< Back to H.R. 5892 (111th Congress, 2009–2010)

Text of the Water Resources Development Act of 2010

This bill was introduced on July 29, 2010, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted. The text of the bill below is as of Sep 29, 2010 (Reported by House Committee).

Download PDF

Source: GPO

IB

Union Calendar No. 391

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5892

[Report No. 111–654]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 28, 2010

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

September 29, 2010

Additional sponsor: Mr. Costello

September 29, 2010

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic

For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on July 28, 2010


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 2010.

(b)

Table of contents

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.

Title I—Water Resources Projects

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.

Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.

Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.

Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.

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

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration.

Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.

Sec. 1008. Small projects for aquatic plant control.

Title II—General Provisions

Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.

Sec. 2002. Fish and wildlife mitigation.

Sec. 2003. Remote and subsistence harbors.

Sec. 2004. Revision of project partnership agreement.

Sec. 2005. Independent peer review.

Sec. 2006. Safety assurance review.

Sec. 2007. Funding for harbor maintenance programs.

Sec. 2008. Funding to process permits.

Sec. 2009. Project modifications for improvement of environment.

Sec. 2010. Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration.

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

Sec. 2012. Repeal.

Sec. 2013. Cost estimates for feasibility reports.

Sec. 2014. Mitigation status report.

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

Title III—Project-Related Provisions

Sec. 3001. Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska.

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

Sec. 3003. Rio de Flag, Arizona.

Sec. 3004. Tres Rios, Arizona.

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

Sec. 3006. South Sacramento County streams, California.

Sec. 3007. Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado.

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

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

Sec. 3010. Kissimmee River restoration, Florida.

Sec. 3011. Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida.

Sec. 3012. Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia.

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

Sec. 3014. Lower Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky.

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

Sec. 3016. Little Calumet River, Indiana.

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

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

Sec. 3019. Ada, Minnesota.

Sec. 3020. Montevideo, Minnesota.

Sec. 3021. Two Harbors, Minnesota.

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

Sec. 3023. Lower Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey.

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

Sec. 3025. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.

Sec. 3026. Spring Creek, New York.

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

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

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

Sec. 3030. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas.

Sec. 3031. Houston-Galveston navigation channels, Texas.

Sec. 3032. Project reauthorization.

Sec. 3033. Project deauthorizations.

Title IV—Studies

Sec. 4001. Hollis, Alaska.

Sec. 4002. Bullard Wash, Goodyear, Arizona.

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

Sec. 4004. Maricopa County, Arizona.

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

Sec. 4006. Oil Trough, Arkansas.

Sec. 4007. Randolph County, Arkansas.

Sec. 4008. Berkeley Marina, Berkeley, California.

Sec. 4009. Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California.

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

Sec. 4011. Lodi Lake, Lodi, California.

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

Sec. 4013. Noyo Harbor District, Noyo, California.

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

Sec. 4015. Redwood City Navigation Channel, California.

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

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

Sec. 4018. San Pablo Bay, Hercules, California.

Sec. 4019. Stockton, California.

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

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

Sec. 4022. Ventura River, Ventura County, California.

Sec. 4023. Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, California.

Sec. 4024. Fountain Creek watershed, Pueblo, Colorado.

Sec. 4025. Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado.

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

Sec. 4027. Housatonic River, New Milford, Connecticut.

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

Sec. 4029. Meriden, Connecticut.

Sec. 4030. South Cove, Old Saybrook, Connecticut.

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

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

Sec. 4033. Washington, District of Columbia.

Sec. 4034. Lake County, Florida.

Sec. 4035. Marion County, Florida.

Sec. 4036. Miami, Florida.

Sec. 4037. Oakland Park, Florida.

Sec. 4038. Riviera Beach, Florida.

Sec. 4039. South Daytona, Florida.

Sec. 4040. Tampa, Florida.

Sec. 4041. Peavine Creek, Decatur, Georgia.

Sec. 4042. Richland Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia.

Sec. 4043. Study for water supply, Georgia.

Sec. 4044. Suwannee Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia.

Sec. 4045. Agat and Merizo, Guam.

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

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

Sec. 4048. Albany Park, Chicago, Illinois.

Sec. 4049. Carpenter Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois.

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

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

Sec. 4052. Middle Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri.

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

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

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

Sec. 4056. Village of Skokie, Illinois.

Sec. 4057. Bowman Creek, South Bend, Indiana.

Sec. 4058. Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana.

Sec. 4059. Burlington, Iowa.

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

Sec. 4061. Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec. 4068. Capisic Brook, Portland, Maine.

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

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

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

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

Sec. 4073. Mystic River watershed, Massachusetts.

Sec. 4074. Quequechan River, Fall River, Massachusetts.

Sec. 4075. Clinton River, Clinton Township, Michigan.

Sec. 4076. Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan.

Sec. 4077. Upper Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan.

Sec. 4078. Amory, Mississippi.

Sec. 4079. Coastal Mississippi ecosystem restoration, Mississippi.

Sec. 4080. Fulton, Mississippi.

Sec. 4081. Gulfport, Mississippi.

Sec. 4082. Lucedale, Mississippi.

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

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

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

Sec. 4086. St. Louis, Missouri.

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

Sec. 4088. New Hampshire.

Sec. 4089. Piscataqua River, New Hampshire.

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

Sec. 4091. Beverly, New Jersey.

Sec. 4092. Borough of Pine Beach, New Jersey.

Sec. 4093. Haddon Township, New Jersey.

Sec. 4094. Rahway River watershed, New Jersey.

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

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

Sec. 4097. Township of Ocean, New Jersey.

Sec. 4098. Preakness Brook, Wayne, New Jersey.

Sec. 4099. Dona Ana, New Mexico.

Sec. 4100. Hidalgo County, New Mexico.

Sec. 4101. Otero County, New Mexico.

Sec. 4102. Valencia County, New Mexico.

Sec. 4103. Glen Cove, New York.

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

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

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

Sec. 4107. New York, New York.

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

Sec. 4109. Queens, New York.

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

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

Sec. 4112. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Sec. 4113. Nantahala River, Swain, North Carolina.

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

Sec. 4115. Big Creek watershed, Ohio.

Sec. 4116. Brandywine Creek watershed, Ohio.

Sec. 4117. Carlisle Township, Lorain County, Ohio.

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

Sec. 4119. Euclid Creek watershed, Ohio.

Sec. 4120. Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio.

Sec. 4121. Lower Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio.

Sec. 4122. Ohio River, Ohio.

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

Sec. 4124. Stark County, Ohio.

Sec. 4125. Tinkers Creek watershed, Ohio.

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

Sec. 4127. West Creek watershed, Ohio.

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

Sec. 4129. Ferry Creek Reservoir, Brookings, Oregon.

Sec. 4130. Oregon Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters, Oregon.

Sec. 4131. Port Orford, Oregon.

Sec. 4132. Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania.

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

Sec. 4134. Elk Creek, Meadville, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4135. Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4136. Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania.

Sec. 4137. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction.

Sec. 4138. Guayama, Puerto Rico.

Sec. 4139. Rincon, Puerto Rico.

Sec. 4140. Providence, Rhode Island.

Sec. 4141. South Carolina.

Sec. 4142. James River, South Dakota.

Sec. 4143. Station Camp Creek, Gallatin, Tennessee.

Sec. 4144. Brazos River, Texas.

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

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

Sec. 4147. Port of Galveston, Texas.

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

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

Sec. 4150. Rio Grande basin, Texas.

Sec. 4151. Roma, Texas.

Sec. 4152. Cottonwood Heights, Utah.

Sec. 4153. Emery Town, Utah.

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

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

Sec. 4156. Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia.

Sec. 4157. Hampton, Virginia.

Sec. 4158. James River watershed, Virginia.

Sec. 4159. Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington.

Sec. 4160. Green River, Kent, Washington.

Sec. 4161. Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, Washington.

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

Title V—Miscellaneous

Sec. 5001. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program.

Sec. 5002. Saint Lawrence Seaway.

Sec. 5003. Watershed management.

Sec. 5004. Comprehensive shoreline restoration.

Sec. 5005. Northeast Coastal Region ecosystem restoration.

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

Sec. 5007. Egmont Key, Florida.

Sec. 5008. Cambridge, Maryland.

Sec. 5009. Hart-Miller Island, Maryland.

Sec. 5010. Gallops Island, Boston, Massachusetts.

Sec. 5011. Sharkey County, Mississippi.

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

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

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)

Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County, Maryland

The project for ecosystem restoration, Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County, Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 24, 2009, at a total cost of $1,612,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $1,045,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $567,000,000.

(2)

Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi

The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15, 2009, at a total cost of $1,182,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $746,750,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $435,850,000.

(3)

West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), Pender County, North Carolina

The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), Pender County, North Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 28, 2009, at a total cost of $32,131,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $20,708,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,423,000, and at an estimated total cost of $113,904,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,952,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,952,000.

1002.

Small projects for flood damage reduction

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):

(1)

Del Rosa Channel, San Bernadino, California

Project for flood damage reduction, Del Rosa Channel, San Bernadino, California.

(2)

Laguna Creek, Vacaville, California

Project for flood damage reduction, Laguna Creek, Vacaville, California.

(3)

Ulatis Creek, Vacaville, California

Project for flood damage reduction, Ulatis Creek, Vacaville, California.

(4)

Sanderson Gulch, Denver, Colorado

Project for flood damage reduction, Sanderson Gulch, Denver, Colorado.

(5)

Willow Creek, Creede, Colorado

Project for flood damage reduction, Willow Creek, Creede, Colorado.

(6)

Big Econ River, Orange, Florida

Project for flood damage reduction, Big Econ River, Orange, Florida.

(7)

Bay Gall Creek, Warner Robbins, Georgia

Project for flood damage reduction, Bay Gall Creek, Warner Robbins, Georgia.

(8)

Des Plaines River, Park Ridge, Illinois

Project for flood damage reduction, Des Plaines River, Park Ridge, Illinois.

(9)

Kishwaukee River, Dekalb, Illinois

Project for flood damage reduction, Kishwaukee River, DeKalb, Illinois.

(10)

Navajo Creek, Palos Heights, Illinois

Project for flood damage reduction, Navajo Creek, Palos Heights, Illinois.

(11)

Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois

Project for flood damage reduction, Stony Creek, Oak Lawn, Illinois.

(12)

Vicinity of the 71st Street Ditch, Justice, Illinois

Project for flood damage reduction, in the vicinity of the 71st Street Ditch, Justice, Illinois.

(13)

West Branch of Mill Creek, Palos Park, Illinois

Project for flood damage reduction, West Branch of Mill Creek, Palos Park, Illinois.

(14)

Dry Run Creek, Waterloo, Iowa

Project for flood damage reduction, Dry Run Creek, Waterloo, Iowa.

(15)

Louisville, Kentucky

Project for flood damage reduction, Louisville, Kentucky.

(16)

Baltimore City, Maryland

Project for flood damage reduction, Baltimore City, Maryland, in the vicinity of Druid Hill Park.

(17)

Pine Tree Brook, Avon, Massachusetts

Project for flood damage reduction, Pine Tree Brook, Avon, Massachusetts.

(18)

Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts

Project for flood damage reduction, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, Massachusetts.

(19)

Harding Canal Seawall, Detroit, Michigan

Project for flood damage reduction, Harding Canal Seawall, Detroit, Michigan.

(20)

Big River, High Ridge, Missouri

Project for flood damage reduction, Big River, High Ridge, Missouri.

(21)

Saw Mill River basin, Greehburgh, New York

Project for flood damage reduction, Saw Mill River basin, Greehburgh, New York.

(22)

Sparkill Creek, Orangetown, New York

Project for flood damage reduction, Sparkill Creek, Orangetown, New York.

(23)

Independence, Ohio

Project for flood damage reduction, Independence, Ohio.

(24)

Valley View, Ohio

Project for flood damage reduction, Valley View, Ohio.

(25)

Winyeh Bay, Georgetown, South Carolina

Project for flood damage reduction, Winyeh Bay, Georgetown, South Carolina.

(26)

Del Rio, Val Verde, Texas

Project for flood damage reduction, Del Rio, Val Verde, Texas.

(27)

Craford Bay Seawall, Portsmouth, Virginia

Project for flood damage reduction, Craford Bay Seawall, Portsmouth, Virginia.

(28)

Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth, Virginia

Project for flood damage reduction, Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth, Virginia.

(29)

Roxbury and Westpoint Townships, Wisconsin

Project for flood damage reduction, Roxbury and Westpoint Townships, Wisconsin.

1003.

Small projects for emergency streambank protection

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

(1)

Naknek River, Naknek, Alaska

Project for emergency streambank protection, Naknek River, Naknek, Alaska.

(2)

Quinnipiac River, New Haven, Connecticut

Project for emergency streambank protection, Quinnipiac River, New Haven, Connecticut.

(3)

Biscayne Bay, North Bay Village, Florida

Project for emergency streambank protection, Biscayne Bay, North Bay Village, Florida.

(4)

Bronx River, New York, New York

Project for emergency streambank protection, Bronx River, New York, New York.

(5)

Ohio River, Ironton, Ohio

Project for emergency streambank protection, Ohio River, Ironton, Ohio.

(6)

Newport, Rhode Island

Project for emergency streambank protection, Newport, Rhode Island.

(7)

Tiverton, Rhode Island

Project for emergency streambank protection, Tiverton, Rhode Island.

1004.

Small projects for navigation

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577):

(1)

Detroit River, Wyandotte, Michigan

Project for navigation, Detroit River, Wyandotte, Michigan.

(2)

Stouts Creek, Lacey Township, New Jersey

Project for navigation, Stouts Creek, Lacey Township, New Jersey.

(3)

Brown’s River, Nassau County, New York

Project for navigation, Brown’s River, Nassau County, New York.

(4)

Detroit Harbor, Wisconsin

Project for navigation, Detroit Harbor, Wisconsin.

1005.

Small projects for improvement of the quality of the environment

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a):

(1)

Rheem Creek, Contra Costa County, California

Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Rheem Creek, Contra Costa County, California.

(2)

Rodeo Creek, Contra Costa County, California

Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Rodeo Creek, Contra Costa County, California.

1006.

Small projects for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330):

(1)

Emeryville Harbor, Emeryville, California

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Emeryville Harbor, Emeryville, California.

(2)

Los Angeles River, Cudahy, California

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Los Angeles River, Cudahy, California.

(3)

Laguna Salada, Pacifica, California

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Laguna Salada, Pacifica, California.

(4)

Animas River, La Plata, Colorado

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Animas River, La Plata, Colorado.

(5)

North Fork of the Gunnison River, Delta, Colorado

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, North Fork of the Gunnison River, Delta, Colorado.

(6)

Line and Cane Creeks, Henry County, Georgia

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Line and Cane Creeks, Henry County, Georgia.

(7)

Bremme Creek, Dupage, Illinois

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Bremme Creek, DuPage, Illinois.

(8)

Blackberry Creek, Kendall, Illinois

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Blackberry Creek, Kendall, Illinois.

(9)

Gompers Park, North Branch Chicago River, Illinois

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Gompers Park, North Branch Chicago River, Illinois.

(10)

Kankakee River, Will County, Illinois

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Kankakee River, Will County, Illinois.

(11)

Prairie Creek Watershed, Will County, Illinois

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Prairie Creek Watershed, Will County, Illinois.

(12)

West Branch of the Dupage River, Dupage, Illinois

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, West Branch of the DuPage River, DuPage, Illinois.

(13)

Long Creek Watershed, Cumberland, Maine

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Long Creek Watershed, Cumberland, Maine.

(14)

Cabin Branch Watershed, Prince George’s County, Maryland

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Cabin Branch Watershed, Prince George’s County, Maryland.

(15)

Little Paint Branch Stream, Prince George’s County, Maryland

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Little Paint Branch Stream, Prince George’s County, Maryland.

(16)

Lower Beaverdam Creek, Prince George’s County, Maryland

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Lower Beaverdam Creek, Prince George’s County, Maryland.

(17)

Northeast Anacostia River, Prince George’s County, Maryland

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Northeast Anacostia River, Prince George’s County, Maryland.

(18)

Northwest Anacostia River, Prince George’s County, Maryland

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Northwest Anacostia River, Prince George’s County, Maryland.

(19)

Assabet River, Middlesex and Worcester, Massachusetts

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Assabet River, Middlesex and Worcester, Massachusetts.

(20)

Lewis Bay, Yarmouth, Massachusetts

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Lewis Bay, Yarmouth, Massachusetts.

(21)

Pig’s Eye Lake, St. Paul, Minnesota

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Pig’s Eye Lake, St. Paul, Minnesota.

(22)

Barnegat Bay, Ocean County, New Jersey

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Barnegat Bay, Ocean County, New Jersey.

(23)

Branchport Creek, Oceanport Borough, New Jersey

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Branchport Creek, Oceanport Borough, New Jersey.

(24)

Hackensack River, Hudson County, New Jersey

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Hackensack River, Hudson County, New Jersey.

(25)

Lake Topanemus, Freehold, New Jersey

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Lake Topanemus, Freehold, New Jersey.

(26)

Las Cruces Dam, Dona Ana, New Mexico

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Las Cruces Dam, Dona Ana, New Mexico.

(27)

Pugsley Creek, Castle Hill, New York

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Pugsley Creek, Castle Hill, New York.

(28)

Olentangy River, Franklin, Ohio

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Olentangy River, Franklin, Ohio.

(29)

Scioto River, Franklin, Ohio

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Scioto River, Franklin, Ohio.

(30)

Woonasquatucket River, Providence, Rhode Island

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Woonasquatucket River, Providence, Rhode Island.

(31)

Claytor Lake, Pulaski, Virginia

Project for aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration, Claytor Lake, Pulaski, Virginia.

1007.

Small projects for shoreline protection

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

(1)

Deerfield Beach, Broward County, Florida

Project for shoreline protection, Deerfield Beach, Broward County, Florida.

(2)

Barnegat, Ocean County, New Jersey

Project for shoreline protection, Barnegat, Ocean County, New Jersey.

(3)

Manhasset Bay, Port Washington, New York

Project for shoreline protection, Manhasset Bay, Port Washington, New York.

1008.

Small projects for aquatic plant control

(a)

In general

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

(b)

Special rule

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

II

General Provisions

2001.

Credit for in-kind contributions

(a)

Limitation; savings provision

Section 221(a)(4)(E) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)(E)) is amended by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:

(ii)

Limitation

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

(I)

the specific provision of law instead of this paragraph; or

(II)

at the request of the non-Federal interest, the specific provision of law and such provisions of this paragraph as the non-Federal interest may request.

(iii)

Savings provision

Nothing in this subparagraph affects the applicability of subsection (a)(4)(C).

.

(b)

Water resources project defined

Section 221(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)) is amended—

(1)

by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;

(2)

by moving subparagraphs (A) and (B) (as so redesignated) and the matter following such subparagraphs 2 ems to the right;

(3)

by striking (b) and all that follows through The term and inserting the following:

(b)

Definitions

In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1)

Non-Federal interest

The term

; and

(4)

by adding at the end the following:

(2)

Water resources project

The term water resources project includes projects studied, reviewed, designed, constructed, operated and maintained, or otherwise subject to Federal participation under the authority of the civil works program of the Secretary of the Army for the purposes of navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, hurricane and storm damage reduction, water supply, recreation, hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife conservation, water quality, environmental infrastructure, resource protection and development, and related purposes.

.

(c)

Technical correction

Section 221(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(c)) is amended by striking enforcible and inserting enforceable.

2002.

Fish and wildlife mitigation

(a)

Mitigation plans as part of project proposals

Section 906(d)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)(1)) is amended—

(1)

in the first sentence—

(A)

by inserting for damages to ecological resources, including terrestrial and aquatic resources, and after mitigate;

(B)

by inserting ecological resources and after impact on; and

(C)

by inserting without the implementation of mitigation measures before the period; and

(2)

by inserting before the last sentence the following: If the Secretary determines that mitigation to in-kind conditions is not possible, the Secretary shall identify in the report the basis for that determination..

(b)

Mitigation requirements

Section 906(d)(3)(A) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting , at a minimum, after complies with.

2003.

Remote and subsistence harbors

Section 2006 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2242) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(c)

Applicability

This section shall apply to project studies that include—

(1)

a feasibility study, as defined in section 105(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(d)); or

(2)

a detailed project report, as defined in such section 105(d) and carried out under section 107(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)).

.

2004.

Revision of project partnership agreement

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

2005.

Independent peer review

(a)

Timing of peer review

Section 2034(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2343(b)) is amended—

(1)

by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and

(2)

by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

(3)

Reasons for timing

If the Chief of Engineers does not initiate a peer review for a project study at a time described in paragraph (2), the Chief shall make publicly available, including on the Internet, for each of such times the reasons for not conducting the review, and shall include the reasons in the decision document for the project study.

.

(b)

Establishment of panels

Section 2034(c)(4) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2343(c)(4)) is amended to read as follows:

(4)

Congressional and public notification

Upon identification of a project study for peer review under this section, but prior to initiation of the review by the panel of experts, the Chief of Engineers shall—

(A)

notify the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives of the review; and

(B)

make publicly available, including on the Internet, information on—

(i)

the dates scheduled for beginning and ending the review;

(ii)

the entity that has the contract for the review; and

(iii)

the names and qualifications of the panel of experts.

.

(c)

Recommendations of panel

Section 2034(f) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2343(f)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:

(2)

Public availability and transmittal to Congress

After receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall make available to the public, including on the Internet, and transmit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives—

(A)

a copy of the report within 3 days of receiving the report; and

(B)

a copy of any written response of the Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained in the report within 3 days of the date of the response.

(3)

Inclusion in project study

A report on a project study from a panel of experts under this section and the written response of the Chief of Engineers shall be included in the final decision document for the project study.

.

2006.

Safety assurance review

Section 2035 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2344) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(i)

Nonapplicability of FACA

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

.

2007.

Funding for harbor maintenance programs

(a)

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund guarantee

(1)

In general

The total budget resources made available from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund each fiscal year pursuant to section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) shall be equal to the level of receipts plus interest credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for that fiscal year. Such amounts may be used only for harbor maintenance programs described in section 9505(c) of such Code.

(2)

Guarantee

No funds may be appropriated for harbor maintenance programs described in such section unless the amount described in paragraph (1) has been provided.

(b)

Definitions

In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1)

Total budget resources

The term total budget resources means the total amount made available by appropriations Acts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for a fiscal year for making expenditures under section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(2)

Level of receipts plus interest

The term level of receipts plus interest means the level of taxes and interest credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under section 9505 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for a fiscal year as set forth in the President’s budget baseline projection as defined in section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) for that fiscal year submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code.

2008.

Funding to process permits

Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 119 Stat. 2169; 120 Stat. 318; 120 Stat. 3197; 121 Stat. 1067; 123 Stat. 3478) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (a) by striking permits under the jurisdiction and inserting permits of such entities related to projects for a public purpose under the jurisdiction;

(2)

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

(3)

by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

(b)

Effect on permitting

(1)

In general

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under subsection (a) will not impact impartial decision-making with respect to permits, either substantively or procedurally.

(2)

Impartial decisionmaking

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the evaluation of permits carried out using funds accepted under this section shall—

(A)

be reviewed by the District Commander of the Corps District in which the project or activity is located, unless the evaluation of the permit is initially conducted by the District Commander whereby the review shall be conducted by the Commander of the Corps Division in which the District is located; and

(B)

utilize the same procedures for decisions that would otherwise be required for the evaluation of permits for similar projects or activities not carried out using funds authorized under this section.

(c)

Limitation on use of funds

None of the funds accepted under this section shall be used to carry out a review of the evaluation of permits required under subsection (b)(2)(A).

(d)

Public availability

The Secretary shall ensure that all final permit decisions carried out using funds authorized under this section are made available to the public, including on the Internet.

; and

(4)

in subsection (e) (as redesignated), by striking 2010 and inserting 2016.

2009.

Project modifications for improvement of environment

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

2010.

Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration

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

2011.

Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric facilities

(a)

In general

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

314.

Operation and maintenance of navigation and hydroelectric facilities

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

.

(b)

Clerical amendment

The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to section 314 and inserting the following:

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

.

2012.

Repeal

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

2013.

Cost estimates for feasibility reports

Section 905(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(5)

Cost estimates for feasibility reports

In preparing a feasibility report under this subsection, the Secretary shall include in the report, and any budget documents (including justification materials) submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, an accounting of the total cost of the recommended plan and an estimate of the Federal and non-Federal participation in the plan based on the following scenarios:

(A)

The cost of the project based on optimal levels of Federal funding for the recommended plan.

(B)

The estimated cost of the project, based on a 50 percent increase in the period for implementation of the recommended plan.

(C)

The estimated cost of the project, based on a 100 percent increase in the period for implementation of the recommended plan.

.

2014.

Mitigation status report

Section 2036(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2283a) is amended—

(1)

by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and

(2)

by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

(3)

Information included

In reporting the status of all projects included in the report, the Secretary shall—

(A)

use a uniform methodology for determining the status of all projects included in the report;

(B)

use a methodology that describes both a qualitative and quantitative status for all projects in the report; and

(C)

provide specific dates for and participants in the consultations required under section 906(d)(4)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)(4)(B)).

.

2015.

Use of American iron, steel, and manufactured goods

(a)

Restriction

None of the funds authorized or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.

(b)

Exceptions

Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case or category of cases in which the Secretary finds that—

(1)

applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the public interest;

(2)

iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or

(3)

inclusion of iron, steel, and manufactured goods produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.

(c)

Public notice of waiver request

If the Secretary receives a request to waive the application of subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish in a timely manner that request online and in the Federal Register.

(d)

Justification for waiver

If the Secretary determines that it is necessary to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a finding under subsection (b), the Secretary shall publish online and in the Federal Register a detailed written justification as to why the provision is being waived.

(e)

Application

This section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.

III

Project-Related Provisions

3001.

Douglas Harbor, Juneau, Alaska

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

3002.

Nogales Wash and tributaries flood control project, Arizona

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

3003.

Rio de Flag, Arizona

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

3004.

Tres Rios, Arizona

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

3005.

Russian River project, Sonoma County, California

The project for flood control, water conservation, and related purposes in the Russian River basin, California, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 177), and the project for Russian River, Dry Creek, California, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1192), are modified as follows:

(1)

The Secretary shall review the biological opinion on the water supply, flood control, and channel maintenance operations conducted by the Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control District, as transmitted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on September 24, 2008.

(2)

If the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the Secretary is authorized to construct the project at a total cost of $92,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $59,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $32,200,000.

3006.

South Sacramento County streams, California

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

3007.

Chatfield Reservoir, Colorado

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

3008.

Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas

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

3009.

Potomac River, Washington, District of Columbia

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

3010.

Kissimmee River restoration, Florida

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

3011.

Ponce de Leon Inlet, Florida

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

3012.

Savannah Harbor expansion, Georgia

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

3013.

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal dispersal barriers project, Illinois

(a)

Authorization

Section 3061(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1121) is amended—

(1)

by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:

(A)

upgrade and make permanent Barrier I in its current location or at an alternative location, as determined appropriate by the Secretary;

;

(2)

in subparagraph (B) by striking June 14, 2005 and inserting November 21, 2003, as amended on July 14, 2005;

(3)

by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as subparagraphs (D), (E) and (F), respectively;

(4)

by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:

(C)

acquire real estate interests necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of Barrier I and Barrier II;

;

(5)

by striking and at the end of subparagraph (E) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection);

(6)

by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection) and inserting ; and; and

(7)

by adding at the end the following:

(G)

construct additional barriers or other fish deterrents at other locations in the vicinity of the Chicago Area Waterway System, if determined appropriate by the Secretary.

.

(b)

Use of credit

Section 3061(b)(2) of such Act (121 Stat. 1121) is amended by striking paragraph (1)(E) and inserting paragraph (1)(F).

(c)

Feasibility study

Section 3061(d) of such Act (121 Stat. 1121) is amended by adding the end the following: The study shall include a fully developed analysis of an alternative for hydrologic separation between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins. The hydrologic separation alternative shall include identification of measures to prevent the transfer of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins through surface water..

3014.

Lower Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky

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

3015.

Wood River levee system reconstruction, Madison County, Illinois

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

3016.

Little Calumet River, Indiana

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

3017.

Rhodes Point Jetty, Smith Island, Maryland

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

3018.

Muddy River, Brookline and Boston, Massachusetts

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

3019.

Ada, Minnesota

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

3020.

Montevideo, Minnesota

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

3021.

Two Harbors, Minnesota

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

3022.

Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri

The project for flood control, Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $45,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,125,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,375,000.

3023.

Lower Assunpink Creek, Trenton, New Jersey

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

3024.

Ocean Gate, Ocean County, New Jersey

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

3025.

Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York

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

3026.

Spring Creek, New York

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

3027.

Hocking River basin, Monday Creek, Ohio

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

3028.

Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay ecosystem restoration, Oregon and Washington

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

3029.

Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, Texas

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

3030.

Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas

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

3031.

Houston-Galveston navigation channels, Texas

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

3032.

Project reauthorization

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

3033.

Project deauthorizations

(a)

In general

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

(1)

Potomac River, Washington Channel, District of Columbia

The portion of the project for navigation, Potomac River, Washington Channel, District of Columbia, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831; 49 Stat. 1028), beginning at Washington Harbor Channel Geometry Centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational ship channel, Centerline Station No. 103+73.12, coordinates North 441,948.20, East 1,303,969.30, as stated and depicted on the Condition Survey Anacostia, Virginia, Washington and Magazine Bar Shoal Channels, Washington, D.C., Sheet 6 of 6, prepared by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore district, July 2007; thence departing the aforementioned centerline traveling the following courses and distances: N. 40 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds E., 200.00 feet to a point, on the outline of said 400-foot-wide channel thence binding on said outline the following three courses and distances: S. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds E., 1,507.86 feet to a point, thence; S. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds E., 2,083.17 feet to a point, thence; S. 11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds E., 363.00 feet to a point, thence; S. 78 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds W., 200.00 feet to a point binding on the centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational channel at computed Centerline Station No. 65+54.31, coordinates North 438,923.9874, East 1,306,159.9738, thence; continuing with the aforementioned centerline the following courses and distances: N. 11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds W., 330.80 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 68+85.10, thence; N. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds W., 2,015.56 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 89+00.67, thence; N. 49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds W., 1,472.26 feet to the point of beginning.

(2)

Chicago Harbor, Illinois

The portion of the project for navigation, Chicago Harbor, authorized by the River and Harbor Acts of March 3, 1899 and March 2, 1919, beginning at the southwest corner of Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago sluice gate that abuts the north wall of the Chicago River Lock thence running north for approximately 290 feet, thence running east approximately 1,000 feet, thence running south approximately 290 feet, thence running west approximately 1,000 feet to the point of origin.

(3)

Ipswich River, Massachusetts

The portion of the project for navigation, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, adopted by the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 5, 1886, consisting of a 4-foot channel located at the entrance to the inner harbor at Ipswich Harbor, lying northwesterly of a line commencing at: N3,074,938.09, E837,154.87, thence running easterly approximately 60 feet to a point with coordinates N3,074,972.62, E837,203.93.

(4)

Menemsha Creek, Massachusetts

The portion of the project for navigation, Menemsha Creek, Massachusetts, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1945, consisting of the following areas—

(A)

beginning at a point, N129,112.54, E1,566,926.30, running north 52 degrees 12 minutes 55.9 seconds east 208.68 feet to a point N129,240.39, E1,567,091.22, running south 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds east 170.0 feet to a point N129,203.51, E1,567,257.17, running south 37 degrees 25 minutes 45.4 seconds east 101.04 feet to a point N129,123.28, E1,567,318.58, running north 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds west 223.32 feet to a point N129,171.72, E 1,567,100.58, running south 52 degrees 12 minutes 55.9 seconds west 174.00 feet to a point N129,065.12, E1,566,963.06, running north 37 degrees 47 minutes 04.1 seconds west 60.00 feet to the point of origin, and

(B)

beginning at a point, N128,895.78, E1,566,940.39, thence running north 52 degrees 31 minutes 25.8 seconds east 135.91 feet to a point N128,978.47, E1,567,048.25, thence running south 77 degrees 28 minutes 13.7 seconds east 80.63 feet to a point N128,960.98, E1,567,126.96, thence running south 37 degrees 25 minutes 32.9 seconds east 70.67 feet to a point N128,904.86, E1,567,169.91, thence running north 73 degrees 59 minutes 15.6 seconds west 139.90 feet to a point N128,943.45, E 1,567,035.44, thence running south 52 degrees 31 minutes 25.8 seconds west 103.96 feet to a point N128,880.20, E1,566,952.94, thence running north 38 degrees 50 minutes 43.8 seconds west 20.01 feet to the point of origin.

(5)

Block Island Harbor of Refuge, Rhode Island

The portion of the project for navigation, Block Island Harbor of Refuge, Rhode Island, adopted by the Rivers and Harbors Act of July 11, 1870, consisting of the cut-stone breakwater lining the west side of the Inner Basin, beginning at a point, N32,179.55, E312,625.53, thence running northerly approximately 76.59 feet to a point with coordinates N326,655.92, E312,631.32, thence running northerly approximately 206.81 feet to a point with coordinates N32,858.33, E312,673.74, thence running easterly approximately 109.00 feet to a point with coordinates N32,832.15, E312,779.54.

(b)

Additional Deauthorizations

The following projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, except with respect to any portion of such a project that has been completed before such date or is under construction on such date:

(1)

The project for flood protection and related purposes, Cache River basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172).

(2)

The Lower White River, Big Creek and tributaries, Arkansas, element of the project for flood control and improvement of the Lower Mississippi River, authorized by section 1 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534), and modified by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1076).

(3)

The project for navigation, Noyo River and Harbor, California, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176) and modified by section 146 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2931).

(4)

The project for navigation, Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana, to Dangerfield, Texas, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).

(5)

The project for flood control, Hocking River at Logan, Ohio, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4122).

(6)

The Shipyard River Upper Channel and Upper Turning basin elements of the project for navigation, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4096).

(7)

The environmental enhancements element of the project for flood control, Nonconnah Creek and Johns Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124).

(8)

The recreation element of the project for flood control, Nonconnah Creek and Johns Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124).

(9)

The project for flood protection, Santa Barbara County Coastal Streams and tributaries in the area of Goleta, California, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826) and modified by section 102(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4804).

(10)

The project for flood control, Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921).

(11)

The project for flood control, Buena Vista, Virginia, authorized by section 101(a)(24) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610) and modified by section 118(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4824).

IV

Studies

4001.

Hollis, Alaska

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

4002.

Bullard Wash, Goodyear, Arizona

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

4003.

Lower Santa Cruz River, Casa Grande, Arizona

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

4004.

Maricopa County, Arizona

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

4005.

Ouachita River, Ouachita, Union, and Ashley Counties, Arkansas

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

4006.

Oil Trough, Arkansas

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

4007.

Randolph County, Arkansas

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

4008.

Berkeley Marina, Berkeley, California

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

4009.

Chelsea Wetlands, Hercules, California

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

4010.

Colorado Lagoon and Alamitos Bay, Long Beach, California

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

4011.

Lodi Lake, Lodi, California

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

4012.

Oakland-Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, Oakland, California

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

4013.

Noyo Harbor District, Noyo, California

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

4014.

Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, California

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

4015.

Redwood City Navigation Channel, California

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

4016.

Rialto Channel and Cactus Channel, Rialto, California

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

4017.

Sacramento Regional Sanitation District, Sacramento, California

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

4018.

San Pablo Bay, Hercules, California

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

4019.

Stockton, California

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

4020.

Tijuana River environmental restoration, San Diego, California

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

4021.

Tijuana River wetlands restoration, San Diego County, California

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

4022.

Ventura River, Ventura County, California

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

4023.

Willowbrook, Los Angeles County, California

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

4024.

Fountain Creek watershed, Pueblo, Colorado

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

4025.

Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado

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

4026.

Holly Pond and Norotan River, Stamford, Connecticut

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

4027.

Housatonic River, New Milford, Connecticut

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

4028.

Long Island Sound and Mill River, Stamford, Connecticut

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

4029.

Meriden, Connecticut

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

4030.

South Cove, Old Saybrook, Connecticut

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

4031.

West River, New Haven Harbor, West Haven, Connecticut

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

4032.

Chesapeake Bay, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia

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

4033.

Washington, District of Columbia

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

4034.

Lake County, Florida

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

4035.

Marion County, Florida

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

4036.

Miami, Florida

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

4037.

Oakland Park, Florida

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

4038.

Riviera Beach, Florida

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

4039.

South Daytona, Florida

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

4040.

Tampa, Florida

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

4041.

Peavine Creek, Decatur, Georgia

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

4042.

Richland Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia

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

4043.

Study for water supply, Georgia

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a study of municipal and industrial water supply for the State of Georgia.

(b)

Study components

In conducting the study, the Secretary shall review—

(1)

currently available water supplies;

(2)

expected future demand for potable water;

(3)

current water uses, including per capita use rates;

(4)

opportunities to augment existing supplies, including through increased conservation and improved efficiencies;

(5)

the effect of water supply policies and uses on the environment;

(6)

the effect of water supply policies on the economy;

(7)

the effect of water supply policies and uses on upstream and downstream uses;

(8)

the impacts of water supply policies on threatened and endangered species; and

(9)

the impacts of consumptive uses on instream uses.

(c)

Timing

The Secretary shall complete the study not later than 2 years following the first obligation of funds for the study.

4044.

Suwannee Creek, Lawrenceville, Georgia

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

4045.

Agat and Merizo, Guam

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

4046.

Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along Waiakea Stream and Palai Stream, Hilo, Hawaii.

(b)

Prior work

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

4047.

Waialua-Kaiaka watershed, Oahu, Hawaii

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

4048.

Albany Park, Chicago, Illinois

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

4049.

Carpenter Creek, Carpentersville, Illinois

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

4050.

Des Plaines River, Cook County, Illinois

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

4051.

Ferson-Otter Creek Dam, St. Charles, Illinois

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

4052.

Middle Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri

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

4053.

North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois

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

4054.

River Park and Ronan Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois

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

4055.

Thillens Park, North Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois

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

4056.

Village of Skokie, Illinois

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

4057.

Bowman Creek, South Bend, Indiana

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

4058.

Lake Michigan watershed, Indiana

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

4059.

Burlington, Iowa

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

4060.

Beneficial use of dredged material, Louisiana and Mississippi

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of utilizing the Federal hopper dredge Wheeler, as part of routine testing and use under its ready reserve status pursuant to section 3 of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622(c); 110 Stat. 3705), for support of projects for the beneficial reuse of material dredged from federally maintained waterways at the following locations:

(1)

Projects in connection with the comprehensive plan for protecting, preserving, and restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, pursuant to section 7002 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1270).

(2)

Projects in connection with the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi, authorized by section 1001 of this Act.

4061.

Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction for Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.

(b)

Use of local report

In carrying out the study, the Secretary may include elements of the report prepared by the non-Federal interest for Jesuit Bend, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, if the Secretary determines that such elements are feasible.

4062.

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

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood control and improvement of the Lower Mississippi River, Bonnet Carre Spillway, authorized by section 1 of the Act of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534), to add environmental restoration as a project purpose.

(b)

Review

In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall review operational and structural changes to the project to restore the LaBranche Wetlands, St. Charles and St. John Counties, Louisiana.

4063.

Ruth Canal freshwater diversion, Vermilion, Louisiana

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

4064.

Anacostia River watershed, Prince George’s County, Maryland

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

4065.

Chesapeake Bay Shoreline study, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

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

4066.

Dredged material disposal, Baltimore Harbor, Maryland

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

4067.

Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island recreation and public access, Maryland

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

4068.

Capisic Brook, Portland, Maine

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

4069.

Fishing and Gooseberry Islands, Kittery, Maine

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

4070.

Southern Maine/New Hampshire dredged material disposal study, Maine and New Hampshire

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

4071.

Assabet, Charles, and Sudbury watersheds, Middlesex and Essex Counties, Massachusetts

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

4072.

Hoosic River watershed, North Adams, Massachusetts

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

4073.

Mystic River watershed, Massachusetts

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

4074.

Quequechan River, Fall River, Massachusetts

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

4075.

Clinton River, Clinton Township, Michigan

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

4076.

Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan

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

4077.

Upper Peninsula Flood Recovery, Michigan

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

4078.

Amory, Mississippi

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

4079.

Coastal Mississippi ecosystem restoration, Mississippi

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

4080.

Fulton, Mississippi

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

4081.

Gulfport, Mississippi

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

4082.

Lucedale, Mississippi

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

4083.

Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes County, Mississippi

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

4084.

Blue River basin, Kansas City, Missouri

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

4085.

Little Blue River, Jackson County, Missouri

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

4086.

St. Louis, Missouri

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

4087.

Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas, Nevada

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

4088.

New Hampshire

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

4089.

Piscataqua River, New Hampshire

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

4090.

Barnegat Bay watershed, Ocean and Monmouth Counties, New Jersey

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

4091.

Beverly, New Jersey

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

4092.

Borough of Pine Beach, New Jersey

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

4093.

Haddon Township, New Jersey

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

4094.

Rahway River watershed, New Jersey

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

4095.

Third River, Belleville, Bloomfield, and Nutley, New Jersey

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

4096.

Passaic River Channel, Nutley, New Jersey

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

4097.

Township of Ocean, New Jersey

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

4098.

Preakness Brook, Wayne, New Jersey

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

4099.

Dona Ana, New Mexico

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

4100.

Hidalgo County, New Mexico

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

4101.

Otero County, New Mexico

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

4102.

Valencia County, New Mexico

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

4103.

Glen Cove, New York

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

4104.

Hawtree basin, Hamilton Beach, New York

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

4105.

Kill van Kull, Port Richmond, Staten Island, New York

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

4106.

Mariners Marsh and Arlington Marsh, Staten Island, New York

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

4107.

New York, New York

(a)

Inventory and assessment of bulkheads and seawalls

(1)

Inventory

The Secretary shall conduct an inventory of bulkheads and seawalls constructed around the city of New York, New York, including the boroughs of Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens.

(2)

Assessment of rehabilitation needs

In conducting the inventory required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall assess the condition of the bulkheads and seawalls and the need for rehabilitation or modification of the bulkheads and seawalls.

(b)

Report to Congress

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report containing the inventory and assessment required by subsection (a).

(c)

Interim actions

If the Secretary determines that a bulkhead or seawall referred to in subsection (a) presents an imminent and substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary may carry out measures to prevent or mitigate that risk.

(d)

Federal share

The Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under this section shall be 65 percent.

(e)

Coordination

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall coordinate with the appropriate officials of the city of New York and the State of New York.

(f)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000, to remain available until expended.

4108.

Norton Basin Inlet, Far Rockaway, New York

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

4109.

Queens, New York

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

4110.

Rockaway Beach Seawall, Rockaway, New York

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

4111.

Roosevelt island, East River, New York, New York

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

4112.

Charlotte, North Carolina

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

4113.

Nantahala River, Swain, North Carolina

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

4114.

Missouri River and tributaries, South and Central North Dakota, North Dakota

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

4115.

Big Creek watershed, Ohio

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

4116.

Brandywine Creek watershed, Ohio

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

4117.

Carlisle Township, Lorain County, Ohio

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

4118.

Cuyahoga River watershed and Tuscarawas River watershed, Summit County, Ohio

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

4119.

Euclid Creek watershed, Ohio

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

4120.

Healy Creek, Brunswick, Ohio

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

4121.

Lower Maumee River, Toledo, Ohio

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

4122.

Ohio River, Ohio

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

4123.

Shaker Lakes, Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, Ohio

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

4124.

Stark County, Ohio

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

4125.

Tinkers Creek watershed, Ohio

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

4126.

Upper Tuscarawas River, Cuyahoga County, Ohio

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

4127.

West Creek watershed, Ohio

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

4128.

Yellow Creek and Short Creek, Jefferson County, Ohio

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

4129.

Ferry Creek Reservoir, Brookings, Oregon

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

4130.

Oregon Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters, Oregon

(a)

Inventory and Assessment of Navigation Jetties and Breakwaters

(1)

Inventory

The Secretary shall conduct an inventory of federally constructed navigation jetties and breakwaters in the State of Oregon.

(2)

Assessment of rehabilitation needs

In conducting the inventory required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall assess the condition of the navigation jetties and breakwaters and the need for rehabilitation or modification of the jetties and breakwaters.

(b)

Report to Congress

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report containing the inventory and assessment required by subsection (a).

(c)

Interim Actions

If the Secretary determines that a jetty or breakwater referred to in subsection (a) presents an imminent and substantial risk to public safety, the Secretary may carry out measures to prevent or mitigate that risk.

(d)

Federal share

The Federal share of the cost of assistance provided under this section shall be 65 percent.

(e)

Coordination

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall coordinate with the appropriate officials of the State of Oregon.

(f)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $7,000,000, to remain available until expended.

4131.

Port Orford, Oregon

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

4132.

Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a multipurpose project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration for Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania.

(b)

Prior work

In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent practicable, any work undertaken in the formulation of a project for environmental restoration, Buhl Lake, Sharon, Pennsylvania, initiated under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679).

4133.

Delaware River and tributaries, Bucks County, Pennsylvania

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

4134.

Elk Creek, Meadville, Pennsylvania

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

4135.

Mill Creek, Erie, Pennsylvania

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

4136.

Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania

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

4137.

Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction

Section 4077 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1184) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (a), by striking Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania and inserting Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania, the Monongahela River basin, Pennsylvania; and

(2)

in subsection (b), by striking Shaler Township and inserting Shaler Township, Hampton Township, Harmar Township.

4138.

Guayama, Puerto Rico

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

4139.

Rincon, Puerto Rico

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

4140.

Providence, Rhode Island

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

4141.

South Carolina

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

4142.

James River, South Dakota

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

4143.

Station Camp Creek, Gallatin, Tennessee

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

4144.

Brazos River, Texas

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

4145.

Hickory Creek, City of Balch Springs, Texas

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

4146.

Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (Barbours Cut), Texas

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

4147.

Port of Galveston, Texas

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

4148.

Simsboro Aquifer, City of Bastrop, Texas

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

4149.

Navasota River watershed, Grimes County, Texas

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

4150.

Rio Grande basin, Texas

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

4151.

Roma, Texas

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

4152.

Cottonwood Heights, Utah

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

4153.

Emery Town, Utah

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

4154.

Big Sandy River reallocation study, Virginia and West Virginia

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

4155.

Buckroe and Grandview Beaches, Hampton, Virginia

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

4156.

Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia

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

4157.

Hampton, Virginia

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

4158.

James River watershed, Virginia

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

4159.

Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington

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

4160.

Green River, Kent, Washington

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

4161.

Vancouver Lake watershed, Vancouver, Washington

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

4162.

Lake Michigan shoreline, City of Cudahy, Wisconsin

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

V

Miscellaneous

5001.

Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program

(a)

In general

Section 510 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759; 121 Stat. 1202) is amended—

(1)

in subsection (a)(1) by striking pilot;

(2)

in subsection (d)(2) by adding at the end the following:

(C)

In-kind services

In accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), the non-Federal interest may provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project carried out under this section in the form of in-kind services and materials.

(D)

Treatment of certain funds

In accordance with section 2007 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 2222), funds provided by a Federal department or agency other than the Corps of Engineers for a project carried out under this section shall be credited towards the non-Federal share of the cost of project.

;

(3)

by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) as subsections (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j), respectively;

(4)

by inserting after subsection (d) the following:

(e)

Cost limitation

Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any single locality.

;

(5)

by striking subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection) and inserting the following:

(g)

Projects

The Secretary may carry out projects under this section in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with the goal of carrying out projects in each of the States of Delaware, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

; and

(6)

in subsection (j) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection) by striking $40,000,000 and inserting $50,000,000.

(b)

Restoration of Chesapeake Bay ecosystem

(1)

In general

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop at Federal expense and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to prioritize projects within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including projects in the Anacostia, Elizabeth, James, Patapsco, Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock, Susquehanna, and York River basins.

(2)

Requirements

The Secretary shall ensure that the plan developed under paragraph (1)—

(A)

focuses on integrating existing and potential future work of the Corps of Engineers;

(B)

is developed in consultation with the Chesapeake Bay Program maintained under section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1267)); and

(C)

encompasses all actions of the Corps of Engineers that are necessary to assist in the implementation of the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, as defined in section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1267)).

(3)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000.

5002.

Saint Lawrence Seaway

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

5003.

Watershed management

Section 5002(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1190) is amended—

(1)

in paragraph (9) by striking Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks and inserting Esopus, Rondout, and Wallkill watersheds; and

(2)

by adding at the end the following:

(19)

San Gabriel River watershed, California.

(20)

South Platte River watershed, Colorado.

(21)

Loxahatchee River watershed, Jupiter, Florida.

(22)

Hudson River watershed, Orange, Dutchess, and Ulster Counties, New York.

(23)

Muskingum River basin, Ohio.

.

5004.

Comprehensive shoreline restoration

(a)

In general

The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and emergency streambank protection components of projects at the locations described in subsection (b) if the Secretary determines that such component is feasible.

(b)

Project locations

The locations referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:

(1)

Miller Knox Shoreline, Richmond, California.

(2)

Mississippi River, Davenport, Iowa.

(3)

Lake Michigan (in the vicinity of the former USX Site), Chicago, Illinois.

(4)

Pond and Mill Creek watershed, Louisville, Kentucky.

(5)

Massachusetts Bay (in the vicinity of Georges Island), Boston, Massachusetts.

(6)

Mississippi River (in the vicinity of the lower St. Anthony Falls), Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(7)

Brush Creek, Kansas City, Missouri.

(8)

Mississippi River, Kimmswick, Missouri.

(9)

Delaware River, Trenton, New Jersey.

(10)

East River, New York, New York.

(11)

Upper New York Bay, Staten Island, New York.

(12)

Abbott’s Creek, Lexington, North Carolina.

(13)

Ohio River, Belpre, Ohio.

(14)

Schuylkill River, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

(15)

Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela Rivers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

(16)

Ohio River, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

(17)

Fields Point, Narragansett Bay, Providence, Rhode Island.

(18)

Congaree River, Columbia, South Carolina.

(19)

Wolf Creek Harbor, Mississippi River, Tennessee.

(20)

Ruston Way Seawall, Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington.

(21)

Lower Yahara River, McFarland, Wisconsin.

(c)

Cost limitation

Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal funds may be allotted under this section for a project at any single locality.

(d)

Recreation

The Secretary may include recreational components as part of a project carried out under this section.

(e)

Funding

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for each fiscal years 2011 through 2016.

5005.

Northeast Coastal Region ecosystem restoration

(a)

In general

The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration within the coastal waters of the Northeastern United States from Virginia to Maine, including associated bays, estuaries, and critical riverine areas.

(b)

General coastal management plan

(1)

Assessment

The Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, the Governors of the coastal States from Virginia to Maine, nonprofit organizations, and other interested parties, shall assess the needs regarding, and opportunities for, aquatic ecosystem restoration within the coastal waters of the Northeastern United States.

(2)

Plan

The Secretary shall develop a general coastal management plan based on the assessment carried out under paragraph (1), maximizing the use of existing plans and investigations. The Secretary shall include in the plan the following:

(A)

An inventory and evaluation of coastal habitats.

(B)

Identification of aquatic resources in need of improvement.

(C)

Identification and prioritization of potential aquatic habitat restoration projects.

(D)

Identification of geographical and ecological areas of concern, including—

(i)

finfish habitats;

(ii)

diadromous fisheries migratory corridors;

(iii)

shellfish habitats;

(iv)

submerged aquatic vegetation;

(v)

wetlands; and

(vi)

beach dune complexes and other similar habitats.

(c)

Eligible projects

The Secretary may carry out an aquatic ecosystem restoration project under this section if the project—

(1)

is consistent with the management plan developed under subsection (b); and

(2)

provides for—

(A)

the restoration of degraded aquatic habitat (including coastal, saltmarsh, benthic, and riverine habitat);

(B)

the restoration of geographical or ecological areas of concern, including the restoration of natural river and stream characteristics;

(C)

the improvement of water quality; or

(D)

other projects or activities determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.

(d)

Cost sharing

(1)

Management plan

The management plan developed under subsection (b) shall be completed at Federal expense.

(2)

Restoration projects

The non-Federal share of the cost of a project carried out under this section shall be 35 percent.

(e)

Cost limitation

Not more than $10,000,000 in Federal funds may be allocated under this section for an eligible project.

(f)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 and each fiscal year thereafter, including funds for the completion of the management plan.

5006.

Anacostia watershed, District of Columbia and Maryland

(a)

In general

The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, emergency streambank protection, and aquatic plant control components of the Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan, developed pursuant to section 5060 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1215), if the Secretary determines that such component is feasible.

(b)

Consultation

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult with the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership.

(c)

Federal lands

In carrying out a project component under subsection (a), the Secretary shall waive any cost share to be provided by non-Federal interests for any portion of the project component that benefits federally owned property.

(d)

Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.

5007.

Egmont Key, Florida

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

5008.

Cambridge, Maryland

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

5009.

Hart-Miller Island, Maryland

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

5010.

Gallops Island, Boston, Massachusetts

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

5011.

Sharkey County, Mississippi

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

5012.

Charleston Harbor Post 45 Project, Charleston, South Carolina

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

5013.

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

(a)

Findings

Congress finds the following:

(1)

Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh has had a distinguished 30-year career with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, including as—

(A)

District Commander of the San Francisco District, San Francisco, California, from 1994 to 1996;

(B)

District Commander of the Sacramento District, Sacramento, California, from 1998 to 2001;

(C)

Executive Director of Civil Works, Corps Headquarters, Washington, District of Columbia, from 2001 to 2003;

(D)

Chief of Staff, Corps Headquarters, Washington, District of Columbia, from 2003 to 2004;

(E)

Commander of the South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, Georgia, from 2004 to 2006;

(F)

Commander for the Corps Gulf Region Division, Baghdad, Iraq, from 2006 to 2008; and

(G)

Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg, Mississippi, from 2008 to 2010.

(2)

General Walsh has held a wide variety of Army command and staff assignments, including—

(A)

project management officer for Engineer Branch, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe (SHAPE);

(B)

Environmental Task Force Leader, Fort Stewart, Georgia;

(C)

Executive Officer, 92nd Engineer Battalion, Fort Stewart, Georgia, and Saudi Arabia;

(D)

Project Engineer and Assistant Area Engineer, Baltimore District;

(E)

Construction Officer, 18th Engineer Brigade, Darmstadt, Germany; and

(F)

Commander, Company B, 94th Engineer Battalion, Darmstadt, Germany.

(3)

General Walsh has received several awards of the United States Army, including 2 Bronze Stars, 4 Legions of Merit, and numerous lesser awards.

(4)

On October 27, 2010, the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate unanimously approved the nomination of General Walsh to the rank of Major General, United States Army.

(5)

General Walsh’s nomination was unreasonably delayed on the floor of the Senate for 7 months.

(6)

On May 19, 2010, the nomination of General Walsh to Major General of the United States Army was confirmed by the United States Senate by unanimous consent.

(7)

On June 2, 2010, Brigadier General Walsh was formally promoted to the rank of Major General.

(b)

Sense of Congress

It is the Sense of Congress that General Walsh should be congratulated for his promotion to the rank of Major General, United States Army, and should be commended for his duty and dedication to the United States, to the United States Army, and to the Corps of Engineers.

September 29, 2010

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed