H.R. 1495 (110th): Water Resources Development Act of 2007

The text of the bill below is as of Mar 13, 2007 (Introduced).

Source: GPO

I

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1495

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 13, 2007

(for himself and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

Title I—Water Resources Projects

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.

Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.

Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.

Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.

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

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.

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

Title II—General Provisions

Sec. 2001. Non-Federal contributions.

Sec. 2002. Harbor cost sharing.

Sec. 2003. Funding to process permits.

Sec. 2004. National shoreline erosion control development and demonstration program.

Sec. 2005. Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects.

Sec. 2006. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 2007. Small flood damage reduction projects.

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

Sec. 2009. Written agreement for water resources projects.

Sec. 2010. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.

Sec. 2011. Compilation of laws.

Sec. 2012. Dredged material disposal.

Sec. 2013. Wetlands mitigation.

Sec. 2014. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.

Sec. 2015. Remote and subsistence harbors.

Sec. 2016. Beneficial uses of dredged material.

Sec. 2017. Cost-sharing provisions for certain areas.

Sec. 2018. Use of other Federal funds.

Sec. 2019. Revision of project partnership agreement.

Sec. 2020. Cost sharing.

Sec. 2021. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction.

Sec. 2022. Watershed and river basin assessments.

Sec. 2023. Tribal partnership program.

Sec. 2024. Wildfire firefighting.

Sec. 2025. Technical assistance.

Sec. 2026. Lakes program.

Sec. 2027. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local actions.

Sec. 2028. Project streamlining.

Sec. 2029. Cooperative agreements.

Sec. 2030. Training funds.

Sec. 2031. Access to water resource data.

Sec. 2032. Shore protection projects.

Sec. 2033. Ability to pay.

Sec. 2034. Leasing authority.

Sec. 2035. Cost estimates.

Sec. 2036. Project planning.

Sec. 2037. Independent peer review.

Sec. 2038. Studies and reports for water resources projects.

Sec. 2039. Offshore oil and gas fabrication port.

Title III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.

Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska.

Sec. 3003. Tatitlek, Alaska.

Sec. 3004. Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Sec. 3005. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.

Sec. 3006. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.

Sec. 3007. American and Sacramento Rivers, California.

Sec. 3008. Compton Creek, California.

Sec. 3009. Grayson Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California.

Sec. 3010. Hamilton Airfield, California.

Sec. 3011. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, California.

Sec. 3012. Kaweah River, California.

Sec. 3013. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.

Sec. 3014. Llagas Creek, California.

Sec. 3015. Magpie Creek, California.

Sec. 3016. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.

Sec. 3017. Pinole Creek, California.

Sec. 3018. Prado Dam, California.

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

Sec. 3020. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.

Sec. 3021. Seven Oaks Dam, California.

Sec. 3022. Upper Guadalupe River, California.

Sec. 3023. Walnut Creek Channel, California.

Sec. 3024. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.

Sec. 3025. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.

Sec. 3026. Yuba River Basin project, California.

Sec. 3027. South Platte River Basin, Colorado.

Sec. 3028. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland.

Sec. 3029. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.

Sec. 3030. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.

Sec. 3031. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.

Sec. 3032. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.

Sec. 3033. Miami Harbor, Florida.

Sec. 3034. Peanut Island, Florida.

Sec. 3035. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.

Sec. 3036. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida.

Sec. 3037. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.

Sec. 3038. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.

Sec. 3039. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir improvements, Idaho.

Sec. 3040. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.

Sec. 3041. Cache River Levee, Illinois.

Sec. 3042. Chicago River, Illinois.

Sec. 3043. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, Illinois.

Sec. 3044. Emiquon, Illinois.

Sec. 3045. Lasalle, Illinois.

Sec. 3046. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.

Sec. 3047. Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana.

Sec. 3048. Koontz Lake, Indiana.

Sec. 3049. White River, Indiana.

Sec. 3050. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.

Sec. 3051. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.

Sec. 3052. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed.

Sec. 3053. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.

Sec. 3054. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.

Sec. 3055. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.

Sec. 3056. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana.

Sec. 3057. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.

Sec. 3058. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.

Sec. 3059. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Louisiana.

Sec. 3060. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.

Sec. 3061. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.

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

Sec. 3063. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.

Sec. 3064. Ada, Minnesota.

Sec. 3065. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.

Sec. 3066. Grand Marais, Minnesota.

Sec. 3067. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.

Sec. 3068. Granite Falls, Minnesota.

Sec. 3069. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.

Sec. 3070. Red Lake River, Minnesota.

Sec. 3071. Silver Bay, Minnesota.

Sec. 3072. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.

Sec. 3073. Two Harbors, Minnesota.

Sec. 3074. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.

Sec. 3075. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.

Sec. 3076. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.

Sec. 3077. L–15 levee, Missouri.

Sec. 3078. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.

Sec. 3079. River Des Peres, Missouri.

Sec. 3080. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Sec. 3081. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.

Sec. 3082. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.

Sec. 3083. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.

Sec. 3084. Buffalo Harbor, New York.

Sec. 3085. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.

Sec. 3086. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.

Sec. 3087. New York State Canal System.

Sec. 3088. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.

Sec. 3089. Mahoning River, Ohio.

Sec. 3090. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.

Sec. 3091. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3092. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3093. Solomon’s Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3094. South Central Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3095. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 3096. Cedar Bayou, Texas.

Sec. 3097. Freeport Harbor, Texas.

Sec. 3098. Lake Kemp, Texas.

Sec. 3099. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.

Sec. 3100. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.

Sec. 3101. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.

Sec. 3102. Proctor Lake, Texas.

Sec. 3103. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.

Sec. 3104. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.

Sec. 3105. Duwamish/Green, Washington.

Sec. 3106. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.

Sec. 3107. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.

Sec. 3108. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.

Sec. 3109. Northern West Virginia.

Sec. 3110. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.

Sec. 3111. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.

Sec. 3112. Continuation of project authorizations.

Sec. 3113. Project reauthorizations.

Sec. 3114. Project deauthorizations.

Sec. 3115. Land conveyances.

Sec. 3116. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use restrictions.

Title IV—Studies

Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program.

Sec. 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites.

Sec. 4003. Southwestern United States drought study.

Sec. 4004. Delaware River.

Sec. 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.

Sec. 4006. Kuskokwim River, Alaska.

Sec. 4007. St. George Harbor, Alaska.

Sec. 4008. Susitna River, Alaska.

Sec. 4009. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.

Sec. 4010. Searcy County, Arkansas.

Sec. 4011. Elkhorn Slough Estuary, California.

Sec. 4012. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.

Sec. 4013. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California.

Sec. 4014. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.

Sec. 4015. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.

Sec. 4016. Napa River, St. Helena, California.

Sec. 4017. Orick, California.

Sec. 4018. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.

Sec. 4019. Sacramento River, California.

Sec. 4020. San Diego County, California.

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

Sec. 4022. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.

Sec. 4023. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.

Sec. 4024. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware.

Sec. 4025. Collier County Beaches, Florida.

Sec. 4026. Lower St. Johns River, Florida.

Sec. 4027. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.

Sec. 4028. Meriwether County, Georgia.

Sec. 4029. Tybee Island, Georgia.

Sec. 4030. Boise River, Idaho.

Sec. 4031. Ballard’s Island Side Channel, Illinois.

Sec. 4032. Salem, Indiana.

Sec. 4033. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.

Sec. 4034. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.

Sec. 4035. Louisville, Kentucky.

Sec. 4036. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Sec. 4037. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.

Sec. 4038. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Sec. 4039. Northeast Mississippi.

Sec. 4040. St. Louis, Missouri.

Sec. 4041. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.

Sec. 4042. Bayonne, New Jersey.

Sec. 4043. Carteret, New Jersey.

Sec. 4044. Gloucester County, New Jersey.

Sec. 4045. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.

Sec. 4046. Batavia, New York.

Sec. 4047. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.

Sec. 4048. Finger Lakes, New York.

Sec. 4049. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.

Sec. 4050. Newtown Creek, New York.

Sec. 4051. Niagara River, New York.

Sec. 4052. Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.

Sec. 4053. Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York.

Sec. 4054. Lincoln County, North Carolina.

Sec. 4055. Wilkes County, North Carolina.

Sec. 4056. Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Sec. 4057. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Sec. 4058. Lake Erie, Ohio.

Sec. 4059. Ohio River, Ohio.

Sec. 4060. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.

Sec. 4061. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon.

Sec. 4062. Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4063. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4064. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4065. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4066. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4067. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.

Sec. 4068. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.

Sec. 4069. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.

Sec. 4070. Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Sec. 4071. Cleveland, Tennessee.

Sec. 4072. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.

Sec. 4073. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.

Sec. 4074. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee.

Sec. 4075. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.

Sec. 4076. Port of Galveston, Texas.

Sec. 4077. Grand County and Moab, Utah.

Sec. 4078. Southwestern Utah.

Sec. 4079. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina.

Sec. 4080. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.

Sec. 4081. Monongahela River Basin, northern West Virginia.

Sec. 4082. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.

Sec. 4083. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.

Title V—Miscellaneous

Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels.

Sec. 5002. Watershed management.

Sec. 5003. Dam safety.

Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations.

Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas.

Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects.

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

Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.

Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment.

Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.

Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi River enhancement project.

Sec. 5012. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.

Sec. 5014. Great Lakes tributary models.

Sec. 5015. Great Lakes navigation.

Sec. 5016. Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project.

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

Sec. 5018. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program.

Sec. 5019. Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy evaluation and monitoring program.

Sec. 5020. Lock and dam security.

Sec. 5021. Rehabilitation.

Sec. 5022. Research and development program for Columbia and Snake River salmon survival.

Sec. 5023. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.

Sec. 5024. Alaska.

Sec. 5025. Barrow, Alaska.

Sec. 5026. Coffman Cove, Alaska.

Sec. 5027. Fort Yukon, Alaska.

Sec. 5028. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska.

Sec. 5029. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.

Sec. 5030. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.

Sec. 5031. Tanana River, Alaska.

Sec. 5032. Valdez, Alaska.

Sec. 5033. Whittier, Alaska.

Sec. 5034. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.

Sec. 5035. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.

Sec. 5036. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.

Sec. 5037. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.

Sec. 5038. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.

Sec. 5039. Cambria, California.

Sec. 5040. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.

Sec. 5041. Dana Point Harbor, California.

Sec. 5042. East San Joaquin County, California.

Sec. 5043. Eastern Santa Clara basin, California.

Sec. 5044. Los Osos, California.

Sec. 5045. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.

Sec. 5046. Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California.

Sec. 5047. San Francisco, California.

Sec. 5048. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.

Sec. 5049. San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and Suisun Marsh ecosystem restoration.

Sec. 5050. Stockton, California.

Sec. 5051. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut.

Sec. 5052. Florida Keys water quality improvements.

Sec. 5053. Lake Worth, Florida.

Sec. 5054. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho.

Sec. 5055. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.

Sec. 5056. Illinois River Basin restoration.

Sec. 5057. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration.

Sec. 5058. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 5059. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois.

Sec. 5060. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.

Sec. 5061. Calumet region, Indiana.

Sec. 5062. Paducah, Kentucky.

Sec. 5063. Southern and eastern Kentucky.

Sec. 5064. Winchester, Kentucky.

Sec. 5065. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Sec. 5066. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.

Sec. 5067. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana.

Sec. 5068. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.

Sec. 5069. Charlestown, Maryland.

Sec. 5070. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.

Sec. 5071. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Delaware and Maryland.

Sec. 5072. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.

Sec. 5073. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.

Sec. 5074. Crookston, Minnesota.

Sec. 5075. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.

Sec. 5076. Itasca County, Minnesota.

Sec. 5077. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Sec. 5078. Northeastern Minnesota.

Sec. 5079. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.

Sec. 5080. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.

Sec. 5081. Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois.

Sec. 5082. St. Louis, Missouri.

Sec. 5083. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.

Sec. 5084. Atlantic Coast of New York.

Sec. 5085. College Point, New York City, New York.

Sec. 5086. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.

Sec. 5087. Hudson River, New York.

Sec. 5088. Mount Morris Dam, New York.

Sec. 5089. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.

Sec. 5090. Toussaint River, Ohio.

Sec. 5091. Eugene, Oregon.

Sec. 5092. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.

Sec. 5093. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5094. Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5095. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5096. Northeast Pennsylvania.

Sec. 5097. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.

Sec. 5098. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Sec. 5099. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.

Sec. 5100. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.

Sec. 5101. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.

Sec. 5102. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.

Sec. 5103. Tennessee River partnership.

Sec. 5104. Upper Mississippi embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

Sec. 5105. Bosque River Watershed, Texas.

Sec. 5106. Dallas Floodway, Dallas Texas.

Sec. 5107. Harris County, Texas.

Sec. 5108. Onion Creek, Texas.

Sec. 5109. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.

Sec. 5110. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.

Sec. 5111. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.

Sec. 5112. Puget Island, Washington.

Sec. 5113. Willapa Bay, Washington.

Sec. 5114. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.

Sec. 5115. Central West Virginia.

Sec. 5116. Southern West Virginia.

Sec. 5117. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.

Title VI—Florida Everglades

Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida.

Sec. 6002. Pilot projects.

Sec. 6003. Maximum costs.

Sec. 6004. Project authorization.

Sec. 6005. Credit.

Sec. 6006. Outreach and assistance.

Sec. 6007. Critical restoration projects.

Sec. 6008. Modified water deliveries.

Sec. 6009. Deauthorizations.

Sec. 6010. Regional engineering model for environmental restoration.

Title VII—Louisiana Coastal Area

Sec. 7001. Definitions.

Sec. 7002. Comprehensive plan.

Sec. 7003. Louisiana coastal area.

Sec. 7004. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force.

Sec. 7005. Project modifications.

Sec. 7006. Construction.

Sec. 7007. Non-Federal cost share.

Sec. 7008. Project justification.

Sec. 7009. Independent review.

Sec. 7010. Expedited reports.

Sec. 7011. Reporting.

Sec. 7012. New Orleans and vicinity.

Sec. 7013. 

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.

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)

Rio Salado Oeste, Arizona

The project for environmental restoration, Rio Salado Oeste, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $166,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000.

(4)

Santa cruz river, paseo de las iglesias, arizona

The project for environmental restoration, Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,400,000.

(5)

Tanque verde creek, pima county, arizona

The project for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,906,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,070,000.

(6)

Salt river (va shlyay’ akimel), maricopa county, arizona

The project for environmental restoration, Salt River (Va Shlyay’ Akimel), Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $162,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $105,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,900,000.

(7)

Hamilton city, california

The project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Hamilton City, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $52,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,100,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of $18,300,000.

(8)

Imperial beach, california

The project for storm damage reduction, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at an estimated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $21,250,000.

(9)

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.

(10)

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.

(11)

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.

(12)

Denver county reach, South platte river, denver, colorado

The project for environmental restoration, Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $21,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,680,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,370,000.

(13)

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).

(14)

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.

(15)

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.

(16)

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.

(17)

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.

(18)

Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana

The project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $9,680,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

(19)

Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana

(A)

In general

The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief of Engineers dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $886,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $576,355,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $310,345,000.

(B)

Credit

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

(20)

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.

(21)

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.

(22)

Mississippi coastal, mississippi

The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, Mississippi Coastal, Mississippi, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $107,690,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,690,000.

(23)

Kansas citys levees, missouri and kansas

The project for flood damage reduction, Kansas Citys levees, Missouri and Kansas, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $65,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $42,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,900,000.

(24)

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.

(25)

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.

(26)

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.

(27)

Manasquan inlet to barnegat inlet, new jersey

The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $71,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $46,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,165,000, and at an estimated total cost of $119,680,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $59,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $59,840,000.

(28)

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.

(29)

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.

(30)

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.

(31)

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.

(32)

Hocking river, monday creek sub-basin, ohio

The project for environmental restoration, Hocking River, Monday Creek Sub-basin, Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 24, 2006, at a total cost of $20,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,440,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,540,000.

(33)

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.

(34)

Pawley’s island, south carolina

The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawley’s Island, South Carolina, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,140,000, and at an estimated total cost of $21,200,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,600,000.

(35)

Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas

The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $100,300,000.

(36)

Gulf intracoastal waterway, matagorda bay re-route, texas

The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of $17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

(37)

Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos river, texas

The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos River, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of $14,450,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and 1/2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

(38)

Lower colorado river basin phase i, texas

The project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Lower Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $110,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $69,640,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $41,090,000.

(39)

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.

(40)

Craney island eastward expansion, norfolk harbor and channels, virginia

The project for navigation, Craney Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia: Report of Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $712,103,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $31,229,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $680,874,000.

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)

Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas

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

(4)

Barrel springs wash, palmdale, california

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

(5)

Borrego springs, california

Project for flood damage reduction, Borrego Springs, California.

(6)

Colton, california

Project for flood damage reduction, Colton, California.

(7)

Hunts canyon wash, palmdale, california

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

(8)

Ontario and chino, california

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

(9)

Santa venetia, california

Project for flood damage deduction, Santa Venetia, California.

(10)

Whittier, California

Project for flood damage reduction, Whittier, California.

(11)

Salem, massachusetts

Project for flood damage reduction, Salem, Massachusetts.

(12)

Cass river, michigan

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

(13)

Crow river, rockford, minnesota

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

(14)

Marsh creek, minnesota

Project for flood damage reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.

(15)

South branch of the wild rice river, borup, minnesota

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

(16)

Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri

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

(17)

Acid brook, pompton lakes, new jersey

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

(18)

Cannisteo river, addison, new york

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

(19)

Cohocton river, campbell, new york

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

(20)

Dry and otter creeks, cortland, new york

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

(21)

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

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

(22)

East valley creek, andover, new york

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

(23)

Sunnyside brook, westchester county, new york

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

(24)

Little yankee run, ohio

Project for flood damage reduction, Little Yankee Run, Ohio.

(25)

Little neshaminy creek, warrenton, pennsylvania

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

(26)

Southampton creek watershed, southampton, pennsylvania

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

(27)

Spring creek, lower macungie township, pennsylvania

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

(28)

Yardley aqueduct, silver and brock creeks, yardley, pennsylvania

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

(29)

Surfside beach, south carolina

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

(30)

Congelosi ditch, missouri city, texas

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

(31)

Dilley, texas

Project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas.

(b)

Special Rules

(1)

Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas

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

(2)

Ontario and chino, california

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

(3)

Santa venetia, california

The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Santa Venetia, California, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible and shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

(4)

Whittier, california

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

(5)

South Branch of the wild rice river, borup, minnesota

In carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a) the Secretary may consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project and shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

(6)

Acid brook, pompton lakes, new jersey

The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

(7)

Dilley, texas

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

1003.

Small projects for emergency streambank protection

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):

(1)

St. johns bluff training wall, duval county, florida

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

(2)

Ouachita and black rivers, arkansas and louisiana

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

(3)

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

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

(4)

Pug hole lake, minnesota

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

(5)

Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri

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

(6)

Platte river, platte city, missouri

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

(7)

Rush creek, parkville, missouri

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

(8)

Dry and otter creeks, cortland county, new york

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

(9)

Keuka lake, hammondsport, new york

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

(10)

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.

(11)

Owego creek, tioga county, new york

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

(12)

Howard road outfall, shelby county, tennessee

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

(13)

Mitch farm ditch and lateral d, shelby county, tennessee

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

(14)

Wolf river tributaries, shelby county, tennessee

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

(15)

Johnson creek, arlington, texas

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

(16)

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)

Mississippi river ship channel, louisiana

Project for navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.

(2)

East basin, cape cod canal, sandwich, massachusetts

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

(3)

Lynn harbor, lynn, massachusetts

Project for navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.

(4)

Merrimack river, haverhill, massachusetts

Project for navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.

(5)

Oak bluffs harbor, oak bluffs, massachusetts

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

(6)

Woods hole great harbor, falmouth, massachusetts

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

(7)

Au sable river, michigan

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

(8)

Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan

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

(9)

Tower harbor, tower, minnesota

Project for navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota.

(10)

Olcott harbor, olcott, new york

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

(b)

Special Rules

(1)

Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan

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

(2)

Tower harbor, tower minnesota

The Secretary shall carry out the project for navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

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)

Santa rosa creek, santa rosa, california

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Santa Rosa Creek in the vicinity of the Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa, California.

(7)

Stockton deep water ship channel and lower san joaquin river, california

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San Joaquin River, California.

(8)

Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, california

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

(9)

Clam bayou and dinkins bayou, sanibel island, florida

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

(10)

Chattahoochee fall line, georgia and alabama

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

(11)

Longwood cove, gainesville, georgia

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

(12)

City park, university lakes, louisiana

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

(13)

Mill pond, littleton, massachusetts

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

(14)

Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts

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

(15)

Rush lake, minnesota

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota.

(16)

South fork of the crow river, hutchinson, minnesota

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

(17)

St. louis, missouri

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

(18)

Truckee river, reno, nevada

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

(19)

Grover’s mill pond, new jersey

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

(20)

Dugway creek, bratenahl, ohio

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

(21)

Johnson creek, gresham, oregon

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

(22)

Beaver creek, beaver and salem, pennsylvania

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

(23)

Cementon dam, lehigh river, pennsylvania

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

(24)

Saucon creek, northampton county, pennsylvania

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

(25)

Blackstone river, rhode island

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

(26)

Wilson branch, cheraw, south carolina

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

(27)

White river, bethel, vermont

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

(b)

Special rule

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

1007.

Small projects for shoreline protection

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 3 of the Act entitled An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g):

(1)

Nelson lagoon, alaska

Project for shoreline protection, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.

(2)

Sanibel island, florida

Project for shoreline protection, Sanibel Island, Florida.

(3)

Apra harbor, guam

Project for shoreline protection, Apra Harbor, Guam.

(4)

Piti, cabras island, guam

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

(5)

Narrows and gravesend bay, upper new york bay, brooklyn, new york

Project for shoreline protection in the vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York Bay, Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York.

(6)

Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard, pennsylvania

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

(7)

Port aransas, texas

Project for shoreline protection, Port Aransas, Texas.

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.

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.

Harbor cost sharing

(a)

Payments During Construction

Section 101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(1); 100 Stat. 4082) is amended in each of subparagraphs (B) and (C) by striking 45 feet and inserting 53 feet.

(b)

Operation and Maintenance

Section 101(b)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)) is amended by striking 45 feet and inserting 53 feet.

(c)

Definitions

Section 214 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat. 4108) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (3) by striking 45 feet and inserting 53 feet.

(d)

Applicability

The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall apply only to a project, or separable element of a project, on which a contract for physical construction has not been awarded before October 1, 2003.

(e)

Revision of Partnership Agreement

The Secretary shall revise any partnership agreement entered into after October 1, 2003, for any project to which the amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (c) apply to take into account the change in non-Federal participation in the project as a result of such amendments.

2003.

Funding to process permits

Section 214(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 117 Stat. 1836; 119 Stat. 2169; 120 Stat. 318; 120 Stat. 3197) is amended by striking 2007 and inserting 2010.

2004.

National shoreline erosion control development and demonstration program

(a)

Extension of Program

Section 5(a) of the Act entitled An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h(a)), is amended by striking 7 years and inserting 10 years.

(b)

Extension of Planning, Design, and Construction Phase

Section 5(b)(1)(A) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking 3 years and inserting 6 years.

(c)

Cost Sharing; Removal of Projects

Section 5(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)) is amended—

(1)

by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and

(2)

by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

(3)

Cost sharing

The Secretary may enter into a cost sharing agreement with a non-Federal interest to carry out a project, or a phase of a project, under the erosion control program in cooperation with the non-Federal interest.

(4)

Removal of projects

The Secretary may pay all or a portion of the costs of removing a project, or an element of a project, constructed under the erosion control program if the Secretary determines during the term of the program that the project or element is detrimental to the environment, private property, or public safety.

.

(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

Section 5(e)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(e)(2)) is amended by striking $25,000,000 and inserting $31,000,000.

2005.

Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects

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

2006.

Aquatic ecosystem restoration

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

2007.

Small flood damage reduction projects

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

2008.

Modification of projects for improvement of the quality of the environment

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

2009.

Written agreement for water resources projects

(a)

In general

Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) is amended—

(1)

by striking Sec. 221 and inserting the following:

221.

Written agreement requirement for water resources projects

;

(2)

by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:

(a)

Cooperation of Non-Federal Interest

(1)

In general

After December 31, 1970, the construction of any water resources project, or an acceptable separable element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal interest where such interest will be reimbursed for such construction under any provision of law, shall not be commenced until each non-Federal interest has entered into a written partnership agreement with the Secretary (or, where appropriate, the district engineer for the district in which the project will be carried out) under which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and requirements for implementation or construction of the project or the appropriate element of the project, as the case may be; except that no such agreement shall be required if the Secretary determines that the administrative costs associated with negotiating, executing, or administering the agreement would exceed the amount of the contribution required from the non-Federal interest and are less than $25,000.

(2)

Liquidated damages

A partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages in the event of a failure of one or more parties to perform.

(3)

Obligation of future appropriations

In any partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) and entered into by a State, or a body politic of the State which derives its powers from the State constitution, or a governmental entity created by the State legislature, the agreement may reflect that it does not obligate future appropriations for such performance and payment when obligating future appropriations would be inconsistent with constitutional or statutory limitations of the State or a political subdivision of the State.

(4)

Credit for in-kind contributions

(A)

In general

A partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) may provide with respect to a project that the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, including a project implemented without specific authorization in law, the value of in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal interest, including—

(i)

the costs of planning (including data collection), design, management, mitigation, construction, and construction services that are provided by the non-Federal interest for implementation of the project;

(ii)

the value of materials or services provided before execution of the partnership agreement, including efforts on constructed elements incorporated into the project; and

(iii)

the value of materials and services provided after execution of the partnership agreement.

(B)

Condition

The Secretary shall credit an in-kind contribution under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines that the property or service provided as an in-kind contribution is integral to the project.

(C)

Work performed before partnership agreement

In any case in which the non-Federal interest is to receive credit under subparagraph (A)(ii) for the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest and such work has not been carried out as of the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such work, and only work carried out following the execution of the agreement shall be eligible for credit.

(D)

Limitations

Credit authorized under this paragraph for a project—

(i)

shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of the project;

(ii)

shall not alter any other requirement that a non-Federal interest provide lands, easements or rights-of-way, or areas for disposal of dredged material for the project;

(iii)

shall not alter any requirement that a non-Federal interest pay a portion of the costs of construction of the project under sections 101 and 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211; 33 U.S.C. 2213); and

(iv)

shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the materials, services, or other things provided by the non-Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary.

(E)

Applicability

(i)

In general

This paragraph shall apply to water resources projects authorized after November 16, 1986, including projects initiated after November 16, 1986, without specific authorization in law.

(ii)

Limitation

In any case in which a specific provision of law provides for a non-Federal interest to receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a study for, or construction or operation and maintenance of, a water resources project, the specific provision of law shall apply instead of this paragraph.

.

(b)

Non-federal interest

Section 221(b) of such Act is amended to read as follows:

(b)

Definition of non-federal interest

The term non-Federal interest means a legally constituted public body (including a federally recognized Indian tribe), and a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government, that has full authority and capability to perform the terms of its agreement and to pay damages, if necessary, in the event of failure to perform.

.

(c)

Program administration

Section 221 of such Act is further amended—

(1)

by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (h); and

(2)

by inserting after subsection (d) the following:

(e)

Delegation of authority

Not later than September 30, 2008, the Secretary shall issue policies and guidelines for partnership agreements that delegate to the district engineers, at a minimum—

(1)

the authority to approve any policy in a partnership agreement that has appeared in an agreement previously approved by the Secretary;

(2)

the authority to approve any policy in a partnership agreement the specific terms of which are dictated by law or by a final feasibility study, final environmental impact statement, or other final decision document for a water resources project;

(3)

the authority to approve any partnership agreement that complies with the policies and guidelines issued by the Secretary; and

(4)

the authority to sign any partnership agreement for any water resources project unless, within 30 days of the date of authorization of the project, the Secretary notifies the district engineer in which the project will be carried out that the Secretary wishes to retain the prerogative to sign the partnership agreement for that project.

(f)

Report to congress

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this subsection, and every year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report detailing the following:

(1)

The number of partnership agreements signed by district engineers and the number of partnership agreements signed by the Secretary.

(2)

For any partnership agreement signed by the Secretary, an explanation of why delegation to the district engineer was not appropriate.

(g)

Public availability

Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Chief of Engineers shall—

(1)

ensure that each district engineer has made available to the public, including on the Internet, all partnership agreements entered into under this section within the preceding 10 years and all partnership agreements for water resources projects currently being carried out in that district; and

(2)

make each partnership agreement entered into after such date of enactment available to the public, including on the Internet, not later than 7 days after the date on which such agreement is entered into.

.

(d)

Local cooperation

Section 912(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (2)—

(A)

by striking shall the first place it appears and inserting may; and

(B)

by striking the last sentence; and

(2)

in paragraph (4)—

(A)

by inserting after injunction, for the following: payment of damages or, for;

(B)

by striking to collect a civil penalty imposed under this section,; and

(C)

by striking any civil penalty imposed under this section, and inserting any damages,.

(e)

Applicability

The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), and (d) only apply to partnership agreements entered into after the date of enactment of this Act; except that, at the request of a non-Federal interest for a project, the district engineer for the district in which the project is located may amend a project partnership agreement entered into on or before such date and under which construction on the project has not been initiated as of such date of enactment for the purpose of incorporating such amendments.

(f)

Partnership and cooperative arrangements; references

(1)

In general

A goal of agreements entered into under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) shall be to further partnership and cooperative arrangements, and the agreements shall be referred to as partnership agreements.

(2)

References to cooperation agreements

Any reference in a law, regulation, document, or other paper of the United States to a cooperation agreement or project cooperation agreement shall be deemed to be a reference to a partnership agreement or a project partnership agreement, respectively.

(3)

References to partnership agreements

Any reference to a partnership agreement or project partnership agreement in this Act (other than this section) shall be deemed to be a reference to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation agreement, respectively.

2010.

Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse

(a)

In General

The Secretary may provide to State and local governments assessment, planning, and design assistance for remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse of areas located within the boundaries of such State or local governments where such remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse will contribute to the improvement of water quality or the conservation of water and related resources of drainage basins and watersheds within the United States.

(b)

Non-Federal Share

The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

2011.

Compilation of laws

(a)

Compilation of laws enacted after November 8, 1966

Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Chief of Engineers shall prepare a compilation of the laws of the United States relating to the improvement of rivers and harbors, flood damage reduction, beach and shoreline erosion, hurricane and storm damage reduction, ecosystem and environmental restoration, and other water resources development enacted after November 8, 1966, and before January 1, 2008, and have such compilation printed for the use of the Department of the Army, Congress, and the general public.

(b)

Reprint of laws enacted before November 8, 1966

The Secretary shall have the volumes containing the laws referred to in subsection (a) enacted before November 8, 1966, reprinted.

(c)

Index

The Secretary shall include an index in each volume compiled, and each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section.

(d)

Congressional copies

Not later than December 1, 2008, the Secretary shall transmit at least 25 copies of each volume compiled, and of each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section to each of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

(e)

Availability

The Secretary shall ensure that each volume compiled, and each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section are available through electronic means, including the Internet.

2012.

Dredged material disposal

Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a) is amended—

(1)

by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);

(2)

by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

(c)

Dredged Material Facility

(1)

In general

The Secretary may enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with one or more non-Federal interests with respect to a water resources project, or group of water resources projects within a geographic region, if appropriate, for the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility (including any facility used to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged material, which may include effective sediment contaminant reduction technologies) using funds provided in whole or in part by the Federal Government.

(2)

Performance

One or more of the parties to a partnership agreement under this subsection may perform the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility.

(3)

Multiple projects

If a facility to which this subsection applies serves to manage dredged material from multiple water resources projects located in the geographic region of the facility, the Secretary may combine portions of such projects with appropriate combined costsharing between the various projects in a partnership agreement for the facility under this subsection.

(4)

Specified federal funding sources and cost sharing

(A)

Specified federal funding

A partnership agreement with respect to a facility under this subsection shall specify—

(i)

the Federal funding sources and combined cost-sharing when applicable to multiple water resources projects; and

(ii)

the responsibilities and risks of each of the parties relating to present and future dredged material managed by the facility.

(B)

Management of sediments

(i)

In general

A partnership agreement under this subsection may include the management of sediments from the maintenance dredging of Federal water resources projects that do not have partnership agreements.

(ii)

Payments

A partnership agreement under this subsection may allow the non-Federal interest to receive reimbursable payments from the Federal Government for commitments made by the non-Federal interest for disposal or placement capacity at dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facilities.

(C)

Credit

A partnership agreement under this subsection may allow costs incurred by the non-Federal interest before execution of the partnership agreement to be credited in accordance with section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)).

(5)

Credit

(A)

Effect on existing agreements

Nothing in this subsection supersedes or modifies an agreement in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph between the Federal Government and any non-Federal interest for the cost-sharing, construction, and operation and maintenance of a water resources project.

(B)

Credit for funds

Subject to the approval of the Secretary and in accordance with law (including regulations and policies) in effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph, a non-Federal interest for a water resources project may receive credit for funds provided for the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility to the extent the facility is used to manage dredged material from the project.

(C)

Non-federal interest responsibilities

A non-Federal interest entering into a partnership agreement under this subsection for a facility shall—

(i)

be responsible for providing all necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations associated with the facility; and

(ii)

receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project with respect to which the agreement is being entered into for those items.

; and

(3)

in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))—

(A)

by inserting and maintenance after operation each place it appears; and

(B)

by inserting processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or after dredged material the first place it appears in each of those paragraphs.

2013.

Wetlands mitigation

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

2014.

Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses

(a)

Mitigation Plan Contents

Section 906(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(3)

Contents

A mitigation plan shall include—

(A)

a description of the physical action to be undertaken to achieve the mitigation objectives within the watershed in which such losses occur and, in any case in which mitigation must take place outside the watershed, a justification detailing the rationale for undertaking the mitigation outside of the watershed;

(B)

a description of the lands or interests in lands to be acquired for mitigation and the basis for a determination that such lands are available for acquisition;

(C)

the type, amount, and characteristics of the habitat being restored;

(D)

success criteria for mitigation based on replacement of lost functions and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative characteristics; and

(E)

a plan for any necessary monitoring to determine the success of the mitigation, including the cost and duration of any monitoring and, to the extent practicable, the entities responsible for any monitoring.

(4)

Responsibility for monitoring

In any case in which it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for a water resources project, the entity responsible for monitoring at the time of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final decision document for the project, such entity shall be identified in the partnership agreement entered into with the non-Federal interest.

.

(b)

Status Report

(1)

In general

Concurrent with the President’s submission to Congress of the President’s request for appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the status of construction of projects that require mitigation under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283; 100 Stat. 4186) and the status of such mitigation.

(2)

Projects included

The status report shall include the status of all projects that are under construction, all projects for which the President requests funding for the next fiscal year, and all projects that have completed construction, but have not completed the mitigation required under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.

2015.

Remote and subsistence harbors

(a)

In General

In conducting a study of harbor and navigation improvements, the Secretary may recommend a project without the need to demonstrate that the project is justified solely by national economic development benefits if the Secretary determines that—

(1)
(A)

the community to be served by the project is at least 70 miles from the nearest surface accessible commercial port and has no direct rail or highway link to another community served by a surface accessible port or harbor; or

(B)

the project would be located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, or American Samoa;

(2)

the harbor is economically critical such that over 80 percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be consumed within the community served by the harbor and navigation improvement; and

(3)

the long-term viability of the community would be threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement.

(b)

Justification

In considering whether to recommend a project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the benefits of the project to—

(1)

public health and safety of the local community, including access to facilities designed to protect public health and safety;

(2)

access to natural resources for subsistence purposes;

(3)

local and regional economic opportunities;

(4)

welfare of the local population; and

(5)

social and cultural value to the community.

2016.

Beneficial uses of dredged material

(a)

In General

Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by striking subsections (c) through (g) and inserting the following:

(c)

In General

The Secretary may carry out projects to transport and place sediment obtained in connection with the construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized water resources project at locations selected by a non-Federal entity for use in the construction, repair, or rehabilitation of projects determined by the Secretary to be in the public interest and associated with navigation, flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, aquatic plant control, and environmental protection and restoration.

(d)

Cooperative Agreement

Any project undertaken pursuant to this section shall be initiated only after non-Federal interests have entered into an agreement with the Secretary in which the non-Federal interests agree to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the project and 100 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project in accordance with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).

(e)

Special Rule

Construction of a project under subsection (a) for one or more of the purposes of protection, restoration, or creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitat, the cost of which does not exceed $750,000 and which will be located in a disadvantaged community as determined by the Secretary, may be carried out at Federal expense.

(f)

Determination of Construction Costs

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

(g)

Selection of Sediment Disposal Method

In developing and carrying out a water resources project involving the disposal of sediment, the Secretary may select, with the consent of the non-Federal interest, a disposal method that is not the least cost option if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of such disposal method are reasonable in relation to the environmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion. The Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined in accordance with subsections (d) and (f).

(h)

Nonprofit Entities

Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), for any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.

(i)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 annually for projects under this section of which not more than $3,000,000 annually may be used for construction of projects described in subsection (e). Such sums shall remain available until expended.

(j)

Regional Sediment Management Planning

In consultation with appropriate State and Federal agencies, the Secretary may develop, at Federal expense, plans for regional management of sediment obtained in conjunction with the construction, operation, or maintenance of water resources projects, including potential beneficial uses of sediment for construction, repair, or rehabilitation of public projects for navigation, flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, aquatic plant control, and environmental protection and restoration.

(k)

Use of Funds

(1)

Non-federal interest

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

(2)

Other federal agencies

The non-Federal share of the cost of construction of a project under this section may be met through contributions from a Federal agency made directly to the Secretary, with the consent of the affected local government, if such funds are authorized to be used to carry out such project. Before initiating a project to which this paragraph applies, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with a non-Federal interest in which the non-Federal interest agrees to pay 100 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project.

.

(b)

Repeal

(1)

In general

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

(2)

Hold harmless

The repeal made by paragraph (1) shall not affect the authority of the Secretary to complete any project being carried out under such section 145 on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.

(c)

Priority Areas

In carrying out section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the Secretary shall give priority to the following:

(1)

A project at Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas.

(2)

A project at Egmont Key, Florida.

(3)

A project in the vicinity of Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.

(4)

A project in the vicinity of the Smith Point Park Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York.

(5)

A project in the vicinity of Morehead City, North Carolina.

(6)

A project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay, Texas.

(7)

A project at Benson Beach, Washington.

2017.

Cost-sharing provisions for certain areas

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

1156.

Cost-sharing provisions for certain areas

The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up to $500,000 for all studies and projects—

(1)

in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands;

(2)

in Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, and including lands that are within the jurisdictional area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations); or

(3)

on land in the State of Alaska owned by an Alaska Native Regional Corporation or an Alaska Native Village Corporation (as those terms are defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)) or the Metlakatla Indian community.

.

2018.

Use of other Federal funds

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

2019.

Revision of project partnership agreement

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

2020.

Cost sharing

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

2021.

Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction

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

2022.

Watershed and river basin assessments

(a)

In general

Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587–2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (d)—

(A)

by striking and at the end of paragraph (4);

(B)

by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting ; and; and

(C)

by adding at the end the following:

(6)

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio;

(7)

Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties, Washington;

(8)

Niagara River Basin, New York;

(9)

Genesee River Basin, New York; and

(10)

White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.

;

(2)

by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) and inserting the following:

(1)

Non-federal share

The non-Federal share of the costs of an assessment carried out under this section on or after December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.

; and

(3)

by striking subsection (g).

(b)

Revision of Partnership Agreement

The Secretary shall revise the partnership agreement for any assessment being carried out under such section 729 to take into account the change in non-Federal participation in the assessment as a result of the amendments made by subsection (a).

2023.

Tribal partnership program

(a)

Scope

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

(b)

Authorization of Appropriations

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

2024.

Wildfire firefighting

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

2025.

Technical assistance

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

(1)

in subsection (a) by striking 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 $1,000,000;

(7)

by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the following:

(2)

Technical assistance

There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection (a)(2), of which not more than $2,000,000 annually may be used by the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofit organizations to provide assistance to rural and small communities.

;

(8)

by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and

(9)

by inserting after subsection (c) the following:

(d)

Annual Submission of Proposed Activities

Concurrent with the President’s submission to Congress of the President’s request for appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the individual activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for that fiscal year.

.

2026.

Lakes program

Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is amended—

(1)

by striking and at end of paragraph (18);

(2)

by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and inserting a semicolon; and

(3)

by adding at the end the following:

(20)

Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation;

(21)

McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey, removal of silt and measures to address water quality;

(22)

Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal of silt and restoration of structural integrity;

(23)

Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal of silt and aquatic growth; and

(24)

Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.

.

2027.

Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local actions

(a)

Notice of Intent

Upon request of the non-Federal interest in the form of a written notice of intent to construct or modify a non-Federal water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood damage reduction, storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, or navigation project that requires the approval of the Secretary, the Secretary shall initiate, subject to subsection (g)(1), procedures to establish a schedule for consolidating Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and issuance of all permits for the construction or modification of the project. The non-Federal interest shall submit to the Secretary, with the notice of intent, studies and documentation, including environmental reviews, that may be required by Federal law for decisionmaking on the proposed project. All States and Indian tribes having jurisdiction over the proposed project shall be invited by the Secretary, but shall not be required, to participate in carrying out this section with respect to the project.

(b)

Procedural Requirements

Within 15 days after receipt of notice under subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish such notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary also shall provide written notification of the receipt of a notice under subsection (a) to all State and local agencies and Indian tribes that may be required to issue permits for the construction of the project or related activities. The Secretary shall solicit the cooperation of those agencies and request their entry into a memorandum of agreement described in subsection (c) with respect to the project. Within 30 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register, State and local agencies and Indian tribes that intend to enter into the memorandum of agreement with respect to the project shall notify the Secretary of their intent in writing.

(c)

Scheduling Agreement

Within 90 days after the date of receipt of notice under subsection (a) with respect to a project, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as necessary, and any State or local agencies that have notified the Secretary under subsection (b) shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary establishing a schedule of decisionmaking for approval of the project and permits associated with the project and with related activities.

(d)

Contents of Agreement

An agreement entered into under subsection (c) with respect to a project, to the extent practicable, shall consolidate hearing and comment periods, procedures for data collection and report preparation, and the environmental review and permitting processes associated with the project and related activities. The agreement shall detail, to the extent possible, the non-Federal interest’s responsibilities for data development and information that may be necessary to process each permit required for the project, including a schedule when the information and data will be provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency or Indian tribe.

(e)

Revision of Agreement

The Secretary may revise an agreement entered into under subsection (c) with respect to a project once to extend the schedule to allow the non-Federal interest the minimum amount of additional time necessary to revise its original application to meet the objections of a Federal, State, or local agency or Indian tribe that is a party to the agreement.

(f)

Final Decision

Not later than the final day of a schedule established by an agreement entered into under subsection (c) with respect to a project, the Secretary shall notify the non-Federal interest of the final decision on the project and whether the permit or permits have been issued.

(g)

Costs of coordination

The costs incurred by the Secretary to establish and carry out a schedule to consolidate Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and permit issuance for a project under this section shall be paid by the non-Federal interest.

(h)

Report on Timesavings Methods

Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report estimating the time required for the issuance of all Federal, State, local, and tribal permits for the construction of non-Federal projects for water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood damage reduction, storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and navigation. The Secretary shall include in that report recommendations for further reducing the amount of time required for the issuance of those permits, including any proposed changes in existing law.

2028.

Project streamlining

(a)

Policy

The benefits of water resources projects are important to the Nation’s economy and environment, and recommendations to Congress regarding such projects should not be delayed due to uncoordinated or inefficient reviews or the failure to timely resolve disputes during the development of water resources projects.

(b)

Scope

This section shall apply to each study initiated after the date of enactment of this Act to develop a feasibility report under section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), or a reevaluation report, for a water resources project if the Secretary determines that such study requires an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(c)

Water Resources Project Review Process

The Secretary shall develop and implement a coordinated review process for the development of water resources projects.

(d)

Coordinated Reviews

(1)

In general

The coordinated review process under this section shall provide that all reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals that must be issued or made by a Federal, State, or local government agency or Indian tribe for the development of a water resources project described in subsection (b) will be conducted, to the maximum extent practicable, concurrently and completed within a time period established by the Secretary, in cooperation with the agencies identified under subsection (e) with respect to the project.

(2)

Agency participation

Each Federal agency identified under subsection (e) with respect to the development of a water resources project shall formulate and implement administrative policy and procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure completion of reviews, analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals described in paragraph (1) for the project in a timely and environmentally responsible manner.

(e)

Identification of jurisdictional agencies

With respect to the development of each water resources project, the Secretary shall identify, as soon as practicable all Federal, State, and local government agencies and Indian tribes that may—

(1)

have jurisdiction over the project;

(2)

be required by law to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or opinion for the project; or

(3)

be required to make a determination on issuing a permit, license, or approval for the project.

(f)

State authority

If the coordinated review process is being implemented under this section by the Secretary with respect to the development of a water resources project described in subsection (b) within the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent with State law, may choose to participate in the process and to make subject to the process all State agencies that—

(1)

have jurisdiction over the project;

(2)

are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or opinion for the project; or

(3)

are required to make a determination on issuing a permit, license, or approval for the project.

(g)

Memorandum of understanding

The coordinated review process developed under this section may be incorporated into a memorandum of understanding for a water resources project between the Secretary, the heads of Federal, State, and local government agencies, Indian tribes identified under subsection (e), and the non-Federal interest for the project.

(h)

Effect of failure to meet deadline

(1)

Notification of congress and CEQ

If the Secretary determines that a Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest that is participating in the coordinated review process under this section with respect to the development of a water resources project has not met a deadline established under subsection (d) for the project, the Secretary shall notify, within 30 days of the date of such determination, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest involved about the failure to meet the deadline.

(2)

Agency report

Not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest involved may submit a report to the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Council on Environmental Quality explaining why the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest did not meet the deadline and what actions it intends to take to complete or issue the required review, analysis, or opinion or determination on issuing a permit, license, or approval.

(i)

Purpose and need and determination of reasonable alternatives

(1)

In general

The Secretary, as the Federal lead agency responsible for carrying out a study for a water resources project and the associated process for meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, shall—

(A)

define the project’s purpose and need for purposes of any document which the Secretary is responsible for preparing for the project and shall determine the range of alternatives for consideration in any document which the Secretary is responsible for preparing for the project; and

(B)

determine, in collaboration with participating agencies at appropriate times during the study process, the methodologies to be used and the level of detail required in the analysis of each alternative for the project.

(2)

Preferred alternative

At the discretion of the Secretary, the preferred alternative for a project, after being identified, may be developed to a higher level of detail than other alternatives.

(j)

Limitations

Nothing in this section shall preempt or interfere with—

(1)

any statutory requirement for seeking public comment;

(2)

any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest has with respect to carrying out a water resources project; or

(3)

any obligation to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality to carry out such Act.

2029.

Cooperative agreements

(a)

In General

For the purpose of expediting the cost-effective design and construction of wetlands restoration that is part of an authorized water resources project, the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements under section 6305 of title 31, United States Code, with nonprofit organizations with expertise in wetlands restoration to carry out such design and construction on behalf of the Secretary.

(b)

Limitations

(1)

Per project limit

A cooperative agreement under this section shall not obligate the Secretary to pay the nonprofit organization more than $1,000,000 for any single wetlands restoration project.

(2)

Annual limit

The total value of work carried out under cooperative agreements under this section may not exceed $5,000,000 in any fiscal year.

2030.

Training funds

(a)

In General

The Secretary may include individuals not employed by the Department of the Army in training classes and courses offered by the Corps of Engineers in any case in which the Secretary determines that it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to include those individuals as participants.

(b)

Expenses

(1)

In general

An individual not employed by the Department of the Army attending a training class or course described in subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the training provided to the individual.

(2)

Payments

Payments made by an individual for training received under paragraph (1), up to the actual cost of the training—

(A)

may be retained by the Secretary;

(B)

shall be credited to an appropriations account used for paying training costs; and

(C)

shall be available for use by the Secretary, without further appropriation, for training purposes.

(3)

Excess amounts

Any payments received under paragraph (2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training provided shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury of the United States.

2031.

Access to water resource data

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall carry out a program to provide public access to water resources and related water quality data in the custody of the Corps of Engineers.

(b)

Data

Public access under subsection (a) shall—

(1)

include, at a minimum, access to data generated in water resources project development and regulation under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344); and

(2)

appropriately employ geographic information system technology and linkages to water resource models and analytical techniques.

(c)

Partnerships

To the maximum extent practicable, in carrying out activities under this section, the Secretary shall develop partnerships, including cooperative agreements with State, tribal, and local governments and other Federal agencies.

(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each fiscal year.

2032.

Shore protection projects

(a)

In General

In accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 (33 U.S.C. 426), and notwithstanding administrative actions, it is the policy of the United States to promote beach nourishment for the purposes of flood damage reduction and hurricane and storm damage reduction and related research that encourage the protection, restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches, including beach restoration and periodic beach renourishment for a period of 50 years, on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal Government, States, localities, and private enterprises.

(b)

Preference

In carrying out the policy under subsection (a), preference shall be given to—

(1)

areas in which there has been a Federal investment of funds for the purposes described in subsection (a); and

(2)

areas with respect to which the need for prevention or mitigation of damage to shores and beaches is attributable to Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities.

(c)

Applicability

The Secretary shall apply the policy under subsection (a) to each shore protection and beach renourishment project (including shore protection and beach renourishment projects constructed before the date of enactment of this Act).

2033.

Ability to pay

(a)

Criteria and Procedures

Section 103(m)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)(2)) is amended by striking 180 days after such date of enactment and inserting September 30, 2007.

(b)

Projects

The Secretary shall apply the criteria and procedures referred to in section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) to the following projects:

(1)

St. johns bayou and new madrid floodway, missouri

The project for flood control, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118).

(2)

Lower rio grande basin, texas

The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).

(3)

West virginia and pennsylvania projects

The projects for flood control authorized by section 581 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790–3791).

2034.

Leasing authority

Section 4 of the Act entitled An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and other purposes, approved December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d), is amended—

(1)

by inserting federally recognized Indian tribes and before Federal the first place it appears;

(2)

by inserting Indian tribes or after considerations, to such; and

(3)

by inserting federally recognized Indian tribe after That in any such lease or license to a.

2035.

Cost estimates

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

2036.

Project planning

(a)

Determination of Certain National Benefits

(1)

Sense of congress

It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (1983), the Secretary may select a water resources project alternative that does not maximize net national economic development benefits or net national ecosystem restoration benefits if there is an overriding reason based on other Federal, State, local, or international concerns.

(2)

Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane storm damage reduction projects

With respect to a water resources project the primary purpose of which is flood damage reduction, navigation, or hurricane and storm damage reduction, an overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the plan that maximizes net national economic development benefits may be if the Secretary determines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative plan is feasible and achieves the project purposes while providing greater ecosystem restoration benefits.

(3)

Ecosystem restoration projects

With respect to a water resources project the primary purpose of which is ecosystem restoration, an overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restoration benefits may be if the Secretary determines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative plan is feasible and achieves the project purposes while providing greater economic development benefits.

(b)

Identifying Additional Benefits and Projects

(1)

Primarily economic benefits

In conducting a study of the feasibility of a project where the primary benefits are expected to be economic, the Secretary may identify ecosystem restoration benefits that may be achieved in the study area and, after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal interest, may study and recommend construction of additional measures, a separate project, or separable project element to achieve those benefits.

(2)

Primarily ecosystem restoration benefits

In conducting a study of the feasibility of a project where the primary benefits are expected to be associated with ecosystem restoration, the Secretary may identify economic benefits that may be achieved in the study area and, after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal interest, may study and recommend construction of additional measures, a separate project, or separable project element to achieve those benefits.

(3)

Rules applicable to certain measures, projects, and elements

Any additional measures, separate project, or separable element identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and recommended for construction shall not be considered integral to the underlying project and, if authorized, shall be subject to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-Federal interest agrees to share in the cost of the additional measures, project, or separable element.

(c)

Calculation of Benefits and Costs for Flood Damage Reduction Projects

A feasibility study for a project for flood damage reduction shall include, as part of the calculation of benefits and costs—

(1)

a calculation of the residual risk of flooding following completion of the proposed project;

(2)

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

(3)

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

2037.

Independent peer review

(a)

Project Studies Subject to Independent Peer Review

(1)

In general

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

(2)

Scope

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

(3)

Project studies subject to peer review

(A)

Mandatory

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

(i)

if the project has an estimated total cost of more than $50,000,000, including mitigation costs, and is not determined by the Chief of Engineers to be exempt from peer review under paragraph (6); or

(ii)

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

(B)

Discretionary

A project study may be subject to peer review if—

(i)

the head of a Federal or State agency charged with reviewing the project study determines that the project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency after implementation of proposed mitigation plans and requests a peer review by an independent panel of experts; or

(ii)

the Chief of Engineers determines that the project study is controversial.

(4)

Controversial projects

Upon receipt of a written request under paragraph (3)(B) or on the initiative of the Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers shall determine whether a project study is controversial.

(5)

Factors to consider

In determining whether a project study is controversial, the Chief of Engineers shall consider if—

(A)

there is a significant public dispute as to the size, nature, or effects of the project; or

(B)

there is a significant public dispute as to the economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project.

(6)

Project studies excluded from peer review

Project studies that may be excluded from peer review under paragraph (1) are—

(A)

a study for a project the Chief of Engineers determines—

(i)

is not controversial;

(ii)

has no more than negligible adverse impacts on scarce or unique cultural, historic, or tribal resources;

(iii)

has no substantial adverse impacts on fish and wildlife species and their habitat prior to the implementation of mitigation measures; and

(iv)

has, before implementation of mitigation measures, no more than a negligible adverse impact on a species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539 et seq.) or the critical habitat of such species designated under such Act; and

(B)

a study for a project pursued under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g), section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), section 107(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), section 3 of the Act entitled An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i), section 3 of the Act entitled An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes, approved March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), or section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).

(7)

Appeal

The decision of the Chief of Engineers whether to peer review a project study shall be published in the Federal Register and shall be subject to appeal by a person referred to in paragraph (3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the Secretary of the Army if such appeal is made within the 30-day period following the date of such publication.

(8)

Determination of project cost

For purposes of determining the estimated total cost of a project under paragraph (3)(A), the project cost shall be based upon the reasonable estimates of the Chief of Engineers at the completion of the reconnaissance study for the project. If the reasonable estimate of project costs is subsequently determined to be in excess of the amount in paragraph (3)(A), the Chief of Engineers shall make a determination whether a project study should be reviewed under this section.

(b)

Timing of Peer Review

The Chief of Engineers shall determine the timing of a peer review of a project study under subsection (a). In all cases, the peer review shall occur during the period beginning on the date of the completion of the reconnaissance study for the project and ending on the date the draft report of the Chief of Engineers for the project is made available for public comment. Where the Chief of Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a project study, the Chief of Engineers shall consider, at a minimum, whether to initiate a peer review at the time that—

(1)

the without-project conditions are identified;

(2)

the array of alternatives to be considered are identified; and

(3)

the preferred alternative is identified.

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

Establishment of Panels

(1)

In general

For each project study subject to peer review under subsection (a), as soon as practicable after the Chief of Engineers determines that a project study will be subject to peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall contract with the National Academy of Sciences (or a similar independent scientific and technical advisory organization), or an eligible organization, to establish a panel of experts to peer review the project study for technical and scientific sufficiency.

(2)

Membership

A panel of experts established for a project study under this section shall be composed of independent experts who represent a balance of areas of expertise suitable for the review being conducted.

(3)

Limitation on appointments

An individual may not be selected to serve on a panel of experts established for a project study under this section if the individual has a financial or close professional association with any organization or group with a strong financial or organizational interest in the project.

(4)

Congressional notification

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

(d)

Duties of Panels

A panel of experts established for a peer review for a project study under this section shall, consistent with the scope of the referral for review—

(1)

conduct a peer review for the project study submitted to the panel for review;

(2)

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

(3)

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

(4)

submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report containing the panel’s economic, engineering, and environmental analysis of the project study, including the panel’s assessment of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief of Engineers, to accompany the publication of the project study.

(e)

Duration of Project Study Peer Reviews

(1)

Deadline

A panel of experts shall—

(A)

complete its peer review under this section for a project study and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection (d)(4) within 180 days after the date of establishment of the panel, or, if the Chief of Engineers determines that a longer period of time is necessary, such period of time established by the Chief of Engineers, but in no event later than 90 days after the date a draft project study is made available for public review; and

(B)

terminate on the date of submission of the report.

(2)

Failure to meet deadline

If a panel does not complete its peer review of a project study under this section and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection (d)(4) on or before the deadline established by paragraph (1) for the project study, the Chief of Engineers shall continue the project study for the project that is subject to peer review by the panel without delay.

(f)

Recommendations of Panel

(1)

Consideration by the chief of engineers

After receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts under this section and before entering a final record of decision for the project, the Chief of Engineers shall consider any recommendations contained in the report and prepare a written response for any recommendations adopted or not adopted.

(2)

Public availability and transmittal to congress

After receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall—

(A)

make a copy of the report and any written response of the Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained in the report available to the public; and

(B)

transmit to Congress a copy of the report, together with any such written response, on the date of a final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final decision document for a project study that is subject to peer review by the panel.

(g)

Costs

(1)

In general

The costs of a panel of experts established for a peer review under this section—

(A)

shall be a Federal expense; and

(B)

shall not exceed $500,000.

(2)

Waiver

The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000 limitation contained in paragraph (1)(B) in cases that the Chief of Engineers determines appropriate.

(h)

Applicability

This section shall apply to—

(1)

project studies initiated during the 2-year period preceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the array of alternatives to be considered has not been identified; and

(2)

project studies initiated during the period beginning on such date of enactment and ending 4 years after such date of enactment.

(i)

Report

Within 4½ years of the date of enactment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit a report to Congress on the implementation of this section.

(j)

Nonapplicability of FACA

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any peer review panel established under this section.

(k)

Savings Clause

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers to cause or conduct a peer review of a water resources project existing on the date of enactment of this section.

(l)

Definitions

In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1)

Project study

The term project study means a feasibility study or reevaluation study for a project. The term also includes any other study associated with a modification or update of a project that includes an environmental impact statement, including the environmental impact statement.

(2)

Affected state

The term affected State, as used with respect to a project, means a State all or a portion of which is within the drainage basin in which the project is or would be located and would be economically or environmentally affected as a consequence of the project.

(3)

Eligible organization

The term eligible organization means an organization that—

(A)

is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt from Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

(B)

is independent;

(C)

is free from conflicts of interest;

(D)

does not carry out or advocate for or against Federal water resources projects; and

(E)

has experience in establishing and administering peer review panels.

2038.

Studies and reports for water resources projects

(a)

Studies

(1)

Cost-sharing requirements

Section 105(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(3)

Detailed project reports

The requirements of this subsection that apply to a feasibility study also shall apply to a study that results in a detailed project report, except that—

(A)

the first $100,000 of the costs of a study that results in a detailed project report shall be a Federal expense; and

(B)

paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply to such a study.

.

(2)

Planning and engineering

Section 105(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2215(b)) is amended by striking authorized by this Act.

(3)

Definitions

Section 105 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2215) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(d)

Definitions

In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1)

Detailed project report

The term detailed project report means a report for a project not specifically authorized by Congress in law or otherwise that determines the feasibility of the project with a level of detail appropriate to the scope and complexity of the recommended solution and sufficient to proceed directly to the preparation of contract plans and specifications. The term includes any associated environmental impact statement and mitigation plan. For a project for which the Federal cost does not exceed $1,000,000, the term includes a planning and design analysis document.

(2)

Feasibility study

The term feasibility study means a study that results in a feasibility report under section 905, and any associated environmental impact statement and mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources project. The term includes a study that results in a project implementation report prepared under title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680–2694), a general reevaluation report, and a limited reevaluation report.

.

(b)

Reports

(1)

Preparation

Section 905(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a)) is amended—

(A)

by striking (a) In the case of any and inserting the following:

(a)

Preparation of Reports

(1)

In general

In the case of any

;

(B)

by striking the Secretary, the Secretary shall and inserting the Secretary that results in recommendations concerning a project or the operation of a project and that requires specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall perform a reconnaissance study and;

(C)

by striking Such feasibility report and inserting the following:

(2)

Contents of feasibility reports

A feasibility report

;

(D)

by striking The feasibility report and inserting A feasibility report; and

(E)

by striking the last sentence and inserting the following:

(3)

Applicability

This subsection shall not apply to—

(A)

any study with respect to which a report has been submitted to Congress before the date of enactment of this Act;

(B)

any study for a project, which project is authorized for construction by this Act and is not subject to section 903(b);

(C)

any study for a project which does not require specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise; and

(D)

general studies not intended to lead to recommendation of a specific water resources project.

(4)

Feasibility report defined

In this subsection, the term feasibility report means each feasibility report, and any associated environmental impact statement and mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources project. The term includes a project implementation report prepared under title VI of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680–2694), a general reevaluation report, and a limited reevaluation report.

.

(2)

Projects not specifically authorized by congress

Section 905 of such Act is further amended—

(A)

in subsection (b) by inserting Reconnaissance Studies.— before Before initiating;

(B)

by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively;

(C)

by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

(c)

Projects not Specifically Authorized by Congress

In the case of any water resources project-related study authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary without specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall prepare a detailed project report.

;

(D)

in subsection (d) (as so redesignated) by inserting Indian Tribes.— before For purposes of; and

(E)

in subsection (e) (as so redesignated) by inserting Standard and Uniform Procedures and Practices.— before The Secretary shall.

2039.

Offshore oil and gas fabrication port

(a)

In general

In conducting a feasibility study for the project for navigation, Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, being conducted under section 430 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2639), the Secretary shall include in the calculation of national economic development benefits all economic benefits associated with contracts for new energy exploration and contracts for the fabrication of energy infrastructure that would result from carrying out the project.

(b)

Repeal

Section 6009 of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109–13; 119 Stat. 282) is repealed.

III

PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

3001.

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.

3002.

Sitka, Alaska

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

3003.

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.

3004.

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.

3005.

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.

3006.

Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas

The Pine Mountain Dam feature of the project for flood protection, Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078), is modified—

(1)

to add environmental restoration as a project purpose; and

(2)

to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal share of the cost of the project over a 30-year period in accordance with section 103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)).

3007.

American and Sacramento Rivers, California

.

(a)

In general

The project for flood control, American and Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section 101(a)(6)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 274), as modified by section 128 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2259), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the auxiliary spillway generally in accordance with the Post Authorization Change Report, American River Watershed Project (Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise Projects), dated December 2006, at a total cost of $683,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $444,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $239,000,000.

(b)

Dam safety activities

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to carry out dam safety activities in connection with the auxiliary spillway in accordance with the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams Program.

(c)

Transfer of funds

The Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior are authorized to transfer between their respective agencies appropriated amounts and other available funds (including funds contributed by non-Federal interests) for the purpose of planning, design, and construction of the auxiliary spillway. Any transfer made pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to such terms and conditions as agreed upon by the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.

3008.

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.

3009.

Grayson Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified—

(1)

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

(2)

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

3010.

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.

3011.

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

The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, California, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) is modified—

(1)

to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel element of the project may be provided in the form of in-kind services and materials; and

(2)

to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of such element the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of an agreement for such planning and design if the Secretary determines that such work is integral to such element.

3012.

Kaweah River, California

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

3013.

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.

3014.

Llagas Creek, California

(a)

In general

The project for flood damage reduction, Llagas Creek, California, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $105,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $65,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,000,000.

(b)

Special rule

In evaluating and implementing the project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

3015.

Magpie Creek, California

(a)

In General

The project for Magpie Creek, California, authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to direct the Secretary to apply the cost-sharing requirements of section 103(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085) for the portion of the project consisting of land acquisition to preserve and enhance existing floodwater storage.

(b)

Credit

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

3016.

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.

3017.

Pinole Creek, California

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

3018.

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.

3019.

Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California

(a)

Determination of Federal Costs Paid by Non-Federal Interest

(1)

Federal costs paid by non-federal interest

The Secretary shall determine the amount paid by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency towards the Federal share of the cost of the project for the Natomas levee features authorized by section 9159(b) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1944) of the project for flood control and recreation, Sacramento and American Rivers, California.

(2)

Reimbursements to non-federal interest

The Secretary shall determine the amount of reimbursements paid to the Sacramento Flood Control Agency for payment of the Federal share of the cost of the project referred to in paragraph (1).

(3)

Determination of federal share

In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include in the total cost of the project all costs of the following activities that the Secretary determines to be integral to the project:

(A)

Planning, engineering, and construction.

(B)

Acquisition of project lands, easements, and rights-of-way.

(C)

Performance of relocations.

(D)

Environmental mitigation for all project elements.

(b)

Credit

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any flood damage reduction project, authorized before the date of enactment of this Act, for which the non-Federal interest is the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency an amount equal to the total amount determined under subsection (a)(1) reduced by the amount determined under subsection (a)(2).

(2)

Allocation of credit

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

3020.

Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California

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

3021.

Seven Oaks Dam, California

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

3022.

Upper Guadalupe River, California

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

3023.

Walnut Creek Channel, California

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut Creek Channel, California, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified—

(1)

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

(2)

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

3024.

Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California

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

3025.

Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California

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

3026.

Yuba River Basin project, California

The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, California, authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified—

(1)

to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,700,000; and

(2)

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

3027.

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,.

3028.

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.

3029.

Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida

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

3030.

Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida

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

3031.

Jacksonville Harbor, Florida

(a)

In General

The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the navigation features in accordance with the Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $14,658,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,022,000.

(b)

General Reevaluation Reports

The non-Federal share of the cost of the general reevaluation report that resulted in the report of the Chief of Engineers for the project and the non-Federal share of the cost of the general reevaluation report for Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, being conducted on June 1, 2005, shall each be the same percentage as the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the project.

(c)

Agreement

The Secretary shall enter into new partnership agreements with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost sharing required by subsection (b).

3032.

Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida

(a)

In General

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

(b)

Construction of Shoreline Protection Projects by Non-Federal Interests

The Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest in accordance with section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i–1) for the modified project.

3033.

Miami Harbor, Florida

The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 302), is further modified—

(1)

to include as a project purpose environmental mitigation required before July 18, 2003, by a Federal, State, or local environmental agency for unauthorized or unanticipated environmental impacts within, or in the vicinity of, the authorized project; and

(2)

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

3034.

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.

3035.

Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida

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

3036.

Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida

(a)

In General

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

(b)

General Reevaulation Report

The non-Federal share of the cost of the general reevaluation report for Tampa Harbor, Florida, being conducted on June 1, 2005, shall be the same percentage as the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the project.

(c)

Agreement

The Secretary shall enter into a new partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost sharing required by subsection (b).

3037.

Allatoona Lake, Georgia

(a)

Land Exchange

(1)

In general

The Secretary may exchange lands above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile district engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 1996, for lands on the north side of Allatoona Lake that are needed for wildlife management and for protection of the water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.

(2)

Terms and conditions

The basis for all land exchanges under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal so that lands exchanged are of equal value.

(b)

Disposal and Acquisition of Lands, Allatoona Lake, Georgia

(1)

In general

The Secretary may also sell lands above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in the memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1) and may use the proceeds to pay costs associated with the purchase of lands needed for wildlife management and for protection of the water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.

(2)

Terms and conditions

Land sales and purchases to be conducted under this subsection shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:

(A)

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

(B)

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

(C)

The purchasers shall share in the associated real estate costs, to include surveys and associated fees in accordance with the memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1).

(D)

Any other conditions that the Secretary may impose.

(c)

Repeal

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

3038.

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.

3039.

Dworshak Dam and Reservoir improvements, Idaho

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

3040.

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.

3041.

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.

3042.

Chicago River, Illinois

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

3043.

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, Illinois

(a)

Treatment as Single Project

The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Project (in this section referred to as Barrier I) (as in existence on the date of enactment of this Act), constructed as a demonstration project under section 1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)), and the project relating to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, authorized by section 345 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–335; 118 Stat. 1352) (in this section referred to as Barrier II), shall be considered to constitute a single project.

(b)

Authorization

(1)

In general

The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall—

(A)

upgrade and make permanent Barrier I;

(B)

construct Barrier II, notwithstanding the project cooperation agreement with the State of Illinois dated June 14, 2005;

(C)

operate and maintain Barrier I and Barrier II as a system to optimize effectiveness;

(D)

conduct, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental entities, a study of a range of options and technologies for reducing impacts of hazards that may reduce the efficacy of the Barriers; and

(E)

provide to each State a credit in an amount equal to the amount of funds contributed by the State toward Barrier II.

(2)

Use of credit

A State may apply a credit provided to the State under paragraph (1)(E) to any cost sharing responsibility for an existing or future Federal project carried out by the Secretary in the State.

(c)

Conforming Amendment

Section 345 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–335; 118 Stat. 1352), is amended to read as follows:

345.

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barrier, Illinois

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

.

(d)

Feasibility Study

The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental entities, shall conduct, at Federal expense, a feasibility study of the range of options and technologies available to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and other pathways.

3044.

Emiquon, Illinois

(a)

Maximum Amount

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Emiquon, Illinois, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), shall be $7,500,000.

(b)

Limitation

Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of the Act entitled An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

3045.

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.

3046.

Spunky Bottoms, Illinois

(a)

Project Purpose

The project for flood control, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583), is modified to add environmental restoration as a project purpose.

(b)

Maximum Amount

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be $7,500,000.

(c)

Limitation

Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 5(a) of the Act entitled An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

3047.

Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana

The project for flood control Fort Wayne, St. Mary’s and Maumee Rivers, Indiana, authorized by section 101(a)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4604), is modified—

(1)

to direct the Secretary to provide a 100-year level of flood protection at the Berry-Thieme, Park-Thompson, Woodhurst, and Tillman sites along the St. Mary’s River, Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana, at a total cost of $5,300,000; and

(2)

to allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

3048.

Koontz Lake, Indiana

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

3049.

White River, Indiana

The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of White River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes, approved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and section 322 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 303–304), is further modified—

(1)

to authorize the Secretary to undertake the riverfront alterations described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Plan, dated February 1994, for the Fall Creek Reach feature at a total cost of $28,545,000; and

(2)

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

3050.

Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa

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

3051.

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.

3052.

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 $178,000,000; and

(3)

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

3053.

Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana

(a)

In General

Section 315(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603–2604) is amended to read as follows:

(1)

is authorized to study, design, construct, operate, and maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A Regional Visitor Center in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana, in consultation with the State of Louisiana, to provide information to the public on the Atchafalaya River system and other associated waterways that have influenced surrounding communities, and national and local water resources development of the Army Corps of Engineers in South Central Louisiana; and

.

(b)

Technical Correction

Section 315(b) of such Act is amended by striking (a) and inserting (a)(2).

(c)

Donations

Section 315 of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following:

(c)

Donations

In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the Mississippi River Commission is authorized to accept the donation of cash, funds, lands, materials, and services from non-Federal governmental entities and nonprofit corporations.

.

3054.

Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana

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

3055.

Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana

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

3056.

J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana

The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and modified by section 4(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), and section 316 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2572), is further modified—

(1)

to authorize the purchase and reforesting of lands that have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses; and

(2)

to incorporate current wildlife and forestry management practices for the purpose of improving species diversity on mitigation lands that meet Federal and State of Louisiana habitat goals and objectives.

3057.

Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana

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

3058.

New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana

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

3059.

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.

.

3060.

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.

3061.

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.

3062.

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 2006.

(2)

Partnership

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

(b)

Partnership

(1)

In general

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

(A)

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

(B)

develop and implement projects consistent with the management plan.

(2)

Coordination with actions under other law

(A)

In general

Actions taken under this section by the partnership shall be coordinated with actions to restore and conserve the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair and watersheds taken under other provisions of Federal and State law.

(B)

No effect on other law

Nothing in this section alters, modifies, or affects any other provision of Federal or State law.

(c)

Implementation of St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair Management Plan

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall—

(A)

develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair strategic implementation plan in accordance with the management plan;

(B)

provide technical, planning, and engineering assistance to non-Federal interests for developing and implementing activities consistent with the management plan;

(C)

plan, design, and implement projects consistent with the management plan; and

(D)

provide, in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, financial and technical assistance, including grants, to the State of Michigan (including political subdivisions of the State) and interested nonprofit entities for the planning, design, and implementation of projects to restore, conserve, manage, and sustain the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and associated watersheds.

(2)

Specific measures

Financial and technical assistance provided under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1) may be used in support of non-Federal activities consistent with the management plan.

(d)

Supplements to Management Plan and Strategic Implementation Plan

In consultation with the partnership and after providing an opportunity for public review and comment, the Secretary shall develop information to supplement—

(1)

the management plan; and

(2)

the strategic implementation plan developed under subsection (c)(1)(A).

(e)

Cost Sharing

(1)

In-kind services

The non-Federal share of the cost of technical assistance under subsection (c), the cost of planning, design, and construction of a project under subsection (c), and the cost of development of supplementary information under subsection (d) may be provided through the provision of in-kind services.

(2)

Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way

The Secretary shall credit the non-Federal sponsor for the value of any land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, or relocations required in carrying out a project under subsection (c).

(3)

Nonprofit entities

Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), a non-Federal interest for any project carried out under this section may include a nonprofit entity.

(4)

Operation and maintenance

The operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried out under this section shall be non-Federal responsibilities.

(f)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each fiscal year.

.

3063.

Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan

(a)

In General

The text of section 1149 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) is amended to read as follows:

  • The Secretary shall construct at Federal expense a second lock, of a width not less than 110 feet and a length not less than 1,200 feet, adjacent to the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, generally in accordance with the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, dated May 19, 1986, and the limited reevaluation report dated February 2004 at a total cost of $341,714,000.

(b)

Conforming Repeals

The following provisions are repealed:

(1)

Section 107(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4620).

(2)

Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717–3718).

(3)

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

3064.

Ada, Minnesota

(a)

In General

The project for flood damage reduction, Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project.

(b)

Evaluation of Benefits and Costs

In evaluating the economic benefits and costs for the project, the Secretary shall not consider the emergency levee adjacent to Judicial Ditch No. 51 in the determination of conditions existing prior to construction of the project.

(c)

Special Rule

In evaluating and implementing the project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

3065.

Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota

(a)

In General

The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 321 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), is further modified to authorize the Secretary to provide public access and recreational facilities as generally described in the Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment, McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge, Duluth, Minnesota, dated August 1999.

(b)

Credit

The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs of design work carried out before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

(c)

Maximum Federal Expenditure

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

3066.

Grand Marais, Minnesota

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

3067.

Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota

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

3068.

Granite Falls, Minnesota

(a)

In General

The Secretary is directed to implement under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) the locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction, Granite Falls, Minnesota, substantially in accordance with the detailed project report dated 2002, at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,000,000.

(b)

Project Financing

In evaluating and implementing the project under this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interests to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), to the extent that the detailed project report evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

(c)

Credit

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

(d)

Maximum Funding

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the flood damage reduction shall be $8,000,000.

3069.

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.

3070.

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.

3071.

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.

3072.

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.

3073.

Two Harbors, Minnesota

(a)

In General

The project for navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include construction of a dredged material disposal facility, including actions required to clear the site.

(b)

Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way

Non-Federal interests shall be responsible for providing all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for the construction of the dredged material disposal facility.

(c)

Maximum Federal Expenditure

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be $5,000,000.

3074.

Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi

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

3075.

Pearl River Basin, Mississippi

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall complete a feasibility study for the project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi.

(b)

Comparison of Alternatives

The feasibility study shall identify both the plan that maximizes national economic development benefits and the locally preferred plan and shall compare the level of flood damage reduction provided by each plan to that portion of Jackson, Mississippi, located below the Ross Barnett Reservoir Dam.

(c)

Recommended Plan

If the Secretary determines that the locally preferred plan provides a level of flood damage reduction that is equal to or greater than the level of flood damage reduction provided by the national economic development plan and the locally preferred plan is technically feasible and environmentally protective, the Secretary shall recommend construction of the locally preferred plan.

(d)

Evaluation of Project Cost

For the purposes of determining compliance with the first section of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a), the Secretary shall consider only the costs of the national economic development plan and shall exclude incremental costs associated with the locally preferred plan that are in excess of such costs if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay 100 percent of such incremental costs.

(e)

Non-Federal Cost Share

If the locally preferred plan is authorized for construction, the non-Federal share of the cost of the project shall be the same percentage as the non-Federal share of the cost of the national economic development plan plus all additional costs of construction associated with the locally preferred plan.

3076.

Festus and Crystal City, Missouri

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

3077.

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).

3078.

Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri

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

3079.

River Des Peres, Missouri

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

3080.

Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska

The project for flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(19) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified—

(1)

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

(2)

to allow the non-Federal interest for the project to use, and to direct the Secretary to accept, funds provided under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the project if such funds are authorized to be used to carry out the project.

3081.

Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska

The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(20) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified—

(1)

to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project or reimbursement for the costs of any work that has been or will be performed by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the approval of the project partnership agreement, including work performed by the non-Federal interest in connection with the design and construction of 7 upstream detention storage structures, if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project;

(2)

to require that in-kind work to be credited under paragraph (1) be subject to audit; and

(3)

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

3082.

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.

3083.

Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey

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

3084.

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.

3085.

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.

3086.

Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey

The navigation project, Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is modified—

(1)

to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal interest to construct a temporary dredged material storage facility to receive dredged material from the project if—

(A)

the non-Federal interest submits, in writing, a list of potential sites for the temporary storage facility to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Secretary at least 180 days before the selection of the final site; and

(B)

at least 70 percent of the dredged material generated in connection with the project suitable for beneficial reuse will be used at sites in the State of New Jersey to the extent that there are sufficient sites available; and

(2)

to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of construction of the temporary storage facility if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

3087.

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 and Buffalo.

.

3088.

Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio

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

3089.

Mahoning River, Ohio

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

3090.

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.

3091.

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.

3092.

Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

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

3093.

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.

3094.

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.

3095.

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.

3096.

Cedar Bayou, Texas

(a)

Credit for planning and design

The project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, reauthorized by section 349(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project if the Secretary determines that such work is integral to the project.

(b)

Cost Sharing

Cost sharing for construction and operation and maintenance of the project shall be determined in accordance with section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).

3097.

Freeport Harbor, Texas

The project for navigation, Freeport Harbor, Texas, authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified.—

(1)

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

(2)

to direct the Secretary to remove the sunken vessel COMSTOCK at Federal expense.

3098.

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.

3099.

Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas

The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is modified—

(1)

to include as part of the project flood protection works to reroute drainage to Raymondville Drain constructed by the non-Federal interests in Hidalgo County in the vicinity of Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that such work meets feasibility requirements;

(2)

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

(3)

to direct the Secretary in calculating the non-Federal share of the cost of the project, to make a determination, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, under section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest’s ability to pay.

3100.

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.

3101.

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.

3102.

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).

3103.

San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas

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

3104.

Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia

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

3105.

Duwamish/Green, Washington

The project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(26) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2579), is modified—

(1)

to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project; and

(2)

to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.

3106.

Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington

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

3107.

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.

3108.

Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia

Section 30(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4030; 114 Stat. 2678) is amended to read as follows:

(d)

Historic Structure

The Secretary shall ensure the preservation and restoration of the structure known as the Jenkins House, and the reconstruction of associated buildings and landscape features of such structure located within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the treatment of historic properties. Amounts made available for expenditure for the project authorized by section 301(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110) shall be available for the purposes of this subsection.

.

3109.

Northern West Virginia

Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353) is amended—

(1)

in the first sentence by striking favorable;

(2)

by striking $8,400,000 and inserting $12,000,000; and

(3)

by striking $4,200,000 each place it appears and inserting $6,000,000.

3110.

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.

3111.

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.

.

3112.

Continuation of project authorizations

(a)

In General

Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), the following projects shall remain authorized to be carried out by the Secretary:

(1)

The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092).

(2)

The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127).

(3)

The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731); except that the authorized depth of that portion of the project extending riverward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet.

(b)

Limitation

A project described in subsection (a) shall not be authorized for construction after the last day of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, unless, during such period, funds have been obligated for the construction (including planning and design) of the project.

3113.

Project reauthorizations

Each of the following projects may be carried out by the Secretary and no construction on any such project may be initiated until the Secretary determines that the project is feasible:

(1)

Menominee harbor and river, michigan and wisconsin

The project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wisconsin, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized on April 15, 2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)).

(2)

Manitowoc harbor, wisconsin

That portion of the project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852 (10 Stat. 58), consisting of the channel in the south part of the outer harbor, deauthorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176).

(3)

Hearding Island Inlet, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota

The project for dredging, Hearding Island Inlet, Duluth Harbor, Minnesota, authorized by section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4027).

3114.

Project deauthorizations

(a)

In general

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

(1)

Bridgeport harbor, connecticut

The portion of the project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel in Yellow Mill River and described as follows: Beginning at a point along the eastern limit of the existing project, N123,649.75, E481,920.54, thence running northwesterly about 52.64 feet to a point N123,683.03, E481,879.75, thence running northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet to a point N125,030.08, E482,394.96, thence running northeasterly about 139.52 feet to a point along the eastern limit of the existing channel, N125,133.87, E482,488.19, thence running southwesterly about 1,588.98 feet to the point of origin.

(2)

Mystic river, connecticut

The portion of the project for navigation, Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 436) consisting of a 12-foot-deep channel, approximately 7,554 square feet in area, starting at a point N193,086.51, E815,092.78, thence running north 59 degrees 21 minutes 46.63 seconds west about 138.05 feet to a point N193,156.86, E814,974.00, thence running north 51 degrees 04 minutes 39.00 seconds west about 166.57 feet to a point N193,261.51, E814,844.41, thence running north 43 degrees 01 minutes 34.90 seconds west about 86.23 feet to a point N193,324.55, E814,785.57, thence running north 06 degrees 42 minutes 03.86 seconds west about 156.57 feet to a point N193,480.05, E814,767.30, thence running south 21 degrees 21 minutes 17.94 seconds east about 231.42 feet to a point N193,264.52, E814,851.57, thence running south 53 degrees 34 minutes 23.28 seconds east about 299.78 feet to the point of origin.

(3)

New London Harbor, Connecticut

The portion of the project for navigation, New London Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that consists of a 23-foot waterfront channel and that is further described as beginning at a point along the western limit of the existing project, N188,802.75, E779,462.81, thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet to a point N189,554.87, E780,612.53, thence running southeasterly about 439.54 feet to a point N189,319.88, E780,983.98, thence running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to a point N188,864.63, E780,288.08, thence running southeasterly about 567.39 feet to a point N188,301.88, E780,360.49, thence running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet to the point of origin.

(4)

Falmouth harbor, massachusetts

The portion of the project for navigation, th Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1172), beginning at a point along the eastern side of the inner harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running north 25 degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 feet to a point N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 22 degrees 7 minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point N201,112.15, E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 1 minute 0.3 seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, E845,674.65, thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 seconds west 665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, thence running south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 160.76 feet to the point of origin.

(5)

Island end river, massachusetts

The portion of the project for navigation, Island End River, Massachusetts, carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), described as follows: Beginning at a point along the eastern limit of the existing project, N507,348.98, E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35 feet to a point N507,384.17, E721,183.36, thence running northeast about 324 feet to a point N507,590.51, E721,433.17, thence running northeast about 345 feet to a point along the northern limit of the existing project, N507,927.29, E721,510.29, thence running southeast about 25 feet to a point N507,921.71, E721,534.66, thence running southwest about 354 feet to a point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence running southwest about 357 feet to the point of origin.

(6)

City waterway, tacoma, washington

The portion of the project for navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), consisting of the last 1,000 linear feet of the inner portion of the waterway beginning at station 70+00 and ending at station 80+00.

(7)

Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts

(A)

In general

The portion of the project for navigation, Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts, constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), consisting of the 8-foot deep anchorage in the cove described in subparagraph (B).

(B)

Description of portion

The portion of the project described in subparagraph (A) is more particularly described as the portion beginning at a point along the southern limit of the existing project, N254,332.00, E1,023,103.96, thence running northwesterly about 761.60 feet to a point along the western limit of the existing project N255,076.84, E1,022,945.07, thence running southwesterly about 38.11 feet to a point N255,038.99, E1,022,940.60, thence running southeasterly about 267.07 feet to a point N254,772.00, E1,022,947.00, thence running southeasterly about 462.41 feet to a point N254,320.06, E1,023,044.84, thence running northeasterly about 60.31 feet to the point of origin.

(b)

Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut

The project for navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut, authorized by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1829, and by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1029), and section 364 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3733–3734), is further modified to redesignate a portion of the 9-foot-deep channel as an anchorage area, approximately 900 feet in length and 90,000 square feet in area, and lying generally north of a line with points at coordinates N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and N107,938.74, E452,265.74.

(c)

Saco River, Maine

The portion of the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine, authorized under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and described as a 6-foot deep, 10-acre turning basin located at the head of navigation, is redesignated as an anchorage area.

(d)

Union River, Maine

The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 215), is modified by redesignating as an anchorage area that portion of the project consisting of a 6-foot turning basin and lying northerly of a line commencing at a point N315,975.13, E1,004,424.86, thence running north 61 degrees 27 minutes 20.71 seconds west about 132.34 feet to a point N316,038.37, E1,004,308.61.

(e)

Mystic River, Massachusetts

The portion of the project for navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 96), between a line starting at a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45 and ending at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85 and a line starting at a point N514,595.15, E707,746.15 and ending at a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38 shall be relocated and reduced from a 100-foot wide channel to a 50-foot wide channel after the date of enactment of this Act described as follows: Beginning at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85, thence running southeasterly about 840.50 feet to a point N515,070.16, E707,601.27, thence running southeasterly about 177.54 feet to a point N514,904.84, E707,665.98, thence running southeasterly about 319.90 feet to a point with coordinates N514,595.15, E707,746.15, thence running northwesterly about 163.37 feet to a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38, thence running northwesterly about 161.58 feet to a point N514.889.47, E707,618.30, thence running northwesterly about 166.61 feet to a point N515.044.62, E707,557.58, thence running northwesterly about 825.31 feet to a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45, thence running northeasterly about 50.90 feet returning to a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85.

(f)

Conditions

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

(1)

by striking two years and inserting year; and

(2)

by striking 7 and inserting 5.

3115.

Land conveyances

(a)

St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall convey to the State of Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to paragraph (2), all right, title, and interest in and to real property within the State acquired by the Federal Government as mitigation land for the project for flood control, St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et seq.).

(2)

Terms and conditions

(A)

In general

The conveyance by the United States under this subsection shall be subject to—

(i)

the condition that the State of Arkansas agree to operate, maintain, and manage the real property for fish and wildlife, recreation, and environmental purposes at no cost or expense to the United States; and

(ii)

such other terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be in the interest of the United States.

(B)

Reversion

If the Secretary determines that the real property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public ownership or the State ceases to operate, maintain, and manage the real property in accordance with this subsection, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert to the United States, at the option of the Secretary.

(3)

Mitigation

Nothing in this subsection extinguishes the responsibility of the Federal Government or the non-Federal interest for the project referred to in paragraph (1) from the obligation to implement mitigation for such project that existed on the day prior to the transfer authorized by this subsection.

(b)

Milford, Kansas

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim deed without consideration to the Geary County Fire Department, Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to real property consisting of approximately 7.4 acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for construction, operation, and maintenance of a fire station.

(2)

Reversion

If the Secretary determines that the real property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public ownership or ceases to be operated and maintained as a fire station, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert to the United States, at the option of the United States.

(c)

Pike County, Missouri

(1)

In general

At such time as S.S.S., Inc., conveys all right, title and interest in and to the real property described in paragraph (2)(A) to the United States, the Secretary shall convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc.

(2)

Land description

The parcels of land referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A)

Non-federal land

Approximately 42 acres, the exact legal description to be determined by mutual agreement of S.S.S., Inc., and the Secretary, subject to any existing flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream and northwest, about a 200-foot distance from Drake Island (also known as Grimes Island).

(B)

Federal land

Approximately 42 acres, the exact legal description to be determined by mutual agreement of S.S.S. Inc., and the Secretary, situated in Pike County, Missouri, known as Government Tract Numbers MIs–7 and a portion of FM–46 (both tracts on Buffalo Island), administered by the Corps of Engineers.

(3)

Conditions

The exchange of real property under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:

(A)

Deeds

(i)

Non-federal land

The conveyance of the real property described in paragraph (2)(A) to the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.

(ii)

Federal land

The instrument of conveyance used to convey the real property described in paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc., shall be by quitclaim deed and contain such reservations, terms, and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary to allow the United States to operate and maintain the Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.

(B)

Removal of improvements

S.S.S., Inc., may remove, and the Secretary may require S.S.S., Inc., to remove, any improvements on the land described in paragraph (2)(A).

(C)

Time limit for exchange

The land exchange under paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

(4)

Value of properties

If the appraised fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real property conveyed to S.S.S., Inc., by the Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real property conveyed to the United States by S.S.S., Inc., under paragraph (1), S.S.S., Inc., shall make a payment to the United States equal to the excess in cash or a cash equivalent that is satisfactory to the Secretary.

(d)

Boardman, Oregon

Section 501(g)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) is amended—

(1)

by striking city of Boardman, and inserting the Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,; and

(2)

by striking such city and inserting the city of Boardman.

(e)

Lowell, Oregon

(1)

In General

The Secretary may convey without consideration to Lowell School District, by quitclaim deed, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to land and buildings thereon, known as Tract A–82, located in Lowell, Oregon, and described in paragraph (2).

(2)

Description of Property

The parcel of land authorized to be conveyed under paragraph (1) is as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the west line of Pioneer Street with the westerly extension of the north line of Summit Street, in Meadows Addition to Lowell, as platted and recorded at page 56 of Volume 4, Lane County Oregon Plat Records; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 176.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence west at right angles to the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 250.0 feet; thence south and parallel to the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 feet; thence east 250.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description in Section 14, Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Lane County, Oregon.

(3)

Terms and Conditions

Before conveying the parcel to the school district, the Secretary shall ensure that the conditions of buildings and facilities meet the requirements of applicable Federal law.

(4)

Reversion

If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public ownership, all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall revert to the United States, at the option of the United States.

(f)

Lowell, Oregon

(1)

Release and extinguishment of deed reservations

(A)

Release and extinguishment of deed reservations

The Secretary may release and extinguish the deed reservations for access and communication cables contained in the quitclaim deed, dated January 26, 1965, and recorded February 15, 1965, in the records of Lane County, Oregon; except that such reservations may only be released and extinguished for the lands owned by the city of Lowell as described in the quitclaim deed, dated April 11, 1991, in such records.

(B)

Additional release and extinguishment of deed reservations

The Secretary may also release and extinguish the same deed reservations referred to in subparagraph (A) over land owned by Lane County, Oregon, within the city limits of Lowell, Oregon, to accommodate the development proposals of the city of Lowell/St. Vincent de Paul, Lane County, affordable housing project; except that the Secretary may require, at no cost to the United States—

(i)

the alteration or relocation of any existing facilities, utilities, roads, or similar improvements on such lands; and

(ii)

the right-of-way for such facilities, utilities, or improvements, as a pre-condition of any release or extinguishment of the deed reservations.

(2)

Conveyance

The Secretary may convey to the city of Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value the parcel of land situated in the city of Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value consisting of the strip of federally-owned lands located northeast of West Boundary Road between Hyland Lane and the city of Lowell’s eastward city limits.

(3)

Administrative Cost

Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), the city of Lowell, Oregon, shall pay the administrative costs incurred by the United States to execute the release and extinguishment of the deed reservations under paragraph (1) and the conveyance under paragraph (2).

(g)

Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall convey to the State of South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, at fair market value, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property described in paragraph (2) that is managed, as of the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina department of commerce for public recreation purposes for the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420).

(2)

Land description

Subject to paragraph (3), the real property referred to in paragraph (1) is the parcel contained in the portion of real property described in Army Lease Number DACW21–1–92–0500.

(3)

Reservation of interests

The United States shall reserve—

(A)

ownership of all real property included in the lease referred to in paragraph (2) that would have been acquired for operational purposes in accordance with the 1971 implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint Acquisition Policy; and

(B)

such other rights and interests in and to the real property to be conveyed as the Secretary considers necessary for authorized project purposes, including easement rights-of-way to remaining Federal land.

(4)

No effect on shore management policy

The Shoreline Management Policy (ER–1130–2–406) of the Corps of Engineers shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development of land conveyed under this subsection.

(5)

Cost sharing

In carrying out the conveyance under this subsection, the Secretary and the State shall comply with all obligations of any cost-sharing agreement between the Secretary and the State with respect to the real property described in paragraph (2) in effect as of the date of the conveyance.

(6)

Land not conveyed

The State shall continue to manage the real property described in paragraph (3) not conveyed under this subsection in accordance with the terms and conditions of Army Lease Number DACW21–1–92–0500.

(h)

Denison, Texas

(1)

In General

The Secretary shall offer to convey at fair market value to the city of Denison, Texas, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the approximately 900 acres of land located in Grayson County, Texas, which is currently subject to an application for lease for public park and recreational purposes made by the city of Denison, dated August 17, 2005.

(2)

Survey To Obtain Legal Description

The exact acreage and description of the real property referred to in paragraph (1) shall be determined by a survey paid for by the city of Denison, Texas, that is satisfactory to the Secretary.

(3)

Conveyance

On acceptance by the city of Denison, Texas, of an offer under paragraph (1), the Secretary may immediately convey the land surveyed under paragraph (2) by quitclaim deed to the city of Denison, Texas.

(i)

Generally Applicable Provisions

(1)

Survey to obtain legal description

The exact acreage and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed under this section shall be determined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Secretary.

(2)

Applicability of property screening provisions

Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section.

(3)

Additional terms and conditions

The Secretary may require that any conveyance under this section be subject to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate and necessary to protect the interests of the United States.

(4)

Costs of conveyance

An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with the conveyance.

(5)

Liability

An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall hold the United States harmless from any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed.

3116.

Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use restrictions

(a)

Idaho

(1)

In general

With respect to the property covered by each deed in paragraph (2)—

(A)

the reversionary interests and use restrictions relating to port and industrial use purposes are extinguished;

(B)

the restriction that no activity shall be permitted that will compete with services and facilities offered by public marinas is extinguished; and

(C)

the human habitation or other building structure use restriction is extinguished if the elevation of the property is above the standard project flood elevation.

(2)

Affected deeds

The deeds with the following county auditor’s file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1):

(A)

Auditor’s Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce County, Idaho—2.07 acres.

(B)

Auditor’s Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce County, Idaho—7.32 acres.

(b)

Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee

(1)

Release of retained rights, interests, reservations

With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the Tennessee Society of Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (commonly known as Easter Seals Tennessee) at Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under section 211 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087), the reversionary interests and the use restrictions relating to recreation and camping purposes are extinguished.

(2)

Instrument of release

As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating the release of interests required by paragraph (1).

(c)

Port of Pasco, Washington

(1)

Extinguishment of use restrictions and flowage easement

With respect to the property covered by the deed in paragraph (3)(A)—

(A)

the flowage easement and human habitation or other building structure use restriction is extinguished if the elevation of the property is above the standard project flood elevation; and

(B)

the use of fill material to raise areas of the property above the standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any area for which a permit under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is required.

(2)

Extinguishment of flowage easement

With respect to the property covered by each deed in paragraph (3)(B), the flowage easement is extinguished if the elevation of the property is above the standard project flood elevation.

(3)

Affected deeds

The deeds referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) are as follows:

(A)

Auditor’s File Number 262980 of Franklin County, Washington.

(B)

Auditor’s File Numbers 263334 and 404398 of Franklin County, Washington.

(d)

No Effect on Other Rights

Nothing in this section affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of Engineers for authorized project purposes.

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.

Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska

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

4006.

Kuskokwim River, Alaska

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

4007.

St. George Harbor, Alaska

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

4008.

Susitna River, Alaska

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

4009.

Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.

(b)

Review of plans

In conducting the study, the Secretary shall review plans and designs developed by non-Federal interests and shall incorporate such plans and designs into the Federal study if the Secretary determines that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal standards.

4010.

Searcy County, Arkansas

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

4011.

Elkhorn Slough Estuary, California

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

4012.

Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California

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

4013.

Los Angeles River revitalization study, California

(a)

In General

The Secretary, in coordination with the city of Los Angeles, shall—

(1)

prepare a feasibility study for environmental restoration, flood control, recreation, and other aspects of Los Angeles River revitalization that is consistent with the goals of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan published by the city of Los Angeles; and

(2)

consider any locally-preferred project alternatives developed through a full and open evaluation process for inclusion in the study.

(b)

Use of Existing Information and Measures

In preparing the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable—

(1)

information obtained from the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan; and

(2)

the development process of that plan.

(c)

Demonstration Projects

(1)

In general

The Secretary is authorized to construct demonstration projects in order to provide information to develop the study under subsection (a)(1).

(2)

Federal share

The Federal share of the cost of any project under this subsection shall be not more than 65 percent.

(3)

Authorization of appropriations

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

4014.

Lytle Creek, Rialto, California

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

4015.

Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply along the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.

(b)

Limitation on Statutory Construction

Nothing in this section shall be construed to invalidate, preempt, or create any exception to State water law, State water rights, or Federal or State permitted activities or agreements.

4016.

Napa River, St. Helena, California

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study of the Napa River in the vicinity of St. Helena, California, for the purposes of improving flood management through reconnecting the river to its floodplain; restoring habitat, including riparian and aquatic habitat; improving fish passage and water quality; and restoring native plant communities.

(b)

Plans and designs

In conducting the study, the Secretary shall review plans and designs developed by non-Federal interests and shall incorporate such plans and designs into the Federal study if the Secretary determines that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal standards.

4017.

Orick, California

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Orick, California.

(b)

Feasibility of restoring or rehabilitating Redwook Creek Levees

In conducting the study, the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of restoring or rehabilitating the Redwood Creek Levees, Humboldt County, California.

4018.

Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California

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

4019.

Sacramento River, California

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

4020.

San Diego County, California

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

4021.

San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged material from the San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, including the benefits and impacts of salinity in the Delta and the benefits to navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, water quality, salinity control, water supply reliability, and recreation.

(b)

Cooperation

In conducting the study, the Secretary shall cooperate with the California Department of Water Resources and appropriate Federal and State entities in developing options for the beneficial use of dredged material from San Francisco Bay for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area.

(c)

Review

The study shall include a review of the feasibility of using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for levee maintenance material, as well as for ecosystem restoration. The review may include monitoring a pilot project using up to 150,000 cubic yards of dredged material and being carried out at the Sherman Island site, examining larger scale use of dredged materials from the San Francisco Bay and Suisun Bay Channel, and analyzing the feasibility of the potential use of saline materials from the San Francisco Bay for both rehandling and ecosystem restoration purposes.

4022.

South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California

(a)

In general

In conducting the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, the Secretary shall—

(1)

review the planning, design, and land acquisition documents prepared by the California State Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and other local interests in developing recommendations for measures to provide flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline, restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds (including lands owned by the Department of the Interior), and other related purposes; and

(2)

incorporate such planning, design, and land acquisition documents into the Federal study if the Secretary determines that such documents are consistent with Federal standards.

(b)

Report

Not later than December 31, 2008, the Secretary shall transmit a feasibility report for the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.

(c)

Credit

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

(2)

Limitation

In no case may work that was carried out more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be eligible for credit under this subsection.

4023.

Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado

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

4024.

Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware

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

4025.

Collier County Beaches, Florida

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

4026.

Lower St. Johns River, Florida

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

4027.

Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida

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

4028.

Meriwether County, Georgia

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

4029.

Tybee Island, Georgia

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

4030.

Boise River, Idaho

The study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho, authorized by section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 324), is modified—

(1)

to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as project purposes to be studied; and

(2)

to require the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the study the cost, not to exceed $500,000, of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

4031.

Ballard’s Island Side Channel, Illinois

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

4032.

Salem, Indiana

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

4033.

Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood damage reduction, Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 2 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to add ecosystem restoration, recreation, and improved access as project purposes, including permanently raising the winter pool elevation of the project.

(b)

In-kind contributions

The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the form of in-kind services and materials.

4034.

Dewey Lake, Kentucky

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

4035.

Louisville, Kentucky

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

4036.

Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island

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

4037.

Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan

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

4038.

Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall conduct a study and prepare a report to evaluate the integrity of the bulkhead system located on and in the vicinity of Duluth-Superior Harbor, Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin.

(b)

Contents

The report shall include—

(1)

a determination of causes of corrosion of the bulkhead system;

(2)

recommendations to reduce corrosion of the bulkhead system;

(3)

a description of the necessary repairs to the bulkhead system; and

(4)

an estimate of the cost of addressing the causes of the corrosion and carrying out necessary repairs.

4039.

Northeast Mississippi

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

4040.

St. Louis, Missouri

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

4041.

Dredged material disposal, New Jersey

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

4042.

Bayonne, New Jersey

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

4043.

Carteret, New Jersey

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

4044.

Gloucester County, New Jersey

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

4045.

Perth Amboy, New Jersey

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

4046.

Batavia, New York

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

4047.

Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.

(b)

Evaluation of Potential Solutions

In conducting the study, the Secretary shall evaluate potential solutions to flooding from all sources, including flooding that results from ice jams.

4048.

Finger Lakes, New York

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

4049.

Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York

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

4050.

Newtown Creek, New York

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

4051.

Niagara River, New York

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

4052.

Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York

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

4053.

Upper Delaware River Watershed, New York

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

4054.

Lincoln County, North Carolina

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

4055.

Wilkes County, North Carolina

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

4056.

Yadkinville, North Carolina

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

4057.

Cincinnati, Ohio

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration and recreation on the Ohio River, Cincinnati, Ohio.

(b)

Design

While conducting the study, the Secretary may continue to carry out design work for the project as authorized by section 118 of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (118 Stat. 439).

(c)

Existing plans

In conducting the study, the Secretary shall review the Central Riverfront Park Master Plan, dated December 1999, and incorporate any components of the plan that the Secretary determines are consistent with Federal standards.

(d)

Credit

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of the study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

(2)

Limitation

In no case may work that was carried out more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be eligible for credit under this subsection.

4058.

Lake Erie, Ohio

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

4059.

Ohio River, Ohio

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

4060.

Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon

(a)

Study

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements on rivers throughout the State of Oregon.

(b)

Requirements

In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall—

(1)

work in coordination with the State of Oregon, local governments, and other Federal agencies; and

(2)

place emphasis on—

(A)

fish passage and conservation and restoration strategies to benefit species that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and

(B)

other watershed restoration objectives.

(c)

Pilot Program

(1)

In general

In conjunction with conducting the study under subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out pilot projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of ecosystem restoration and fish passages.

(2)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

4061.

Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon

In conducting the study of determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon, the Secretary shall—

(1)

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

(2)

allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the form of in-kind services and materials.

4062.

Chartiers Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania

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

4063.

Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania

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

4064.

Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction, Pennsylvania

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall conduct a study of structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction, stream bank protection, storm water management, channel clearing and modification, and watershed coordination measures in the Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania, the Allegheny River basin, Pennsylvania, and the Upper Ohio River basin, Pennsylvania, to provide a level of flood protection sufficient to prevent future losses to communities located in such basins from flooding such as occurred in September 2004, but not less than a 100-year level of flood protection.

(b)

Priority Communities

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give priority to the following Pennsylvania communities: Marshall Township, Ross Township, Shaler Township, Jackson Township, Harmony, Zelienople, Darlington Township, Houston Borough, Chartiers Township, Washington, Canton Township, Tarentum Borough, and East Deer Township.

4065.

Williamsport, Pennsylvania

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

4066.

Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania

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

4067.

Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall conduct a study to reevaluate the project for flood damage reduction and water supply, Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, authorized by section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197) and section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1828), to determine the feasibility of carrying out the project.

(b)

Credit

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

4068.

Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina

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

4069.

Broad River, York County, South Carolina

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

4070.

Chattanooga, Tennessee

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

4071.

Cleveland, Tennessee

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

4072.

Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee

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

4073.

Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee

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

4074.

Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee

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

4075.

Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall develop a comprehensive plan to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration in the coastal areas of the State of Texas.

(b)

Scope

The comprehensive plan shall provide for the protection, conservation, and restoration of wetlands, barrier islands, shorelines, and related lands and features that protect critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure from the impacts of coastal storms, hurricanes, erosion, and subsidence.

(c)

Definition

For purposes of this section, the term coastal areas in the State of Texas means the coastal areas of the State of Texas from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande River on the west and includes tidal waters, barrier islands, marshes, coastal wetlands, rivers and streams, and adjacent areas.

4076.

Port of Galveston, Texas

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

4077.

Grand County and Moab, Utah

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

4078.

Southwestern Utah

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

4079.

Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina

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

4080.

Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington

(a)

In General

The study for rehabilitation of the Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington, being carried out under Committee Resolution 2704 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted September 25, 2002, is modified to include a determination of the feasibility of reducing future damage to the seawall from seismic activity.

(b)

Acceptance of Contributions

In carrying out the study, the Secretary may accept contributions in excess of the non-Federal share of the cost of the study from the non-Federal interest to the extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions will facilitate completion of the study.

(c)

Credit

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of the study the value of contributions accepted by the Secretary under subsection (b).

4081.

Monongahela River Basin, northern West Virginia

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

4082.

Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin

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

4083.

Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin

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

V

Miscellaneous

5001.

Maintenance of navigation channels

(a)

In General

Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the following navigation channels and breakwaters constructed or improved by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines that such maintenance is economically justified and environmentally acceptable and that the channel or breakwater was constructed in accordance with applicable permits and appropriate engineering and design standards:

(1)

Manatee Harbor basin, Florida.

(2)

Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana.

(3)

Calcasieu River at Devil’s Elbow, Louisiana.

(4)

Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, Memphis Harbor, Tennessee.

(5)

Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, Texas.

(6)

Racine Harbor, Wisconsin.

(b)

Completion of Assessment

Not later than 6 months after the date of receipt of a request from a non-Federal interest for Federal assumption of maintenance of a channel listed in subsection (a), the Secretary shall make a determination as provided in subsection (a) and advise the non-Federal interest of the Secretary’s determination.

5002.

Watershed management

(a)

In General

The Secretary may provide technical, planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying out watershed management, restoration, and development projects at the locations described in subsection (d).

(b)

Specific Measures

Assistance provided under subsection (a) may be in support of non-Federal projects for the following purposes:

(1)

Management and restoration of water quality.

(2)

Control and remediation of toxic sediments.

(3)

Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and other waterbodies to their natural condition as a means to control flooding, excessive erosion, and sedimentation.

(4)

Protection and restoration of watersheds, including urban watersheds.

(5)

Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural measures to reduce destructive impacts of flooding.

(c)

Non-Federal Share

The non-Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 percent.

(d)

Project Locations

The locations referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1)

Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.

(2)

Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee, Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia.

(3)

Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.

(4)

Amite River basin, Louisiana.

(5)

East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.

(6)

Red River watershed, Louisiana.

(7)

Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.

(8)

Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.

(9)

Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.

(10)

Marlboro Township, New Jersey.

(11)

Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene, Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York.

(12)

Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey.

(13)

Long Island Sound watershed, New York.

(14)

Ramapo River watershed, New York.

(15)

Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.

(16)

Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers lying within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and Mercer, Pennsylvania.

(17)

Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.

(18)

Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.

(19)

Sauk River basin, Washington.

(e)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

5003.

Dam safety

(a)

Assistance

The Secretary may provide assistance to enhance dam safety at the following locations:

(1)

Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.

(2)

Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.

(3)

State Dam, Auburn, New York.

(4)

Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.

(5)

Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.

(6)

Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.

(7)

Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.

(8)

Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

(b)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $6,000,000.

5004.

Structural integrity evaluations

(a)

In General

Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall evaluate the structural integrity and effectiveness of a project for flood damage reduction and, if the Secretary determines that the project does not meet such minimum standards as the Secretary may establish and, absent action by the Secretary, the project will fail, the Secretary may take such action as may be necessary to restore the integrity and effectiveness of the project.

(b)

Priority

The Secretary shall evaluate under subsection (a) the following projects:

(1)

Project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River Levees, Arkansas.

(2)

Project for flood damage reduction, Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee.

5005.

Flood mitigation priority areas

(a)

In General

Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) is amended—

(1)

by striking and at the end of paragraphs (23) and (27);

(2)

by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and inserting a semicolon; and

(3)

by adding at the end the following:

(29)

Ascension Parish, Louisiana;

(30)

East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;

(31)

Iberville Parish, Louisiana;

(32)

Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and

(33)

Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.

.

(b)

Authorization of Appropriations

Section 212(i)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2332(i)(1)) is amended by striking section— and all that follows before the period at the end and inserting section $20,000,000.

5006.

Additional assistance for authorized projects

(a)

In General

Section 219(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is amended—

(1)

by striking and at the end of paragraph (7);

(2)

by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting a semicolon; and

(3)

by adding at the end the following:

(9)

$35,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(18);

(10)

$27,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(19);

(11)

$20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(20);

(12)

$20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(25);

(13)

$20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(26);

(14)

$35,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(27);

(15)

$20,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(28); and

(16)

$30,000,000 for the project described in subsection (c)(40).

.

(b)

East Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas

Federal assistance made available under the rural enterprise zone program of the Department of Agriculture may be used toward payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project described in section 219(c)(20) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–219) if such assistance is authorized to be used for such purposes.

5007.

Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain projects

The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, shall expedite completion of construction for the following projects:

(1)

Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(2)

Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(3)

Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(4)

Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

(5)

Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).

(6)

North River, Peabody, Massachusetts, being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(7)

Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

5008.

Expedited completion of reports for certain projects

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is justified in the completed report, proceed directly to project preconstruction, engineering, and design:

(1)

Project for water supply, Little Red River, Arkansas.

(2)

Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida.

(3)

Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

(b)

Special Rule for Egmont Key, Florida

In carrying out the project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, referred to in subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall waive any cost share to be provided by non-Federal interests for any portion of the project that benefits federally owned property.

5009.

Southeastern water resources assessment

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, an assessment of the water resources needs of the river basins and watersheds of the southeastern United States.

(b)

Cooperative Agreements

In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with State and local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, and regional researchers.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $7,000,000 to carry out this section.

5010.

Upper Mississippi River environmental management program

Section 1103(e)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(7)) is amended—

(1)

by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the following: The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.; and

(2)

by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:

(C)

Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), a non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken under this section, a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.

.

5011.

Missouri and Middle Mississippi River enhancement project

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

5012.

Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration

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

5013.

Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation

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

5014.

Great Lakes tributary models

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

5015.

Great Lakes navigation

(a)

In general

Using available funds, the Secretary shall expedite the operation and maintenance, including dredging, of the navigation features of the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels for the purpose of supporting commercial navigation to authorized project depths.

(b)

Great lakes and connecting channels defined

In this section, the term Great Lakes and Connecting Channels includes Lakes Superior, Huron, Michigan, Erie, and Ontario, all connecting waters between and among such lakes used for commercial navigation, any navigation features in such lakes or waters that are a Federal operation or maintenance responsibility, and areas of the Saint Lawrence River that are operated or maintained by the Federal government for commercial navigation.

5016.

Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project

(a)

In general

The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall study, design, and carry out a project for preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species through the Upper Mississippi River system. The Secretary shall complete the study, design, and construction of the project not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b)

Dispersal barrier

The Secretary, at Federal expense, shall—

(1)

investigate and identify environmentally sound methods for preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species;

(2)

study, design, and carry out a project for a dispersal barrier, using available technologies and measures, to be located in the lock portion of Lock and Dam 11 in the Upper Mississippi River basin;

(3)

monitor and evaluate, in cooperation with the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the effectiveness of the project in preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species through the Upper Mississippi River system, and report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate on the results of the evaluation; and

(4)

operate and maintain the project.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

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

5017.

Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

(a)

Ex Officio Member

Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From Natural Disasters, and for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia (Public Law 105–18; 111 Stat. 176), section 2.2 of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact (Public Law 91–575), and section 2.2 of the Delaware River Basin Compact (Public Law 87–328), beginning in fiscal year 2002, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers—

(1)

shall be the ex officio United States member under the Susquehanna River Basin Compact, the Delaware River Basin Compact, and the Potomac River Basin Compact;

(2)

shall serve without additional compensation; and

(3)

may designate an alternate member in accordance with the terms of those compacts.

(b)

Authorization To Allocate

The Secretary shall allocate funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware River Basin Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (Potomac River Basin Compact (Public Law 91–407)) to fulfill the equitable funding requirements of the respective interstate compacts.

(c)

Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Delaware River Basin

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at the Francis E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, for any period during which the Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency exists.

(2)

Limitation

The agreement shall provide that the cost for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated with providing the storage.

(d)

Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Susquehanna River Basin

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Susquehanna River Basin for any period for which the Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency exists.

(2)

Limitation

The agreement shall provide that the cost for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated with providing the storage.

(e)

Water Supply and Conservation Storage, Potomac River Basin

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Potomac River Basin Commission to provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Potomac River Basin for any period for which the Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency exists.

(2)

Limitation

The agreement shall provide that the cost for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated with providing the storage.

5018.

Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program

(a)

Form of Assistance

Section 510(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended by striking , and beneficial uses of dredged material and inserting , beneficial uses of dredged material, and restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation.

(b)

Authorization of Appropriations

Section 510(i) of such Act (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking $10,000,000 and inserting $50,000,000.

5019.

Potomac River watershed assessment and tributary strategy evaluation and monitoring program

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

5020.

Lock and dam security

(a)

Standards

The Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Coast Guard, shall develop standards for the security of locks and dams, including the testing and certification of vessel exclusion barriers.

(b)

Site Surveys

At the request of a lock or dam owner, the Secretary shall provide technical assistance, on a reimbursable basis, to improve lock or dam security.

(c)

Cooperative Agreement

The Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with a nonprofit alliance of public and private organizations that has the mission of promoting safe waterways and seaports to carry out testing and certification activities, and to perform site surveys, under this section.

(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

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

5021.

Rehabilitation

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

5022.

Research and development program for Columbia and Snake River salmon survival

Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 3301 note; 110 Stat. 3761; 113 Stat. 375) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (a)(6) by striking $10,000,000 and inserting $25,000,000; and

(2)

in subsection (c)(2) by striking $1,000,000 and inserting $10,000,000.

5023.

Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama

(a)

Project authorization

The Secretary shall design and construct the locally preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama. In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent practicable, the existing detailed project report for the project prepared under the authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).

(b)

Participation by non-Federal interest

The Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

(c)

Credit

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

5024.

Alaska

Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 369) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (c) by inserting environmental restoration, after water supply and related facilities,;

(2)

in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence;

(3)

in subsection (h) by striking $25,000,000 and inserting $45,000,000; and

(4)

by adding at the end the following:

(i)

Nonprofit Entities

Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), a non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.

(j)

Corps of Engineers Expenses

Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

.

5025.

Barrow, Alaska

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

5026.

Coffman Cove, Alaska

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

5027.

Fort Yukon, Alaska

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

5028.

Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska

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

5029.

Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska

(a)

Long-Term Maintenance and Repair

The Secretary shall assume responsibility for the long-term maintenance and repair of the Lowell Creek Tunnel.

(b)

Study

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine whether alternative methods of flood diversion in Lowell Canyon are feasible.

5030.

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

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

5031.

Tanana River, Alaska

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

5032.

Valdez, Alaska

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

5033.

Whittier, Alaska

(a)

Study

The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for navigation at Whittier, Alaska, to construct a new boat harbor at the head of Whittier Bay and to expand the existing harbor and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project.

(b)

Non-Federal Cost Share

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

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $35,200,000.

5034.

Wrangell Harbor, Alaska

(a)

General Navigation Features

In carrying out the project for navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska, authorized by section 101(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), the Secretary shall consider the dredging of the mooring basin and construction of the inner harbor facilities to be general navigation features for purposes of estimating the non-Federal share of project costs.

(b)

Revision of Partnership Agreement

The Secretary shall revise the partnership agreement for the project to reflect the change required by subsection (a).

5035.

Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas

(a)

In General

The Secretary is authorized to perform operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of authorized and completed levees on the White River between Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.

(b)

Reimbursement

After performing the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the Secretary of the Interior of an amount equal to the costs allocated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation.

5036.

Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas

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

5037.

Loomis Landing, Arkansas

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

5038.

St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri

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

5039.

Cambria, California

Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended—

(1)

by striking $10,300,000 and inserting the following:

(A)

In general

$10,300,000

;

(2)

by adding at the end the following:

(B)

Credit

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project not to exceed $3,000,000 for the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

; and

(3)

by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

5040.

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

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

5041.

Dana Point Harbor, California

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

5042.

East San Joaquin County, California

Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 336) is amended—

(1)

by striking $25,000,000 and inserting the following:

(A)

In general

$25,000,000

;

(2)

by adding at the end the following:

(B)

Credit

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) the cost of provided for the project by the non-Federal interest.

(C)

In-kind contributions

The non-Federal interest may provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.

; and

(3)

by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

5043.

Eastern Santa Clara basin, California

Section 111(c) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106–554; 114 Stat. 2763A–224) is amended—

(1)

by striking $25,000,000 and inserting $28,000,000; and

(2)

by striking $7,000,000 and inserting $10,000,000.

5044.

Los Osos, California

Section 219(c)(27) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A–219) is amended to read as follows:

(27)

Los osos, california

Wastewater infrastructure, Los Osos, California.

.

5045.

Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall review the Kings River Fisheries Management Program Framework Agreement, dated May 29, 1999, among the California Department of Fish and Game, the Kings River Water Association, and the Kings River Conservation District and, if the Secretary determines that the management program is feasible, the Secretary may participate in the management program.

(b)

Prohibition

Nothing in this section authorizes any project for the raising of, or the construction of, a multilevel intake structure at Pine Flat Dam, California.

(c)

Use of Existing Studies

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, studies in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including data and environmental documentation in the Report of the Chief of Engineers, Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, Fresno County, California, dated July 19, 2002.

(d)

Credit

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

(e)

Authorization of Appropriations

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

5046.

Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California

(a)

Comprehensive Plan

The Secretary, in consultation and coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall develop a comprehensive plan for the management of water resources in the Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California. The Secretary may carry out activities identified in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives for water resources management.

(b)

Non-Federal Share

(1)

In general

The non-Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this section shall be 35 percent.

(2)

Credit

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this section the cost of planning, design, and construction work completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests for implementation of measures under this section. The amount of such credit shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of such activities.

(3)

Operation and maintenance

The non-Federal share of the cost of operation and maintenance of any measures constructed under this section shall be 100 percent.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

5047.

San Francisco, California

(a)

In General

The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port of San Francisco, California, may carry out the project for repair and removal, as appropriate, of Piers 30-32, 35, 36, 70 (including Wharves 7 and 8), and 80 in San Francisco, California, substantially in accordance with the Port’s redevelopment plan.

(b)

Authorization of Appropriation

There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

5048.

San Francisco, California, waterfront area

(a)

Area to Be Declared Nonnavigable; Public Interest

Unless the Secretary finds, after consultation with local and regional public officials (including local and regional public planning organizations), that the proposed projects to be undertaken within the boundaries of the portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area described in subsection (b) are not in the public interest, such portion is declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United States.

(b)

Northern Embarcadero South of Bryant Street

The portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area referred to in subsection (a) is as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the northeasterly prolongation of that portion of the northwesterly line of Bryant Street lying between Beale Street and Main Street with the southwesterly line of Spear Street, which intersection lies on the line of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission; following thence southerly along said line of jurisdiction as described in the State of California Harbor and Navigation Code Section 1770, as amended in 1961, to its intersection with the easterly line of Townsend Street along a line that is parallel and distant 10 feet southerly from the existing southern boundary of Pier 40 produced to its point of intersection with the United States Government pier-head line; thence northerly along said pier-head line to its intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 10 feet easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line of Pier 30–32; thence northerly along said parallel line and its northerly prolongation, to a point of intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 10 feet northerly from, the existing northerly boundary of Pier 30–32, thence westerly along last said parallel line to its intersection with the United States Government pier-head line; to the northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced northwesterly; thence southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced to the point of beginning.

(c)

Requirement That Area Be Improved

The declaration of nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies only to those parts of the area described in subsection (b) that are or will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied by permanent structures and does not affect the applicability of any Federal statute or regulation applicable to such parts the day before the date of enactment of this Act, including sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

(d)

Expiration Date

If, 20 years from the date of enactment of this Act, any area or part thereof described in subsection (b) is not bulkheaded or filled or occupied by permanent structures, including marina facilities, in accordance with the requirements set out in subsection (c), or if work in connection with any activity permitted in subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after issuance of such permits, then the declaration of nonnavigability for such area or part thereof shall expire.

5049.

San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and Suisun Marsh ecosystem restoration

(a)

San Pablo Bay Watershed, California

(1)

In general

The Secretary shall complete work, as expeditiously as possible, on the ongoing San Pablo Bay watershed, California, study to determine the feasibility of opportunities for restoring, preserving and protecting the San Pablo Bay watershed.

(2)

Report

Not later than March 31, 2008, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the study.

(b)

Suisun Marsh, California

The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of opportunities for restoring, preserving and protecting the Suisun Marsh, California.

(c)

San Pablo and Suisun Bay Marsh Watershed Critical Restoration Projects

(1)

In general

The Secretary may participate in critical restoration projects that will produce, consistent with Federal programs, projects, and activities, immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation, and protection benefits in the following sub-watersheds of the San Pablo and Suisun Bay Marsh watersheds:

(A)

The tidal areas of the Petaluma River, Napa-Sonoma Marsh.

(B)

The shoreline of West Contra Costa County.

(C)

Novato Creek.

(D)

Suisun Marsh.

(E)

Gallinas-Miller Creek.

(2)

Types of assistance

Participation in critical restoration projects under this subsection may include assistance for planning, design, or construction.

(d)

Non-Federal Interests

Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), a non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.

(e)

Credit

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of a project under this section—

(1)

the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, or relocations provided by the non-Federal interest for carrying out the project, regardless of the date of acquisition;

(2)

funds received from the CALFED Bay-Delta program; and

(3)

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

(f)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000.

5050.

Stockton, California

(a)

Reevaluation

The Secretary shall reevaluate the feasibility of the Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions on the Upper Calaveras River element of the project for flood control, Stockton Metropolitan Area, California, carried out under section 211(f)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3683), to determine the eligibility of such elements for reimbursement under section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b–13).

(b)

Special Rules for Reevaluation

In conducting the reevaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall not reject a feasibility determination based on one or more of the policies of the Corps of Engineers concerning the frequency of flooding, the drainage area, and the amount of runoff.

(c)

Reimbursement

If the Secretary determines that the elements referred to subsection (a) are feasible, the Secretary shall reimburse, subject to appropriations, the non-Federal interest under section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 for the Federal share of the cost of such elements.

5051.

Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut

(a)

Designation

The western breakwater for the project for navigation, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be known and designated as the Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater.

(b)

References

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the breakwater referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater.

5052.

Florida Keys water quality improvements

Section 109 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (enacted into law by Public Law 106–554) (114 Stat. 2763A–222) is amended—

(1)

by adding at the end of subsection (e)(2) the following:

(C)

Credit for work prior to execution of the partnership agreement

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project—

(i)

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

(ii)

the cost of land acquisition carried out by the non-Federal interest for projects to be carried out under this section.

; and

(2)

in subsection (f) by striking $100,000,000 and inserting $100,000,000, of which not more than $15,000,000 may be used to provide planning, design, and construction assistance to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for a water treatment plant, Florida City, Florida.

5053.

Lake Worth, Florida

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

5054.

Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho

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

5055.

Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects

(a)

In General

The Secretary may participate in the reconstruction of an eligible flood control project if the Secretary determines that such reconstruction is not required as a result of improper operation and maintenance of the project by the non-Federal interest.

(b)

Cost Sharing

The non-Federal share of the costs for the reconstruction of a flood control project authorized by this section shall be the same non-Federal share that was applicable to construction of the project. The non-Federal interest shall be responsible for operation and maintenance and repair of a project for which reconstruction is undertaken under this section.

(c)

Reconstruction Defined

In this section, the term reconstruction, as used with respect to a project, means addressing major project deficiencies caused by long-term degradation of the foundation, construction materials, or engineering systems or components of the project, the results of which render the project at risk of not performing in compliance with its authorized project purposes. In addressing such deficiencies, the Secretary may incorporate current design standards and efficiency improvements, including the replacement of obsolete mechanical and electrical components at pumping stations, if such incorporation does not significantly change the scope, function, and purpose of the project as authorized.

(d)

Eligible Projects

The following flood control projects are eligible for reconstruction under this section:

(1)

Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.

(2)

Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, Illinois.

(3)

Cairo, Illinois Mainline Levee, Cairo, Illinois.

(4)

Goose Pond Pump Station, Cairo, Illinois.

(5)

Cottonwood Slough Pump Station, Alexander County, Illinois.

(6)

10th and 28th Street Pump Stations, Cairo, Illinois.

(7)

Prairie Du Pont Levee and Sanitary District, including Fish Lake Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.

(8)

Flood control levee projects in Brookport, Shawneetown, Old Shawneetown, Golconda, Rosiclare, Harrisburg, and Reevesville, Illinois.

(e)

Justification

The reconstruction of a project authorized by this section shall not be considered a separable element of the project.

(f)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated—

(1)

$15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (d); and

(2)

$15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in subsection (d)(8).

Such sums shall remain available until expended.
5056.

Illinois River Basin restoration

(a)

Extension of Authorization

Section 519(c)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is amended by striking 2004 and inserting 2010.

(b)

In-Kind Services

Section 519(g)(3) of such Act (114 Stat. 2655) is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence if such services are provided not more than 5 years before the date of initiation of the project or activity.

(c)

Nonprofit Entities and Monitoring

Section 519 of such Act (114 Stat. 2654) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(h)

Nonprofit Entities

Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), a non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.

(i)

Monitoring

The Secretary shall develop an Illinois river basin monitoring program to support the plan referred to in subsection (b). Data collected under the monitoring program shall incorporate data provided by the State of Illinois and shall be publicly accessible through electronic means.

.

5057.

Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration

(a)

Kaskaskia River Basin Defined

In this section, the term Kaskaskia River Basin means the Kaskaskia River, Illinois, its backwaters, its side channels, and all tributaries, including their watersheds, draining into the Kaskaskia River.

(b)

Comprehensive Plan

(1)

Development

The Secretary shall develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the Kaskaskia River Basin.

(2)

Technologies and innovative approaches

The comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new technologies and innovative approaches—

(A)

to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a transportation corridor;

(B)

to improve water quality within the entire Kaskaskia River Basin;

(C)

to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for plants and wildlife;

(D)

to ensure aquatic integrity of sidechannels and backwaters and their connectivity with the mainstem river;

(E)

to increase economic opportunity for agriculture and business communities; and

(F)

to reduce the impacts of flooding to communities and landowners.

(3)

Specific components

The comprehensive plan shall include such features as are necessary to provide for—

(A)

the development and implementation of a program for sediment removal technology, sediment characterization, sediment transport, and beneficial uses of sediment;

(B)

the development and implementation of a program for the planning, conservation, evaluation, and construction of measures for fish and wildlife habitat conservation and rehabilitation, and stabilization and enhancement of land and water resources in the basin;

(C)

the development and implementation of a long-term resource monitoring program;

(D)

a conveyance study of the Kaskaskia River floodplain from Vandalia, Illinois, to Carlyle Lake to determine the impacts of existing and future waterfowl improvements on flood stages, including detailed surveys and mapping information to ensure proper hydraulic and hydrological analysis;

(E)

the development and implementation of a computerized inventory and analysis system; and

(F)

the development and implementation of a systemic plan to reduce flood impacts by means of ecosystem restoration projects.

(4)

Consultation

The comprehensive plan shall be developed by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, the State of Illinois, and the Kaskaskia River Watershed Association.

(5)

Report to congress

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.

(6)

Additional studies and analyses

After transmission of a report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall conduct studies and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive plan that are appropriate and consistent with this subsection.

(c)

General Provisions

(1)

Water quality

In carrying out activities under this section, the Secretary’s recommendations shall be consistent with applicable State water quality standards.

(2)

Public participation

In developing the comprehensive plan under subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement procedures to facilitate public participation, including providing advance notice of meetings, providing adequate opportunity for public input and comment, maintaining appropriate records, and making a record of the proceedings of meetings available for public inspection.

(d)

Critical projects and initiatives

If the Secretary, in cooperation with appropriate Federal agencies and the State of Illinois, determines that a project or initiative for the Kaskaskia River Basin will produce independent, immediate, and substantial benefits, the Secretary may proceed expeditiously with the implementation of the project.

(e)

Coordination

The Secretary shall integrate activities carried out under this section with ongoing Federal and State programs, projects, and activities, including the following:

(1)

Farm programs of the Department of Agriculture.

(2)

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State of Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

(3)

Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and the Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the Illinois Department of Agriculture.

(4)

National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

(5)

Nonpoint source grant program administered by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

(6)

Other programs that may be developed by the State of Illinois or the Federal Government, or that are carried out by non-profit organizations, to carry out the objectives of the Kaskaskia River Basin Comprehensive Plan.

(f)

In-kind services

The Secretary may credit the cost of in-kind services provided by the non-Federal interest for an activity carried out under this section toward not more than 80 percent of the non-Federal share of the cost of the activity. In-kind services shall include all State funds expended on programs that accomplish the goals of this section, as determined by the Secretary. The programs may include the Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve Program, the Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out in the Kaskaskia River Basin.

5058.

Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall provide assistance for a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood inundation areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.

(b)

Requirements

Maps developed under the project shall include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall accurately show the flood inundation of each property by flood risk in the floodplain. The maps shall be produced in a high resolution format and shall be made available to all flood prone areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois, in an electronic format.

(c)

Participation of FEMA

The Secretary and the non-Federal interests for the project shall work with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure the validity of the maps developed under the project for flood insurance purposes.

(d)

Forms of Assistance

In carrying out the project, the Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of project costs.

(e)

Federal Share

The Federal share of the cost of the project shall be 50 percent.

(f)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000.

5059.

Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois

(a)

Review

(1)

In general

The Secretary may carry out a third-party review of the Promontory Point project along the Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, at a cost not to exceed $450,000.

(2)

Joint review

The Buffalo and Seattle districts of the Corps of Engineers shall jointly conduct the review.

(3)

Standards

The review shall be based on the standards under part 68 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, for implementation by the non-Federal sponsor for the Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois, project.

(b)

Contributions

The Secretary shall accept from a State or political subdivision of a State voluntarily contributed funds to initiate the third-party review under subsection (a).

(c)

Effect of section

Nothing in this section affects the authorization for the project for the Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, Illinois.

5060.

Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana

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

5061.

Calumet region, Indiana

Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 335; 117 Stat. 1843) is amended—

(1)

by striking $30,000,000 and inserting the following:

(A)

In general

$100,000,000

;

(2)

by adding at the end the following:

(B)

Credit

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project.

; and

(3)

by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

5062.

Paducah, Kentucky

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

5063.

Southern and eastern Kentucky

Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3773; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by adding the following:

(i)

Corps of Engineers Expenses

Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

.

5064.

Winchester, Kentucky

Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A–219) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(41)

Winchester, kentucky

Wastewater infrastructure, Winchester, Kentucky.

.

5065.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

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

5066.

Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana

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

5067.

Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana

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

5068.

West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana

(a)

Modification of Study

The study for waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement, Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, being carried out under Committee Resolution 2570 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted July 23, 1998, is modified—

(1)

to add West Feliciana Parish and East Baton Rouge Parish to the geographic scope of the study; and

(2)

to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share the cost of the study and the non-Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of the study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the study or project, as the case may be.

(b)

Expedited Consideration

Section 517(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 345) is amended to read as follows:

(5)

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

.

5069.

Charlestown, Maryland

(a)

In General

The Secretary may carry out a project for nonstructural flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration at Charlestown, Maryland.

(b)

Land Acquisition

The flood damage reduction component of the project may include the acquisition of private property from willing sellers.

(c)

Justification

Any nonstructural flood damage reduction project to be carried out under this section that will result in the conversion of property to use for ecosystem restoration and wildlife habitat shall be justified based on national ecosystem restoration benefits.

(d)

Use of Acquired Property

Property acquired under this section shall be maintained in public ownership for ecosystem restoration and wildlife habitat.

(e)

Ability to Pay

In determining the appropriate non-Federal cost share for the project, the Secretary shall determine the ability of Cecil County, Maryland, to participate as a cost-sharing non-Federal interest in accordance with section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).

(f)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 to carry out this section.

5070.

Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland

(a)

Comprehensive Action Plan

Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor of Maryland, the county executives of Montgomery County and Prince George’s County, Maryland, and other interested entities, shall develop and make available to the public a 10-year comprehensive action plan to provide for the restoration and protection of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River and its tributaries.

(b)

Public Availability

On completion of the comprehensive action plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make the plan available to the public, including on the Internet.

5071.

Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Delaware and Maryland

(a)

Assistance

The Secretary may provide technical assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in carrying out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program established under subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275).

(b)

Coordination and Integration

In carrying out water resources projects in Delaware and Maryland on the Delmarva Peninsula, the Secretary shall coordinate and integrate those projects, to the maximum extent practicable, with any activities carried out to implement a conservation corridor plan approved by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 2602 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275).

5072.

Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites

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

5073.

Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan

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

5074.

Crookston, Minnesota

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

5075.

Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota

(a)

Project Description

Section 219(f)(61) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended—

(1)

in the paragraph heading by striking and kathio township and inserting , crow wing county, mille lacs county, Mille Lacs Indian Reservation,, and kathio township;

(2)

by striking $11,000,000 and inserting $17,000,000;

(3)

by inserting , Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County, Mille Lacs Indian Reservation (10 Stat. 1165), after Garrison; and

(4)

by adding at the end the following: Such assistance shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota, except for assistance provided directly to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe at the discretion of the Secretary..

(b)

Procedures

In carrying out the project authorized by such section 219(f)(61), the Secretary may use the cost sharing and contracting procedures available to the Secretary under section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368).

5076.

Itasca County, Minnesota

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

5077.

Minneapolis, Minnesota

(a)

Conveyance

The Secretary shall convey to the city of Minneapolis by quitclaim deed and without consideration all right, title, and interest of the United States to the property known as the War Department (Fort Snelling Interceptor) Tunnel in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(b)

Applicability of Property Screening Provisions

Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to the conveyance under this section.

5078.

Northeastern Minnesota

(a)

In General

Section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (a) by striking Benton, Sherburne, and inserting Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena,;

(2)

by striking the last sentence of subsection (e)(3)(B);

(3)

by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:

(g)

Nonprofit Entities

Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), a non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a nonprofit entity.

;

(4)

in subsection (h) by striking $40,000,000 and inserting $54,000,000; and

(5)

by adding at the end the following:

(i)

Corps of Engineers Expenses

Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

.

(b)

Biwabik, Minnesota

The Secretary shall reimburse the non-Federal interest for the project for environmental infrastructure, Biwabik, Minnesota, carried out under section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368), for planning, design, and construction costs that were incurred by the non-Federal interest with respect to the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project and that were in excess of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project if the Secretary determines that the costs are appropriate.

5079.

Wild Rice River, Minnesota

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

5080.

Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi

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

5081.

Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois

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

5082.

St. Louis, Missouri

Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 337) is amended—

(1)

by striking project and inserting projects;

(2)

by striking $15,000,000 and inserting $35,000,000; and

(3)

by inserting and St. Louis County before , Missouri.

5083.

Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey

Section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849; 110 Stat. 3779) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (a)—

(A)

by striking design and inserting planning, design,; and

(B)

by striking Hackensack Meadowlands Development and all that follows through Plan for and inserting New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development of an environmental improvement program for;

(2)

in subsection (b)—

(A)

in the subsection heading by striking Required;

(B)

by striking shall and inserting may;

(C)

by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

(1)

Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands and aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands ecosystem.

;

(D)

in paragraph (2) by inserting and aquatic habitat before the period at the end; and

(E)

by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:

(7)

Research, development, and implementation for a water quality improvement program, including restoration of hydrology and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and other sources of contaminants that degrade existing or planned sites.

;

(3)

in subsection (c) by inserting before the last sentence the following: The non-Federal sponsor may also provide in-kind services, not to exceed the non-Federal share of the total project cost, and may also receive credit for reasonable cost of design work completed prior to entering into the partnership agreement with the Secretary for a project to be carried out under the program developed under subsection (a).; and

(4)

in subsection (d) by striking $5,000,000 and inserting $35,000,000.

5084.

Atlantic Coast of New York

(a)

Development of Program

Section 404(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended—

(1)

by striking processes and inserting and related environmental processes;

(2)

by inserting after Atlantic Coast the following: (and associated back bays);

(3)

by inserting after actions the following: , environmental restoration or conservation measures for coastal and back bays,; and

(4)

by adding at the end the following: The plan for collecting data and monitoring information included in such annual report shall be fully coordinated with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of the State of New York..

(b)

Annual Reports

Section 404(b) of such Act is amended—

(1)

by striking Initial plan.—Not later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the and inserting Annual reports.—The;

(2)

by striking initial plan for data collection and monitoring and inserting annual report of data collection and monitoring activities; and

(3)

by striking the last sentence.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

Section 404(c) of such Act (113 Stat. 341) is amended by striking and an additional total of $2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter and inserting $2,500,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2004,.

(d)

Tsunami Warning System

Section 404 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(d)

Tsunami Warning System

There is authorized to be appropriated $800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a project for a tsunami warning system, Atlantic Coast of New York.

.

5085.

College Point, New York City, New York

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

5086.

Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York

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

5087.

Hudson River, New York

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

5088.

Mount Morris Dam, New York

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

5089.

John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina

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

5090.

Toussaint River, Ohio

(a)

In General

The project for navigation, Toussaint River, Carroll Township, Ohio, authorized by section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the non-Federal interest under which the Secretary may—

(1)

acquire, and transfer to the non-Federal interest, a dredge and associated equipment with the capacity to perform operation and maintenance of the project; and

(2)

provide the non-Federal interest with a lump-sum payment to cover all future costs of operation and maintenance of the project.

(b)

Agreement

The Secretary may carry out subsection (a)(1) by entering into an agreement with the non-Federal interest under which the non-Federal interest may acquire the dredge and associated equipment directly and be reimbursed by the Secretary.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $1,800,000 to carry out this section. Of such funds, $500,000 may be used to carry out subsection (a)(1).

(d)

Release

Upon the acquisition and transfer of a dredge and associated equipment under subsection (a)(1), and the payment of funds under subsection (a)(2), all future Federal responsibility for operation and maintenance of the project is extinguished.

5091.

Eugene, Oregon

(a)

In General

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of restoring the millrace in Eugene, Oregon, and, if the Secretary determines that the restoration is feasible, the Secretary shall carry out the restoration.

(b)

Consideration of Noneconomic Benefits

In determining the feasibility of restoring the millrace, the Secretary shall include noneconomic benefits associated with the historical significance of the millrace and associated with preservation and enhancement of resources.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

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

5092.

Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon

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

5093.

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended—

(1)

by striking $20,000,000 and inserting the following:

(A)

In general

$20,000,000

;

(2)

by adding at the end the following:

(B)

Credit

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

; and

(3)

by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

5094.

Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania

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

5095.

Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania

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

5096.

Northeast Pennsylvania

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

5097.

Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York

(a)

Study and Strategy Development

Section 567(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787; 114 Stat. 2662) is amended—

(1)

in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting and carry out after develop; and

(2)

in paragraph (2) by striking $10,000,000. and inserting $20,000,000, of which the Secretary may utilize not more than $5,000,000 to design and construct feasible pilot projects during the development of the strategy to demonstrate alternative approaches for the strategy. The total cost for any single pilot project may not exceed $500,000. The Secretary shall evaluate the results of the pilot projects and consider the results in the development of the strategy..

(b)

Cooperative Agreements

Section 567(c) of such Act (114 Stat. 2662) is amended—

(1)

in the subsection heading by striking Cooperation and inserting Cooperative; and

(2)

in the first sentence—

(A)

by inserting and carrying out after developing; and

(B)

by striking cooperation and inserting cost-sharing and cooperative.

(c)

Implementation of Strategy

Section 567(d) of such Act (114 Stat. 2663) is amended—

(1)

by striking The Secretary and inserting the following:

(1)

In general

The Secretary

;

(2)

in the second sentence of paragraph (1) (as so designated)—

(A)

by striking implement and inserting carry out; and

(B)

by striking implementing and inserting carrying out;

(3)

by adding at the end the following:

(2)

Priority project

In carrying out projects to implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give priority to the project for ecosystem restoration, Cooperstown, New York, described in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin—Cooperstown Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, dated December 2004, prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

; and

(4)

by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection).

(d)

Credit

Section 567 of such Act (110 Stat. 3787; 114 Stat. 2662) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(e)

Credit

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this section—

(1)

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

(2)

the cost of in-kind services and materials provided for the project by the non-Federal interest.

.

5098.

Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico

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

5099.

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

(a)

Disbursement Provisions of the State of South Dakota and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Funds

Section 602(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 386) is amended—

(1)

in subparagraph (A)—

(A)

in clause (i) by inserting and the Secretary of the Treasury after Secretary; and

(B)

by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:

(ii)

Availability of funds

On notification in accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the State of South Dakota funds from the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund established under section 603, to be used to carry out the plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the State of South Dakota after the State certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be disbursed will be used in accordance with section 603(d)(3) and only after the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.

; and

(2)

in subparagraph (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:

(ii)

Availability of funds

On notification in accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the Treasury shall make available to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe funds from the Cheyenne River Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the Lower Brule Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund, respectively, established under section 604, to be used to carry out the plans for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively, to after the respective tribe certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be disbursed will be used in accordance with section 604(d)(3) and only after the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.

.

(b)

Investment Provisions of the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund

Section 603 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 388; 114 Stat. 2664) is amended—

(1)

by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:

(c)

Investments

(1)

Eligible obligations

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States issued directly to the Fund.

(2)

Investment requirements

(A)

In general

The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts in the Fund in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph.

(B)

Separate investments of principal and interest

(i)

Principal account

The amounts deposited in the Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited to an account within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the principal account) and invested as provided in subparagraph (C).

(ii)

Interest account

The interest earned from investing amounts in the principal account of the Fund shall be transferred to a separate account within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the interest account) and invested as provided in subparagraph (D).

(iii)

Crediting

The interest earned from investing amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be credited to the interest account.

(C)

Investment of principal account

(i)

Initial investment

Each amount deposited in the principal account of the Fund shall be invested initially in eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then available until the date on which the amount is divided into 3 substantially equal portions and those portions are invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year maturity, and a 10-year maturity, respectively.

(ii)

Subsequent investment

As each 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the maturing eligible obligation shall also be invested initially in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available until the principal is reinvested substantially equally in the eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities.

(iii)

Discontinuance of issuance of obligations

If the Department of the Treasury discontinues issuing to the public obligations having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be reinvested substantially equally in eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations of the maturities longer than 1 year then available.

(D)

Investment of interest account

(i)

Before full capitalization

Until the date on which the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly issued Treasury obligations that have maturities that coincide, to the maximum extent practicable, with the date on which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.

(ii)

After full capitalization

On and after the date on which the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to fund the activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).

(E)

Par purchase price

The price to be paid for eligible obligations purchased as investments of the principal account shall not exceed the par value of the obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall be preserved in perpetuity.

(F)

Highest yield

Among eligible obligations having the same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.

(G)

Holding to maturity

Eligible obligations purchased shall generally be held to their maturities.

(3)

Annual review of investment activities

Not less frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall review with the State of South Dakota the results of the investment activities and financial status of the Fund during the preceding 12-month period.

(4)

Audits

(A)

In general

The activities of the State of South Dakota (referred to in this subsection as the State) in carrying out the plan of the State for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration under section 602(a) shall be audited as part of the annual audit that the State is required to prepare under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 (or a successor circulation).

(B)

Determination by auditors

An auditor that conducts an audit under subparagraph (A) shall—

(i)

determine whether funds received by the State under this section during the period covered by the audit were used to carry out the plan of the State in accordance with this section; and

(ii)

include the determination under clause (i) in the written findings of the audit.

(5)

Modification of investment requirements

(A)

In general

If the Secretary of the Treasury determines that meeting the requirements under paragraph (2) with respect to the investment of a Fund is not practicable, or would result in adverse consequences for the Fund, the Secretary shall modify the requirements, as the Secretary determines to be necessary.

(B)

Consultation

Before modifying a requirement under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the State regarding the proposed modification.

;

(2)

in subsection (d)(2) by inserting of the Treasury after Secretary; and

(3)

by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:

(f)

Administrative Expenses

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses associated with investing the Fund and auditing the uses of amounts withdrawn from the Fund—

(1)

$500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and

(2)

such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.

.

(c)

Investment Provisions for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Trust Funds

Section 604 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 389; 114 Stat. 2665) is amended—

(1)

by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:

(c)

Investments

(1)

Eligible obligations

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States issued directly to the Funds.

(2)

Investment requirements

(A)

In general

The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the amounts in each of the Funds in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph.

(B)

Separate investments of principal and interest

(i)

Principal account

The amounts deposited in each Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited to an account within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the principal account) and invested as provided in subparagraph (C).

(ii)

Interest account

The interest earned from investing amounts in the principal account of each Fund shall be transferred to a separate account within the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the interest account) and invested as provided in subparagraph (D).

(iii)

Crediting

The interest earned from investing amounts in the interest account of each Fund shall be credited to the interest account.

(C)

Investment of principal account

(i)

Initial investment

Each amount deposited in the principal account of each Fund shall be invested initially in eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then available until the date on which the amount is divided into 3 substantially equal portions and those portions are invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations having a 2-year maturity, a 5-year maturity, and a 10-year maturity, respectively.

(ii)

Subsequent investment

As each 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the maturing eligible obligation shall also be invested initially in the shortest-maturity eligible obligation then available until the principal is reinvested substantially equally in the eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities.

(iii)

Discontinuation of issuance of obligations

If the Department of the Treasury discontinues issuing to the public obligations having 2-year, 5-year, or 10-year maturities, the principal of any maturing eligible obligation shall be reinvested substantially equally in eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations of the maturities longer than 1 year then available.

(D)

Investment of the interest account

(i)

Before full capitalization

Until the date on which each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be invested in eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to publicly issued Treasury obligations that have maturities that coincide, to the maximum extent practicable, with the date on which the Fund is expected to be fully capitalized.

(ii)

After full capitalization

On and after the date on which each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall be invested and reinvested in eligible obligations having the shortest maturity then available until the amounts are withdrawn and transferred to fund the activities authorized under subsection (d)(3).

(E)

Par purchase price

The price to be paid for eligible obligations purchased as investments of the principal account shall not exceed the par value of the obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall be preserved in perpetuity.

(F)

Highest yield

Among eligible obligations having the same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be purchased shall be the obligation having the highest yield.

(G)

Holding to maturity

Eligible obligations purchased shall generally be held to their maturities.

(3)

Annual review of investment activities

Not less frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall review with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (referred to in this subsection as the Tribes) the results of the investment activities and financial status of the Funds during the preceding 12-month period.

(4)

Audits

(A)

In general

The activities of the Tribes in carrying out the plans of the Tribes for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration under section 602(a) shall be audited as part of the annual audit that the Tribes are required to prepare under the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 (or a successor circulation).

(B)

Determination by auditors

An auditor that conducts an audit under subparagraph (A) shall—

(i)

determine whether funds received by the Tribes under this section during the period covered by the audit were used to carry out the plan of the appropriate Tribe in accordance with this section; and

(ii)

include the determination under clause (i) in the written findings of the audit.

(5)

Modification of investment requirements

(A)

In general

If the Secretary of the Treasury determines that meeting the requirements under paragraph (2) with respect to the investment of a Fund is not practicable, or would result in adverse consequences for the Fund, the Secretary shall modify the requirements, as the Secretary determines to be necessary.

(B)

Consultation

Before modifying a requirement under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the Tribes regarding the proposed modification.

; and

(2)

by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:

(f)

Administrative Expenses

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses associated with investing the Funds and auditing the uses of amounts withdrawn from the Funds—

(1)

$500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and

(2)

such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.

.

5100.

Fritz Landing, Tennessee

The Secretary shall—

(1)

conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee modifications that would be required to make the levee and associated drainage structures consistent with Federal standards;

(2)

design and construct such modifications; and

(3)

after completion of such modifications, incorporate the levee into the project for flood control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, authorized by the Act entitled An Act for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for other purposes, approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534–539), commonly known as the Flood Control Act of 1928.

5101.

J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee

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

5102.

Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee

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

5103.

Tennessee River partnership

(a)

In General

As part of the operation and maintenance of the project for navigation, Tennessee River, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 927), the Secretary may enter into a partnership with a nonprofit entity to remove debris from the Tennessee River in the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by providing a vessel to such entity, at Federal expense, for such debris removal purposes.

(b)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.

5104.

Upper Mississippi embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi

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

5105.

Bosque River Watershed, Texas

(a)

Comprehensive Plan

The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for development of new technologies and innovative approaches for restoring, preserving, and protecting the Bosque River watershed within Bosque, Hamilton, McLennan, and Erath Counties, Texas. The Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, may carry out activities identified in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives for stabilization and enhancement of land and water resources in the basin.

(b)

Services of Public Non-Profit Institutions and Other Entities

In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may utilize, through contracts or other means, the services of public non-profit institutions and such other entities as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(c)

Non-Federal Share

(1)

Credit

The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this section the cost of planning, design, and construction work completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests for implementation of measures constructed with assistance provided under this section. The amount of such credit shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of such activities.

(2)

Operation and maintenance

The non-Federal share of the cost of operation and maintenance for measures constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.

(d)

Authorization of Appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000.

5106.

Dallas Floodway, Dallas Texas

(a)

In general

The project for flood control, Trinity River and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled, An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes, approved March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 18), is modified to—

(1)

direct the Secretary to review the Balanced Vision Plan for the Trinity River Corridor, Dallas, Texas, dated December 2003 and amended in March 2004, prepared by the non-Federal interest for the project;

(2)

direct the Secretary to review the Interior Levee Drainage Study Phase-I report, Dallas, Texas, dated September 2006, prepared by the non-Federal interest; and

(3)

if the Secretary determines that the project is technically sound and environmentally acceptable, authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $459,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $298,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $161,000,000.

(b)

Credit

(1)

In-kind contributions

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

(2)

Cash contributions

The Secretary shall accept funds provided by the non-Federal interest for use in carrying out planning, engineering, and design for the project. The Federal share of such planning, engineering, and design carried out with non-Federal contributions shall be credited against the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.

5107.

Harris County, Texas

(a)

In General

Section 575(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: , whether or not such works or actions are partially funded under the hazard mitigation grant program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

(b)

Specific Projects

Section 575(b) of such Act (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (3) by striking and at the end;

(2)

in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and; and

(3)

by adding the following:

(5)

the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou, Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).

.

5108.

Onion Creek, Texas

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

5109.

Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia

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

5110.

Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington

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

5111.

Hamilton Island campground, Washington

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

5112.

Puget Island, Washington

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

5113.

Willapa Bay, Washington

Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2675) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (b)(1) by striking may construct and inserting shall construct; and

(2)

by inserting and ecosystem restoration after erosion protection each place it appears.

5114.

West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control

(a)

Cheat and Tygart River Basins, West Virginia

Section 581(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 313) is amended—

(1)

by striking flood control measures and inserting structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and modification measures; and

(2)

by inserting with respect to measures that incorporate levees or floodwalls before the semicolon.

(b)

Priority Communities

Section 581(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended—

(1)

by striking and at the end of paragraph (5);

(2)

by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting a semicolon; and

(3)

by adding at the end the following:

(7)

Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed; and

(8)

Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty’s Run River basin.

.

(c)

Authorization of Appropriations

Section 581(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended by striking $12,000,000 and inserting $90,000,000.

5115.

Central West Virginia

Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 371) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (a)—

(A)

by striking Nicholas,; and

(B)

by striking Gilmer,; and

(2)

by adding at the end the following:

(i)

Nonprofit Entities

Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), a non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.

(j)

Corps of Engineers Expenses

Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

.

5116.

Southern West Virginia

(a)

Corps of Engineers

Section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(h)

Corps of Engineers

Ten percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under this section at Federal expense.

.

(b)

Southern West Virginia Defined

Section 340(f) of such Act is amended by inserting Nicholas, after Greenbrier,.

(c)

Nonprofit Entities

Section 340 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended by adding at the end the following:

(i)

Nonprofit Entities

Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), a non-Federal interest may include for any project undertaken under this section a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government.

.

5117.

Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests

Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b–13) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(12)

Perris, california

The project for flood control, Perris, California.

(13)

Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois

An element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois.

(14)

Larose to golden meadow, louisiana

The project for flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.

(15)

Buffalo bayou, texas

A project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and modified by section 3a of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414).

(16)

Halls bayou, texas

A project for flood control, Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610).

.

VI

Florida Everglades

6001.

Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida

(a)

Modification

The project for Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost of $42,500,000.

(b)

Treatment

Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended—

(1)

in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: The project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), shall be treated for purposes of this section as being in the Plan, except that operation and maintenance costs of the project shall remain a non-Federal responsibility.; and

(2)

in clause (iii) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following: and the project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer.

6002.

Pilot projects

Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended—

(1)

in the matter preceding clause (i)—

(A)

by striking $69,000,000 and inserting $71,200,000; and

(B)

by striking $34,500,000 each place it appears and inserting $35,600,000; and

(2)

in clause (i)—

(A)

by striking $6,000,000 and inserting $8,200,000; and

(B)

by striking $3,000,000 each place it appears and inserting $4,100,000.

6003.

Maximum costs

(a)

Maximum cost of projects

Section 601(b)(2)(E) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2683) is amended by inserting and section (d) before the period at the end.

(b)

Maximum cost of program authority

Section 601(c)(3) of such Act (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(C)

Maximum cost of program authority

Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to the individual project funding limits in subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits in subparagraph (B).

.

6004.

Project authorization

Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(3)

Project authorization

The following project for water resources development and conservation and other purposes is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the report designated in this paragraph:

(A)

Indian river lagoon south, florida

The project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood damage reduction, and protection of water quality, Indian River Lagoon South, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 6, 2004, at a total cost of $1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $682,500,000.

(B)

Picayune strand, florida

The project for environmental restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $187,665,000.

(C)

Site 1 Impoundment, Florida

The project for environmental restoration, Site 1 Impoundment, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,420,000.

.

6005.

Credit

Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2685) is amended—

(1)

in clause (i)—

(A)

by striking or at the end of subclause (I);

(B)

by adding or at the end of subclause (II); and

(C)

by adding at the end the following:

(III)

the credit is provided for work carried out before the date of the partnership agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor, as defined in an agreement between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor providing for such credit;

; and

(2)

in clause (ii)—

(A)

by striking design agreement or the project cooperation; and

(B)

by inserting before the semicolon the following: , including in the case of credit provided under clause (i)(III) conditions relating to design and construction.

6006.

Outreach and assistance

Section 601(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2691) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(3)

Maximum expenditures

The Secretary may expend up to $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2004, to carry out this subsection.

.

6007.

Critical restoration projects

Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769; 113 Stat. 286) is amended—

(1)

in clause (i) by striking $75,000,000 and all that follows through 2003 and inserting $95,000,000; and

(2)

in clause (ii) by striking $25,000,000 and inserting $30,000,000.

6008.

Modified water deliveries

(a)

In general

The project, Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, authorized by section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-8), as described in the General Design Memorandum and Environmental Impact Statement for Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, June 1992, is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance with the Revised General Reevaluation Report/Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Tamiami Trail Modifications, Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, August 2005, at a total cost of $144,131,000.

(b)

Use of funds

Funds made available under section 102(f) of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r–6), may be used to carry out the project modification under subsection (a).

(c)

Source and allocation of funds

(1)

In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), Federal costs incurred for construction of the project modification under subsection (a) on or after October 1, 2004, shall be shared equally between the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.

(2)

Acceptance and use of funds

The Secretary may accept and expend funds, without further appropriation, provided from another Federal agency or from non-Federal interests for construction of the project modification under subsection (a) or for carrying out such other work that the Secretary determines to be appropriate and consistent with authorized purposes of the modified project.

6009.

Deauthorizations

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

(1)

The uncompleted portions of the project for the C–44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, authorized by section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), at a total cost of $147,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $73,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,900,000.

(2)

The uncompleted portions of the Martin County, Florida, modifications to the project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost of $15,471,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,073,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,398,000.

(3)

The uncompleted portions of the East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie–Martin County, Spillway Structure S–311 modifications to the project for Central and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a total cost of $77,118,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $21,994,000.

6010.

Regional engineering model for environmental restoration

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall complete the development and testing of the regional engineering model for environmental restoration as expeditiously as practicable.

(b)

Usage

The Secretary shall consider using, as appropriate, the regional engineering model for environmental restoration in the development of future water resource projects, including projects developed pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680).

(c)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out subsection (a).

VII

Louisiana Coastal Area

7001.

Definitions

In this title, the following definitions apply:

(1)

Coastal Louisiana ecosystem

The term coastal Louisiana ecosystem means the coastal area of Louisiana from the Sabine River on the west to the Pearl River on the east, including those parts of the Deltaic Plain and the Chenier Plain included within the study area of the Plan.

(2)

Governor

The term Governor means the Governor of the State of Louisiana.

(3)

Plan

The term Plan means the report of the Chief of Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana Coastal Area dated January 31, 2005.

(4)

Task force

The term Task Force means the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force established by section 7003.

7002.

Comprehensive plan

(a)

In general

The Secretary, in coordination with the Governor, shall develop a comprehensive plan for protecting, preserving, and restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem.

(b)

Integration of plan into comprehensive hurricane protection study

In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall integrate the plan into the analysis and design of the comprehensive hurricane protection study authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; 119 Stat. 2247).

(c)

Consistency with comprehensive coastal protection master plan

In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall ensure that the plan is consistent with the goals, analysis, and design of the comprehensive coastal protection master plan authorized and defined pursuant to Act 8 of the First Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana State Legislature, 2005, including—

(1)

investigation and study of the maximum effective use of the water and sediment of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers for coastal restoration purposes consistent with flood control and navigation;

(2)

a schedule for the design and implementation of large-scale water and sediment reintroduction projects and an assessment of funding needs from any source; and

(3)

an investigation and assessment of alterations in the operation of the Old River Control Structure, consistent with flood control and navigation purposes.

(d)

Inclusions

The comprehensive plan shall include a description of—

(1)

the framework of a long-term program integrated with hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, and navigation activities that provide for the comprehensive protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands, estuaries (including the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary), barrier islands, shorelines, and related land and features of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including protection of critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure from the effects of a coastal storm, a hurricane, erosion, or subsidence;

(2)

the means by which a new technology, or an improved technique, can be integrated into the program referred to in paragraph (1);

(3)

the role of other Federal and State agencies and programs in carrying out such program;

(4)

specific, measurable ecological success criteria by which success of the plan will be measured; and

(5)

proposed projects in order of priority as determined by their respective potential to contribute to—

(A)

creation of coastal wetlands; and

(B)

flood protection of communities ranked by population density and level of protection.

(e)

Considerations

In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating into the program referred to in subsection (d)(1)—

(1)

any related Federal or State project being carried out on the date on which the plan is developed;

(2)

any activity in the Plan; or

(3)

any other project or activity identified in—

(A)

the Mississippi River and Tributaries program;

(B)

the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan;

(C)

the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan; or

(D)

the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana.

(f)

Reports to Congress

(1)

Initial report

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.

(2)

Updates

Not later that 5 years after the date of submission of a report under paragraph (1), and at least once every 5 years thereafter until implementation of the comprehensive plan is complete, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing an update of the plan and an assessment of the progress made in implementing the plan.

7003.

Louisiana coastal area

(a)

In general

The Secretary may carry out a program for ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated January 31, 2005.

(b)

Priorities

(1)

In general

In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to—

(A)

any portion of the program identified in the report described in subsection (a) as a critical restoration feature;

(B)

any Mississippi River diversion project that—

(i)

will protect a major population area of the Pontchartain, Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or Terrebonne basins; and

(ii)

will produce an environmental benefit to the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;

(C)

any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project that—

(i)

will be carried out in conjunction with a Mississippi River diversion project; and

(ii)

will protect a major population area;

(D)

any project that will reduce storm surge and prevent or reduce the risk of loss of human life and the risk to public safety; and

(E)

a project to physically modify the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet and to restore the areas affected by the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet in accordance with the comprehensive plan to be developed under section 7002(a), subject to the conditions and recommendations in a final report of the Chief of Engineers.

7004.

Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force

(a)

Establishment

There is established a task force to be known as the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force (in this section referred to as the Task Force).

(b)

Membership

The Task Force shall consist of the following m