.

IV

Studies

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.

.

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.

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.

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.

4005.

Eurasian milfoil

Under the authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary shall conduct a study, at Federal expense, to develop national protocols for the use of the Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for biological control of Eurasian milfoil in the lakes of Vermont and other northeastern States.

4006.

Fire Island, Alaska

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigational improvements, including a barge landing facility, Fire Island, Alaska.

4007.

Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska

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

4008.

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.

4009.

Nome Harbor, Alaska

The Secretary shall review the project for navigation, Nome Harbor improvements, Alaska, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 273), to determine whether the project cost increases, including the cost of rebuilding the entrance channel damaged in a September 2005 storm, resulted from a design deficiency.

4010.

St. George Harbor, Alaska

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

4011.

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.

4012.

Valdez, Alaska

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Valdez, Alaska, and if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, shall carry out the project at a total cost of $20,000,000.

4013.

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.

4014.

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.

4015.

Aliso Creek, California

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for streambank protection and environmental restoration along Aliso Creek, California.

4016.

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.

4017.

Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge, Alameda, California

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall prepare a comprehensive report that examines the condition of the existing Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge, Alameda County, California (referred to in this section as the Railroad Bridge), and determines the most economic means to maintain that rail link by either repairing or replacing the Railroad Bridge.

(b)

Requirements

The report under this section shall include—

(1)

a determination of whether the Railroad Bridge is in immediate danger of failing or collapsing;

(2)

the annual costs to maintain the Railroad Bridge;

(3)

the costs to place the Railroad Bridge in a safe, no-collapse condition, such that the Railroad Bridge will not endanger maritime traffic;

(4)

the costs to retrofit the Railroad Bridge such that the Railroad Bridge may continue to serve as a rail link between the Island of Alameda and the mainland; and

(5)

the costs to construct a replacement for the Railroad Bridge capable of serving the current and future rail, light rail, and homeland security needs of the region.

(c)

Submission of Report

The Secretary shall—

(1)

complete the Railroad Bridge report under subsection (a) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act; and

(2)

submit the report to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives.

(d)

Limitations

The Secretary shall not—

(1)

demolish the Railroad Bridge or otherwise render the Railroad Bridge unavailable or unusable for rail traffic; or

(2)

reduce maintenance of the Railroad Bridge.

(e)

Easement

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall provide to the city of Alameda, California, a nonexclusive access easement over the Oakland Estuary that comprises the subsurface land and surface approaches for the Railroad Bridge that—

(A)

is consistent with the Bay Trail Proposal of the city of Oakland; and