" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPT. 113–246 

Part 1 

WATER RESOURCES REFORM AND 

DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2013 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 3080 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

OCTOBER 21, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
WATER RESOURCES REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2013 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

85–131 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPT. 113–246 

2013

Part 1 

WATER RESOURCES REFORM AND 

DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2013 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 3080 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

OCTOBER 21, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–246 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

WATER RESOURCES REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 

OF 2013 

OCTOBER 21, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SHUSTER, from the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3080] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 3080) to provide for improvements to the 

rivers and harbors of the United States, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended 

do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose of Legislation ............................................................................................. 44 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 44 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 45 

Legislative History and Consideration .................................................................. 45 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 46 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 46 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 47 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 47 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 51 

Advisory of Earmarks .............................................................................................. 51 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 52 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 52 

Federal Mandate Statement ................................................................................... 52 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Preemption Clarification ......................................................................................... 52 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 52 

Applicability of Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 52 

Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation ............................................................ 520 

Additional Matters ................................................................................................... 277 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 279 

Committee Correspondence .................................................................................... 320 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 336 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013’’. 

(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—PROGRAM REFORMS AND STREAMLINING 

Sec. 101. Vertical integration and acceleration of studies. 

Sec. 102. Expediting the evaluation and processing of permits. 

Sec. 103. Environmental streamlining. 

Sec. 104. Consolidation of studies. 

Sec. 105. Removal of duplicative analyses. 

Sec. 106. Expediting approval of modifications and alterations of projects by non-Federal interests. 

Sec. 107. Construction of projects by non-Federal interests. 

Sec. 108. Contributions by non-Federal interests. 

Sec. 109. Contributions by non-Federal interests for management of Corps of Engineers inland navigation facilities. 

Sec. 110. Additional contributions by non-Federal interests. 

Sec. 111. Clarification of impacts to other Federal facilities. 

Sec. 112. Clarification of previously authorized work. 

Sec. 113. Tribal partnership program. 

Sec. 114. Technical corrections. 

Sec. 115. Water infrastructure public-private partnership pilot program. 

Sec. 116. Annual report to Congress. 

Sec. 117. Actions to be taken in conjunction with the President’s annual budget submission to Congress. 

Sec. 118. Hurricane and storm damage reduction study. 

Sec. 119. Non-Federal plans to provide additional flood risk reduction. 

Sec. 120. Review of emergency response authorities. 

Sec. 121. Emergency communication of risk. 

Sec. 122. Improvements to the National Dam Safety Program Act. 

Sec. 123. Restricted areas at Corps of Engineers dams. 

Sec. 124. Levee safety. 

Sec. 125. Vegetation on levees. 

Sec. 126. Reduction of Federal costs. 

Sec. 127. Advanced modeling technologies. 

Sec. 128. Enhanced use of electronic commerce in Federal procurement. 

Sec. 129. Corrosion prevention. 

Sec. 130. Resilient construction and use of innovative materials. 

Sec. 131. Assessment of water supply in arid regions. 

Sec. 132. River basin commissions. 

Sec. 133. Sense of Congress regarding water resources development bills. 

Sec. 134. Donald G. Waldon Lock and Dam. 

Sec. 135. Aquatic invasive species. 

Sec. 136. Recreational access. 

Sec. 137. Territories of the United States. 

Sec. 138. Sense of Congress regarding interstate water agreements and compacts. 

TITLE II—NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS 

Subtitle A—Ports 

Sec. 201. Expanded use of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

Sec. 202. Assessment and prioritization of operation and maintenance. 

Sec. 203. Preserving United States harbors. 

Sec. 204. Consolidation of deep draft navigation expertise. 

Sec. 205. Disposal sites. 

Subtitle B—Inland Waterways 

Sec. 211. Definitions. 

Sec. 212. Project delivery process reforms. 

Sec. 213. Efficiency of revenue collection. 

Sec. 214. Inland waterways revenue studies. 

Sec. 215. Inland waterways stakeholder roundtable. 

Sec. 216. Preserving the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. 

Sec. 217. Public comment on lock operations. 

Sec. 218. Assessment of operation and maintenance needs of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway. 

Sec. 219. Upper Mississippi River protection. 

Sec. 220. Corps of Engineers lock and dam energy development. 

TITLE III—DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND BACKLOG PREVENTION 

Sec. 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

Sec. 302. Review of Corps of Engineers assets. 

Sec. 303. Backlog prevention. 

Sec. 304. Deauthorizations. 

Sec. 305. Land conveyances. 

TITLE IV—WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE 

Sec. 401. Authorization of final feasibility studies. 

Sec. 402. Project modifications. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 

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

TITLE I—PROGRAM REFORMS AND 

STREAMLINING 

SEC. 101. VERTICAL INTEGRATION AND ACCELERATION OF STUDIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—To the extent practicable, a feasibility study initiated by the 

Secretary, after the date of enactment of this Act, under section 905(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a)) shall— 

(1) result in the completion of a final feasibility report not later than 3 years 

after the date of initiation; 

(2) have a maximum Federal cost of $3,000,000; and 

(3) ensure that personnel from the district, division, and headquarters levels 

of the Corps of Engineers concurrently conduct the review required under that 

section. 

(b) EXCEPTION.—If the Secretary determines that a feasibility study described in 

subsection (a) will not be conducted in accordance with subsection (a), the Secretary, 

not later than 30 days after the date of making the determination, shall— 

(1) prepare an updated feasibility study schedule and cost estimate; 

(2) notify the non-Federal feasibility cost sharing partner that the feasibility 

study has been delayed; and 

(3) provide written notice to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate as to the reasons the requirements of subsection (a) 

are not attainable. 

(c) TERMINATION OF AUTHORIZATION.—A feasibility study for which the Secretary 

has issued a determination under subsection (b) is not authorized after the last day 

of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the determination if the Secretary has 

not completed the study on or before such last day. 

(d) REPORT.—Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

of the Senate a report that describes— 

(1) the status of the implementation of this section, including a description 

of each feasibility study subject to the requirements of this section; 

(2) the amount of time taken to complete each such feasibility study; and 

(3) any recommendations for additional authority necessary to support efforts 

to expedite the feasibility study process, including an analysis of whether the 

limitation established by subsection (a)(2) needs to be adjusted to address the 

impacts of inflation. 

(e) REVIEWS.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the initiation of a study 

described in subsection (a) for a project, the Secretary shall— 

(1) take all steps necessary to initiate the federally mandated reviews that 

the Secretary is required to complete as part of the study, including environmental reviews; 

(2) convene a meeting of all Federal, tribal, and State agencies identified 

under section 2045(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 

U.S.C. 2348(d)), as amended by this Act, and that may be required by law to 

conduct or issue a review, analysis, or opinion on or to make a determination 

concerning a permit or license for the study; 

(3) provide the agencies referred to in paragraph (2) with all relevant information related to the scope and potential impacts of the project, including environmental impacts; and 

(4) take all steps necessary to provide information that will enable required 

reviews and analyses related to the project to be conducted by other agencies 

in a thorough and timely manner. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

SEC. 102. EXPEDITING THE EVALUATION AND PROCESSING OF PERMITS. 

Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 

note) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘or public-utility company (as defined in section 1262 of 

the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16451))’’ after 

‘‘non-Federal public entity’’; 

(B) by inserting ‘‘or company’’ after ‘‘that entity’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that expediting the evaluation of a permit through the use of funds accepted and expended under this section does 

not adversely affect the timeline for evaluation (in the Corps district in 

which the project or activity is located) of permits under the jurisdiction of 

the Department of the Army of other entities that have not contributed 

funds under this section.’’; and 

(2) by striking subsection (e). 

SEC. 103. ENVIRONMENTAL STREAMLINING. 

(a) DECLARATION OF POLICY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Congress declares that— 

(A) the benefits of water resources projects are important to the Nation’s 

economy and environment; 

(B) it is in the national interest to expedite the delivery of water resources projects; 

(C) it is in the national interest for Federal and State agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, and other entities involved in water resources 

projects— 

(i) to accelerate study completion and project delivery and to reduce 

costs; and 

(ii) to ensure that the planning, design, engineering, construction, 

and funding of water resources projects is done in an efficient and effective manner, promoting accountability for public investments and encouraging greater local and private sector involvement in project financing and delivery while addressing public safety and protecting the 

environment; and 

(D) delay in the delivery of water resources studies and projects— 

(i) increases project costs, flood risks, and local and Federal expenditures for emergency management and recovery; 

(ii) harms the economy of the United States; and 

(iii) impedes the shipment of goods for the conduct of commerce. 

(2) POLICY.—Given the declarations set forth in paragraph (1), it is the policy 

of the United States that— 

(A) recommendations to Congress regarding such projects should be accelerated by coordinated and efficient environmental reviews and cooperative 

efforts to quickly resolve disputes during the development of water resources projects; 

(B) the Secretary shall have the lead role among Federal agencies in facilitating the environmental review process for water resources projects; 

(C) each Federal agency shall cooperate with the Secretary to expedite 

the environmental review process for water resources projects; 

(D) programmatic approaches shall be used if applicable to reduce the 

need for project-by-project reviews and decisions by Federal agencies; 

(E) the Secretary shall identify opportunities for non-Federal sponsors to 

assume responsibilities of the Secretary if such responsibilities can be assumed in a manner that protects public health and safety, the environment, 

and public participation; and 

(F) the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works shall identify and 

promote the deployment of innovations aimed at reducing the time and 

money required to deliver water resources projects while protecting the environment. 

(b) STREAMLINED PROJECT DELIVERY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2045 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2007 (33 U.S.C. 2348) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 2045. STREAMLINED PROJECT DELIVERY. 

‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply: 

‘‘(1) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.—The term ‘environmental impact 

statement’ means the detailed statement of environmental impacts required to 

be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

‘‘(2) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘environmental review process’ means the 

process of preparing an environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, categorical exclusion, or other document under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for a project study. 

‘‘(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘environmental review process’ includes the 

process for and completion of any environmental permit, approval, review, 

or study required for a project study under any Federal law other than the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

‘‘(3) FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY.—The term ‘Federal jurisdictional agency’ means a Federal agency with jurisdiction over a review, analysis, opinion, 

statement, permit, license, or other approval or decision required for a project 

study under applicable Federal laws, including regulations. 

‘‘(4) PROJECT.—The term ‘project’ means a Corps of Engineers water resources 

project. 

‘‘(5) PROJECT SPONSOR.—The term ‘project sponsor’ means the non-Federal interest as defined in section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 

1962d–5b). 

‘‘(6) PROJECT STUDY.—The term ‘project study’ means a feasibility study for 

a project carried out pursuant to section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282). 

‘‘(b) APPLICABILITY.—The procedures in this section are applicable to all project 

studies initiated after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 and for which an environmental impact statement is prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

and may be applied, to the extent determined appropriate by the Secretary, to other 

project studies initiated after such date of enactment and for which an environmental review process document is prepared under such Act. 

‘‘(c) LEAD AGENCIES.— 

‘‘(1) FEDERAL LEAD AGENCY.—The Corps of Engineers shall be the Federal 

lead agency in the environmental review process for a project study. 

‘‘(2) NON-FEDERAL PROJECT SPONSOR AS JOINT LEAD AGENCY.—At the discretion of the Secretary and subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a non-Federal project sponsor that is an agency defined in subsection (a)— 

‘‘(A) may serve as a joint lead agency with the Corps of Engineers for purposes of preparing any environmental review process document under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and 

‘‘(B) may assist in the preparation of any such environmental review process document required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 if the Secretary provides guidance in the preparation process, participates in preparing the document, independently evaluates that document, 

and approves and adopts the document before the Secretary takes any subsequent action or makes any approval based on that document. 

‘‘(3) ADOPTION AND USE OF DOCUMENTS.—Any environmental review process 

document prepared in accordance with this subsection shall be adopted and 

used by any Federal agency in making any approval of a project subject to this 

section as the document required to be completed under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to the same extent that the 

Federal agency may adopt or use a document prepared by another Federal 

agency under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq.). 

‘‘(4) ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY OF FEDERAL LEAD AGENCY.—With respect to 

the environmental review process for any project, the Federal lead agency shall 

have authority and responsibility— 

‘‘(A) to take such actions as are necessary and proper, within the authority of the Federal lead agency, to facilitate the expeditious resolution of the 

environmental review process for the project study; and 

‘‘(B) to prepare or ensure that any required environmental impact statement or other document for a project study required to be completed under 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is 

completed in accordance with this section and applicable Federal law. 

‘‘(d) PARTICIPATING AND COOPERATING AGENCIES.— 

‘‘(1) IDENTIFICATION.—The Federal lead agency shall identify, as early as 

practicable in the environmental review process for a project study, any Federal 

or State agency, local government, or Indian tribe that may— 

‘‘(A) have jurisdiction over the project; 

‘‘(B) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, analysis, opinion, 

or statement for the project study; or 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

‘‘(C) be required to make a determination on issuing a permit, license, or 

other approval or decision for the project study. 

‘‘(2) INVITATION.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal lead agency shall invite any such agency 

identified under paragraph (1) to become a participating or cooperating 

agency in the environmental review process for the project study. 

‘‘(B) DEADLINE.—An invitation to participate issued under subparagraph 

(A) shall establish a deadline by which a response to the invitation shall 

be submitted, which may be extended by the Federal lead agency for good 

cause. ‘‘(3) FEDERAL COOPERATING AGENCY.—Any Federal agency that is invited by 

the Federal lead agency to participate in the environmental review process for 

a project study shall be designated as a cooperating agency by the Federal lead 

agency unless the invited agency informs the Federal lead agency, in writing, 

by the deadline specified in the invitation that the invited agency— 

‘‘(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the project; 

‘‘(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the project study; and 

‘‘(C) does not intend to submit comments on the project study. 

‘‘(4) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.— ‘‘(A) REQUIREMENT.—A participating or cooperating agency shall comply 

with the requirements of this section and any schedule established under 

this section. 

‘‘(B) IMPLICATION.—Designation under this subsection shall not imply 

that the participating or cooperating agency— 

‘‘(i) supports a proposed project; or 

‘‘(ii) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with respect to 

evaluation of, the project. 

‘‘(5) CONCURRENT REVIEWS.—Each participating or cooperating agency shall— 

‘‘(A) carry out the obligations of that agency under other applicable law 

concurrently and in conjunction with the required environmental review 

process unless doing so would prevent such agency from conducting needed 

analysis or otherwise carrying out their obligations under those other laws; 

and 

‘‘(B) formulate and implement administrative, policy, and procedural 

mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure completion of the environmental review process in a timely, coordinated, and environmentally responsible manner. 

‘‘(e) PROGRAMMATIC COMPLIANCE.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall issue guidance regarding the use of 

programmatic approaches to carry out the environmental review process that— 

‘‘(A) eliminates repetitive discussions of the same issues; 

‘‘(B) focuses on the actual issues ripe for analyses at each level of review; 

‘‘(C) establishes a formal process for coordinating with participating and 

cooperating agencies, including the creation of a list of all data that is needed to carry out the environmental review process; and 

‘‘(D) complies with— 

‘‘(i) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq.); and 

‘‘(ii) all other applicable laws. 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall— 

‘‘(A) as the first step in drafting guidance under that paragraph, consult 

with relevant Federal and State agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, 

and the public on the use and scope of the programmatic approaches; 

‘‘(B) emphasize the importance of collaboration among relevant Federal 

agencies, State agencies, local governments, and Indian tribes in undertaking programmatic reviews, especially with respect to reviews with a 

broad geographical scope; 

‘‘(C) ensure that the programmatic reviews— 

‘‘(i) promote transparency, including of the analyses and data used in 

the environmental review process, the treatment of any deferred issues 

raised by a Federal or State agency, local government, Indian tribe, or 

the public, and the temporal and special scales to be used to analyze 

those issues; 

‘‘(ii) use accurate and timely information in the environmental review 

process, including— 

‘‘(I) criteria for determining the general duration of the usefulness of the review; and 

‘‘(II) the timeline for updating any out-of-date review; 

‘‘(iii) describe— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

‘‘(I) the relationship between programmatic analysis and future 

tiered analysis; and 

‘‘(II) the role of the public in the creation of future tiered analysis; and 

‘‘(iv) are available to other relevant Federal and State agencies, local 

governments, Indian tribes, and the public; 

‘‘(D) allow not less than 60 days of public notice and comment on any proposed guidance; and 

‘‘(E) address any comments received under subparagraph (D). 

‘‘(f) COORDINATED REVIEWS.— ‘‘(1) COORDINATION PLAN.— ‘‘(A) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Federal lead agency, after consultation with 

each participating and cooperating agency and the non-Federal project 

sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable, shall establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation in and comment on the environmental review process for a project study. 

‘‘(B) INCORPORATION.—In developing the plan established under subparagraph (A), the Federal lead agency shall take under consideration the 

scheduling requirements under section 101 of the Water Resources Reform 

and Development Act of 2013. 

‘‘(2) SCHEDULE.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal lead agency, after consultation with each 

participating and cooperating agency and the non-Federal project sponsor 

or joint lead agency, as applicable, shall establish, as part of the coordination plan established in paragraph (1)(A), a schedule for completion of the 

environmental review process for the project study. In developing the schedule, the Federal lead agency shall take under consideration the scheduling 

requirements under section 101 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013. 

‘‘(B) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In establishing the schedule, the Federal lead agency shall consider factors such as— 

‘‘(i) the responsibilities of participating and cooperating agencies 

under applicable laws; 

‘‘(ii) the resources available to the participating and cooperating 

agencies and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as 

applicable; 

‘‘(iii) the overall size and complexity of the project; 

‘‘(iv) the overall schedule for and cost of the project; and 

‘‘(v) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources that may be 

affected by the project. 

‘‘(C) CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER TIME PERIODS.—A schedule under subparagraph (A) shall be consistent with any other relevant time periods established under Federal law. 

‘‘(D) MODIFICATION.—The Federal lead agency may— 

‘‘(i) lengthen a schedule established under subparagraph (A) for good 

cause; or 

‘‘(ii) shorten a schedule only with the concurrence of the affected participating and cooperating agencies and the non-Federal project sponsor 

or joint lead agency, as applicable. 

‘‘(E) DISSEMINATION.—A copy of a schedule established under subparagraph (A) shall be— 

‘‘(i) provided to each participating and cooperating agency and the 

non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable; and 

‘‘(ii) made available to the public. 

‘‘(3) COMMENT DEADLINES.—The Federal lead agency shall establish the following deadlines for comment during the environmental review process for a 

project study: 

‘‘(A) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS.—For comments by 

agencies and the public on a draft environmental impact statement, a period of not more than 60 days after such document is made publicly available, unless— 

‘‘(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of the Federal 

lead agency, all participating and cooperating agencies, and the nonFederal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable; or 

‘‘(ii) the deadline is extended by the Federal lead agency for good 

cause. 

‘‘(B) OTHER COMMENT PERIODS.—For all other comment periods established by the Federal lead agency for agency or public comments in the environmental review process, a period of not more than 30 days after the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

date on which the materials for which comment is requested are made 

available, unless— 

‘‘(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of the Federal 

lead agency, all participating and cooperating agencies, and the nonFederal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable; or 

‘‘(ii) the deadline is extended by the Federal lead agency for good cause. ‘‘(4) DEADLINES FOR DECISIONS UNDER OTHER LAWS.— ‘‘(A) PRIOR APPROVAL DEADLINE.—If a participating or cooperating agency 

is required to make a determination regarding or otherwise approve or disapprove the project study prior to the record of decision or finding of no significant impact, such participating or cooperating agency shall make such 

determination or approval not later than 30 days after the Federal lead 

agency publishes notice of the availability of a final environmental impact 

statement or other final environmental document, or not later than such 

other date that is otherwise required by law, whichever occurs first. 

‘‘(B) OTHER DEADLINES.—With regard to any determination or approval of 

a participating or cooperating agency that is not subject to subparagraph 

(A), each participating or cooperating agency shall make any required determination or otherwise approve or disapprove the project study not later 

than 90 days after the date that the Federal lead agency approves the 

record of decision or finding of no significant impact for the project study, 

or not later than such other date that is otherwise required by law, whichever occurs first. 

‘‘(C) RECORD CLOSED.—In the event that any participating or cooperating 

agency fails to make a determination or approve or disapprove the project 

study within the applicable deadline described in subparagraph (A), the 

Federal lead agency may close the record and find the record sufficient for 

the project study as it relates to such agency determination or approval. 

‘‘(g) ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION.— 

‘‘(1) COOPERATION.—The Federal lead agency and participating and cooperating agencies shall work cooperatively in accordance with this section to identify and resolve issues that may delay completion of the environmental review 

process or result in the denial of any approval required for the project study 

under applicable laws. 

‘‘(2) FEDERAL LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal lead agency shall make information available to the participating and cooperating agencies as early as practicable 

in the environmental review process regarding the environmental and socioeconomic resources located within the project area and the general locations 

of the alternatives under consideration. 

‘‘(B) DATA SOURCES.—Such information under subparagraph (A) may be 

based on existing data sources, including geographic information systems 

mapping. 

‘‘(3) PARTICIPATING AND COOPERATING AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.—Based on 

information received from the Federal lead agency, participating and cooperating agencies shall identify, as early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the potential environmental or socioeconomic impacts of the project, including any issues that may substantially delay or prevent an agency from 

granting a permit or other approval that is needed for the project study. 

‘‘(4) ACCELERATED ISSUE RESOLUTION AND ELEVATION.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Upon the request of a participating or cooperating 

agency or non-Federal project sponsor, the Secretary shall convene an issue 

resolution meeting with the relevant participating and cooperating agencies 

and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable, to 

resolve issues that may— 

‘‘(i) delay completion of the environmental review process; or 

‘‘(ii) result in denial of any approval required for the project study 

under applicable laws. 

‘‘(B) MEETING DATE.—A meeting requested under this paragraph shall be 

held not later than 21 days after the date on which the Secretary receives 

the request for the meeting, unless the Secretary determines that there is 

good cause to extend that deadline. 

‘‘(C) NOTIFICATION.—Upon receipt of a request for a meeting under this 

paragraph, the Secretary shall notify all relevant participating and cooperating agencies of the request, including the issue to be resolved and the 

date for the meeting. 

‘‘(D) ELEVATION OF ISSUE RESOLUTION.—If a resolution cannot be achieved 

within 30 days after a meeting under this paragraph and a determination 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

is made by the Secretary that all information necessary to resolve the issue 

has been obtained, the Secretary shall forward the dispute to the heads of 

the relevant agencies for resolution. 

‘‘(E) CONVENTION BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary may convene an issue 

resolution meeting under this subsection at any time, at the discretion of 

the Secretary, regardless of whether a meeting is requested under subparagraph (A). 

‘‘(h) STREAMLINED DOCUMENTATION AND DECISIONMAKING.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal lead agency in the environmental review process for a project study, in order to reduce paperwork and expedite decisionmaking, shall prepare a condensed final environmental impact statement under 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

‘‘(2) CONDENSED FORMAT.—A condensed final environmental impact statement 

for a project study in the environmental review process shall consist only of— 

‘‘(A) an incorporation by reference of the draft environmental impact 

statement; 

‘‘(B) any updates to specific pages or sections of the draft environmental 

impact statement as appropriate; and 

‘‘(C) responses to comments on the draft environmental impact statement 

and copies of the comments. 

‘‘(3) TIMING OF DECISION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in conducting the environmental review process for a project study, the Federal lead 

agency shall combine a final environmental impact statement and a record of 

decision for the project study into a single document if— 

‘‘(A) the alternative approved in the record of decision is either a preferred alternative identified in the draft environmental impact statement or 

is a modification of such preferred alternative developed in response to comments on the draft environmental impact statement; and 

‘‘(B) the Federal lead agency has a written commitment from parties responsible for implementation of the measures applicable to the approved alternative that are identified in the final environmental impact statement 

that they will implement those measures. 

‘‘(i) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section shall preempt or interfere with— 

‘‘(1) any practice of seeking, considering, or responding to public comment; or 

‘‘(2) any power, jurisdiction, responsibility, or authority that a Federal or 

State agency, local government, Indian tribe, or non-Federal project sponsor has 

with respect to carrying out a project study or any other provision of law applicable to a project. 

‘‘(j) TIMING OF CLAIMS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a claim arising 

under Federal law seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or other approval 

issued by a Federal agency for a project study shall be barred unless it is filed 

not later than 150 days after publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the permit, license, or other approval is final pursuant to the law 

under which the agency action is taken, unless a shorter time is specified in 

the Federal law which allows judicial review. Nothing in this subsection shall 

create a right to judicial review or place any limit on filing a claim that a person has violated the terms of a permit, license, or other approval. 

‘‘(2) NEW INFORMATION.—The Secretary shall consider new information received after the close of a comment period if the information satisfies the requirements for a supplemental environmental impact statement under title 40, 

Code of Federal Regulations. The preparation of a supplemental environmental 

impact statement or other environmental document when required by this section shall be considered a separate final agency action and the deadline for filing a claim for judicial review of such action shall be 150 days after the date 

of publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing such action. 

‘‘(k) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

subsection, the Secretary shall— 

‘‘(A) survey the use by the Corps of Engineers of categorical exclusions 

in projects; 

‘‘(B) publish a review of the survey that includes a description of— 

‘‘(i) the types of actions that were categorically excluded or may be 

the basis for developing a new categorical exclusion; and 

‘‘(ii) any requests previously received by the Secretary for new categorical exclusions; and 

‘‘(C) solicit requests from other Federal agencies and non-Federal project 

sponsors for new categorical exclusions. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

‘‘(2) NEW CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of this subsection, if the Secretary identifies, based on the review 

under paragraph (1), a category of activities that merit establishing a categorical exclusion not in existence on the day before the date of enactment of this 

subsection, the Secretary shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose that new categorical exclusion, to the extent that the categorical exclusion 

meets the criteria for a categorical exclusion under section 1508.4 of title 40, 

Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulation). 

‘‘(l) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE.—The Secretary shall prepare guidance documents that describe the processes that the Secretary will use to implement this section.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 is amended by striking the item 

relating to section 2045 and inserting the following: 

‘‘Sec. 2045. Streamlined project delivery.’’. 

(c) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION IN EMERGENCIES.—For the repair, reconstruction, or 

rehabilitation of a water resources project that is in operation or under construction 

when damaged by an event or incident that results in a declaration by the President 

of a major disaster or emergency pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Secretary shall treat 

such repair, reconstruction, or rehabilitation activity as a class of action categorically excluded from the requirements relating to environmental assessments or environmental impact statements under section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, if such repair or reconstruction activity is in the same location with the 

same capacity, dimensions, and design as the original water resources project as before the declaration described in this section. 

SEC. 104. CONSOLIDATION OF STUDIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) REPEAL.—Section 905(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2282(b)) is repealed. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 905(a)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

2282(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘perform a reconnaissance study and’’. 

(b) CONTENTS OF FEASIBILITY REPORTS.—Section 905(a)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

2282(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘A feasibility report shall 

include a preliminary analysis of the Federal interest and the costs, benefits, and 

environmental impacts of the project.’’. 

(c) APPLICABILITY.—The Secretary shall continue to carry out a study for which 

a reconnaissance level investigation has been initiated before the date of enactment 

of this Act as if this section, including the amendments made by this section, had 

not been enacted. 

SEC. 105. REMOVAL OF DUPLICATIVE ANALYSES. 

Section 911 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2288) is 

repealed. 

SEC. 106. EXPEDITING APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS AND ALTERATIONS OF PROJECTS BY 

NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary, after providing notice and an opportunity for comment, shall establish a process for the review of section 14 applications in a timely and consistent 

manner. 

(b) SECTION 14 APPLICATION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘section 14 application’’ means an application submitted by an applicant to the Secretary requesting 

permission for the temporary occupation or use of a public work, or the alteration 

or permanent occupation or use of a public work, under section 14 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 

of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved 

March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the ‘‘Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 

1899’’) (33 U.S.C. 408). 

(c) BENCHMARK GOALS.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF BENCHMARK GOALS.—In carrying out subsection (a), 

the Secretary shall— 

(A) establish benchmark goals for determining the amount of time it 

should take the Secretary to determine whether a section 14 application is 

complete; 

(B) establish benchmark goals for determining the amount of time it 

should take the Secretary to approve or disapprove a section 14 application; 

and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

(C) to the extent practicable, use such benchmark goals to make a decision on section 14 applications in a timely and consistent manner. 

(2) BENCHMARK GOALS.— 

(A) BENCHMARK GOALS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER SECTION 14 APPLICATIONS ARE COMPLETE.—To the extent practicable, the benchmark goals established under paragraph (1) shall provide that— 

(i) the Secretary reach a decision on whether a section 14 application 

is complete not later than 15 days after the date of receipt of the application; and 

(ii) if the Secretary determines that a section 14 application is not 

complete, the Secretary promptly notify the applicant of the specific information that is missing or the analysis that is needed to complete the 

application. 

(B) BENCHMARK GOALS FOR REVIEWING COMPLETED APPLICATIONS.—To the 

extent practicable, the benchmark goals established under paragraph (1) 

shall provide that— 

(i) the Secretary generally approve or disapprove a completed section 

14 application not later than 45 days after the date of receipt of the 

completed application; and 

(ii) in a case in which the Secretary determines that additional time 

is needed to review a completed section 14 application due to the type, 

size, cost, complexity, or impacts of the actions proposed in the application, the Secretary approve or disapprove the application not later than 

180 days after the date of receipt of the completed application. 

(3) NOTICE.—In any case in which the Secretary determines that it will take 

the Secretary more than 45 days to review a completed section 14 application, 

the Secretary shall— 

(A) provide written notification to the applicant; and 

(B) include in the written notice a best estimate of the Secretary as to 

the amount of time required for completion of the review. 

(d) FAILURE TO ACHIEVE BENCHMARK GOALS.—In any case in which the Secretary 

fails make a decision on a section 14 application in accordance with the process established under this section, the Secretary shall provide written notice to the applicant, including a detailed description of— 

(1) why the Secretary failed to make a decision in accordance with such process; 

(2) the additional actions required before the Secretary will issue a decision; 

and 

(3) the amount of time the Secretary will require to issue a decision. 

(e) NOTIFICATION.— 

(1) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—The Secretary shall provide a copy of any 

written notice provided under subsection (d) to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. 

(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary shall maintain a publicly available 

database, including on the Internet, on— 

(A) all section 14 applications received by the Secretary; and 

(B) the current status of such applications. 

SEC. 107. CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS. 

(a) CONSTRUCTION OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.—Section 211 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b–13) is amended— 

(1) in the section heading by striking ‘‘FLOOD CONTROL’’ and inserting 

‘‘WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘flood control’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘water resources development’’. 

(b) COMPLETION OF STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES.—Section 211(c) of such Act 

(33 U.S.C. 701b–13(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘date of the enactment of this Act’’ 

and inserting ‘‘date of enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act of 2013’’. 

(c) AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT IMPROVEMENTS.—Section 211(d)(1) of such Act (33 

U.S.C. 701b–13(d)(1)) is amended— 

(1) by striking subparagraph (A)(i) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—A non-Federal interest may carry out construction 

for which studies and design documents are prepared under subsection 

(b) only if— 

‘‘(I) the Secretary approves the project for construction; and 

‘‘(II) the project is specifically authorized by Congress.’’; and 

(2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

‘‘(B) STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES UNDER SUBSECTION (c).—Any nonFederal interest that has received from the Secretary under subsection (c) 

a favorable recommendation to carry out a water resources development 

project, or separable element thereof, based on the results of completed 

studies and design documents for the project or element may carry out the 

project or element if— 

‘‘(i) a final environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) has been filed for 

the project or element; and 

‘‘(ii) the project is specifically authorized by Congress.’’. 

(d) REIMBURSEMENT.—Section 211(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b–13(e)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

(A) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(B) in subparagraph (C) by striking the period at the end and inserting 

‘‘; and’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(D) if the project is specifically authorized by Congress.’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (6)— 

(A) by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating subparagraphs (C) 

and (D) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and 

(B) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘At the request’’ and inserting ‘‘In accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), at the 

request’’; and 

(ii) by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, or toward the non-Federal share of any other authorized water resources development study or project of such non-Federal interest’’. 

(e) OTHER MATTERS.—Section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b–13) is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(h) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION PROJECTS.—Whenever a nonFederal interest constructs improvements to a harbor or inland harbor, the Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance in accordance with section 101(b) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)) if— 

‘‘(1) the Secretary determines, before construction, that the improvements, or 

separable elements thereof, are economically justified and environmentally acceptable; 

‘‘(2) the Secretary certifies that the project is constructed in accordance with 

applicable permits and the appropriate engineering and design standards; 

‘‘(3) the Secretary does not find that the project, or separable element thereof, 

is no longer economically justified or environmentally acceptable; and 

‘‘(4) the project is specifically authorized by Congress. 

‘‘(i) IMPLEMENTATION.—All laws and regulations that would apply to the Secretary 

if the Secretary were carrying out a project shall apply to the non-Federal interest 

carrying out a project under this section. 

‘‘(j) NOTIFICATION OF COMMITTEES.—The Secretary shall notify in writing the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate prior to initiation of negotiations with a non-Federal interest regarding the utilization of the authorities under this section.’’. 

(f) REPEALS.—The following provisions are repealed: 

(1) Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2232). 

(2) Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 

426i–1) and the item relating to that section in the table of contents contained 

in section 1(b) of that Act. 

(3) Section 404 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 

2232 note; 104 Stat. 4646) and the item relating to that section in the table of 

contents contained in section 1(b) of that Act. 

SEC. 108. CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 

purposes’’, approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘from States and political subdivisions thereof,’’ and inserting 

‘‘from a non-Federal interest (as defined in section 221 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b))’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘, which includes planning and design’’; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

(3) by inserting ‘‘, including a project for navigation on the inland waterways,’’ 

after ‘‘study or project’’; 

(4) by striking ‘‘by States and political subdivisions thereof,’’ and inserting ‘‘by 

a non-Federal interest’’; 

(5) by striking ‘‘: Provided further, That the term ‘States’ means the several 

States, the District of Columbia, the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States, and Federally recognized Indian tribes’’; and 

(6) by inserting ‘‘: And provided further, That the term ‘work’ means the planning, design, or construction of an authorized water resources development 

study or project, or the repair, restoration, or replacement of an authorized 

water resources development project that has been damaged by an event or incident that results in a declaration by the President of a major disaster or emergency pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)’’ after ‘‘contributing interests’’. 

(b) NOTIFICATION FOR CONTRIBUTED FUNDS.—Prior to the initiation of negotiations 

for accepting contributed funds under section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, 

and for other purposes’’, approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), the Secretary 

shall provide written notice to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of 

the Senate. 

(c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.—The following provisions are repealed: 

(1) Section 111(b) of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (125 Stat. 858). 

(2) Section 4 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved March 4, 1915 (33 U.S.C. 560). 

SEC. 109. CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS FOR MANAGEMENT OF CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS INLAND NAVIGATION FACILITIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(33 U.S.C. 2328) is amended— 

(1) by striking the section designation and heading and inserting the following: 

‘‘SEC. 225. CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS FOR MANAGEMENT OF CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS FACILITIES.’’; 

(2) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘managing recreation facilities’’ and inserting 

‘‘operating, maintaining, and managing inland navigational facilities, recreational facilities,’’; and 

(3) in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘and management of recreation facilities’’ and 

inserting ‘‘, maintenance, and management of inland navigation facilities, recreational facilities,’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1992 is amended by striking the item relating 

to section 225 and inserting the following: 

‘‘225. Contributions by non-Federal interests for management of Corps of Engineers facilities.’’. 

SEC. 110. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS. 

Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘In order to insure’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In order 

to insure’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—Notwithstanding subsection 

(a), in accordance with section 5 of the Act entitled ‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 

purposes’, approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), the Secretary may accept funds 

from a non-Federal interest for any authorized water resources development project 

that has exceeded its maximum cost under subsection (a), and use such funds to 

carry out such project, if the use of such funds does not increase the Federal share 

of the cost of such project.’’. 

SEC. 111. CLARIFICATION OF IMPACTS TO OTHER FEDERAL FACILITIES. 

In any case where the modification or construction of a water resources development project carried out by the Secretary adversely impacts other Federal facilities, 

the Secretary may accept from other Federal agencies such funds as may be necessary to address the adverse impact, including by removing, relocating, or reconstructing such facilities. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

SEC. 112. CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED WORK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out measures to improve fish species 

habitat within the boundaries and downstream of a water resources project constructed by the Secretary that includes a fish hatchery if the Secretary— 

(1) has been explicitly authorized to compensate for fish losses associated with 

the project; and 

(2) determines that the measures are— 

(A) feasible; 

(B) consistent with authorized project purposes and the fish hatchery; 

and 

(C) in the public interest. 

(b) COST SHARING.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the non-Federal interest shall contribute 35 percent of the total cost of carrying out activities under this section, 

including the costs relating to the provision or acquisition of required land, 

easements, rights-of-way, dredged material disposal areas, and relocations. 

(2) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal interest shall contribute 

100 percent of the costs of operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, and rehabilitation of the measures carried out under this section. 

SEC. 113. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(33 U.S.C. 2269) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (d)(1)(B)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘The ability’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The ability’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(ii) DETERMINATION.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, 

the Secretary shall issue guidance on the procedures described in 

clause (i).’’; and 

(2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(e) RESTRICTIONS.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out activities under this 

section in fiscal years 2014 through 2023.’’. 

(b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH INDIAN TRIBES.—The Secretary may enter 

into a cooperative agreement with an Indian tribe (or a designated representative 

of an Indian tribe) to carry out authorized activities of the Corps of Engineers to 

protect fish, wildlife, water quality, and cultural resources. 

SEC. 114. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. 

(a) LIMITATION; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—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 nonFederal 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) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subparagraph may 

be construed to affect the applicability of subparagraph (C).’’. 

(b) WATER RESOURCES PROJECT DEFINED.—Section 221(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

1962d–5b(b)) is amended— 

(1) by moving paragraphs (1) and (2) and the matter following paragraph (2) 

2 ems to the right; 

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

(3) by striking ‘‘(b) DEFINITION’’ and all that follows through ‘‘The term’’ and 

inserting the following: 

‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.— 

‘‘(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, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

water supply, recreation, hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife conservation, 

water quality, environmental infrastructure, resource protection and development, and related purposes.’’. 

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

by striking ‘‘enforcible’’ and inserting ‘‘enforceable’’. 

(d) FEDERAL ALLOCATION.—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.’’. 

(e) IN-KIND CREDIT.—Section 221(a)(4)(C) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)(4)(C)) is amended by striking ‘‘In any case’’ and all that follows 

through the period at the end and inserting the following: 

‘‘(i) CONSTRUCTION.— 

‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which the non-Federal interest 

is to receive credit under subparagraph (A) for the cost of construction carried out by the non-Federal interest before execution of a 

partnership agreement and that construction has not been carried 

out as of the date of enactment of this clause, the Secretary and 

the non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement under 

which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such work and shall 

do so prior to the non-Federal interest initiating construction or 

issuing a written notice to proceed for the construction. 

‘‘(II) ELIGIBILITY.—Construction that is carried out after the execution of an agreement under subclause (I) and any design activities that are required for that construction, even if the design activity is carried out prior to the execution of the agreement, shall 

be eligible for credit. 

‘‘(ii) PLANNING.— 

‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which the non-Federal interest 

is to receive credit under subparagraph (A) for the cost of planning 

carried out by the non-Federal interest before execution of a feasibility cost sharing agreement, the Secretary and the non-Federal 

interest shall enter into an agreement under which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such planning and shall do so prior to 

the non-Federal interest initiating that planning. 

‘‘(II) ELIGIBILITY.—Planning that is carried out by the non-Federal interest after the execution of an agreement under subclause 

(I) shall be eligible for credit.’’. 

SEC. 115. WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PILOT PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot program to evaluate the 

cost effectiveness and project delivery efficiency of allowing non-Federal interests to 

carry out authorized water resources development projects for coastal harbor improvement, channel improvement, inland navigation, flood damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and hurricane and storm damage reduction. 

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the pilot program established under subsection 

(a) are— 

(1) to identify cost-saving project delivery alternatives that reduce the backlog 

of authorized Corps of Engineers projects; and 

(2) to evaluate the technical, financial, and organizational benefits of allowing 

a non-Federal interest to carry out and manage the design or construction (or 

both) of 1 or more of such projects. 

(c) SUBSEQUENT APPROPRIATIONS.—Any activity undertaken under this section is 

authorized only to the extent specifically provided for in subsequent appropriations 

Acts. 

(d) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out the pilot program established under subsection (a), the Secretary shall— 

(1) identify for inclusion in the program at least 15 projects that are authorized for construction for coastal harbor improvement, channel improvement, inland navigation, flood damage reduction, or hurricane and storm damage reduction; 

(2) notify in writing the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works of the Senate of each project identified under paragraph (1); 

(3) in consultation with the non-Federal interest associated with each project 

identified under paragraph (1), develop a detailed project management plan for 

the project that outlines the scope, financing, budget, design, and construction 

resource requirements necessary for the non-Federal interest to execute the 

project, or a separable element of the project; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

(4) at the request of the non-Federal interest associated with each project 

identified under paragraph (1), enter into a project partnership agreement with 

the non-Federal interest under which the non-Federal interest is provided full 

project management control for the financing, design, or construction (or any 

combination thereof) of the project, or a separable element of the project, in accordance with plans approved by the Secretary; 

(5) following execution of a project partnership agreement under paragraph 

(4) and completion of all work under the agreement, issue payment, in accordance with subsection (g), to the relevant non-Federal interest for that work; and 

(6) regularly monitor and audit each project carried out under the program 

to ensure that all activities related to the project are carried out in compliance 

with plans approved by the Secretary and that construction costs are reasonable. 

(e) SELECTION CRITERIA.—In identifying projects under subsection (d)(1), the Secretary shall consider the extent to which the project— 

(1) is significant to the economy of the United States; 

(2) leverages Federal investment by encouraging non-Federal contributions to 

the project; 

(3) employs innovative project delivery and cost-saving methods; 

(4) received Federal funds in the past and experienced delays or missed 

scheduled deadlines; 

(5) has unobligated Corps of Engineers funding balances; and 

(6) has not received Federal funding for recapitalization and modernization 

since the project was authorized. 

(f) DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULE.—Not later than 180 days after entering into a 

project partnership agreement under subsection (d)(4), a non-Federal interest, to the 

maximum extent practicable, shall submit to the Secretary a detailed project schedule for the relevant project, based on estimated funding levels, that specifies deadlines for each milestone with respect to the project. 

(g) PAYMENT.—Payment to the non-Federal interest for work completed pursuant 

to a project partnership agreement under subsection (d)(4) may be made from— 

(1) if applicable, the balance of the unobligated amounts appropriated for the 

project; 

(2) other amounts appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, except that the 

total amount transferred to the non-Federal interest may not exceed the estimate of the Federal share of the cost of construction, including any required design; and 

(3) revenue generated by the project. 

(h) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—At the request of a non-Federal interest participating in the pilot program established under subsection (a), the Secretary may provide to the non-Federal interest, if the non-Federal interest contracts with and compensates the Secretary, technical assistance with respect to— 

(1) a study, engineering activity, or design activity related to a project carried 

out by the non-Federal interest under the program; and 

(2) obtaining permits necessary for such a project. 

(i) IDENTIFICATION OF IMPEDIMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— 

(A) except as provided in paragraph (2), identify any procedural requirements under the authority of the Secretary that impede greater use of public-private partnerships and private investment in water resources development projects; 

(B) develop and implement, on a project-by-project basis, procedures and 

approaches that— 

(i) address such impediments; and 

(ii) protect the public interest and any public investment in water resources development projects that involve public-private partnerships 

or private investment in water resources development projects; and 

(C) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, issue 

rules to carry out the procedures and approaches developed under subparagraph (B). 

(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section may be construed to 

allow the Secretary to waive any requirement under— 

(A) sections 3141 through 3148 and sections 3701 through 3708 of title 

40, United States Code; 

(B) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.); or 

(C) any other provision of Federal law. 

(j) PUBLIC BENEFIT STUDIES.— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before entering into a project partnership agreement under 

subsection (d)(4), the Secretary shall conduct an assessment of whether, and 

provide justification in writing to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate that, the proposed agreement provides better 

public and financial benefits than a similar transaction using public funding or 

financing. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—An assessment under paragraph (1) shall— 

(A) be completed in a period of not more than 90 days; 

(B) take into consideration any supporting materials and data submitted 

by the relevant non-Federal interest and other stakeholders; and 

(C) determine whether the proposed project partnership agreement is in 

the public interest by determining whether the agreement will provide public and financial benefits, including expedited project delivery and savings 

for taxpayers. 

(k) NON-FEDERAL FUNDING.—A project carried out under the pilot program established under subsection (a) may consist of the non-Federal interest financing the 

non-Federal share of the project. 

(l) APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL LAW.—Any provision of Federal law that would 

apply to the Secretary if the Secretary were carrying out a project shall apply to 

a non-Federal interest carrying out a project under this section. 

(m) COST SHARE.—Nothing in this section affects a cost-sharing requirement 

under Federal law that is applicable to a project carried out under the pilot program 

established under subsection (a). 

(n) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

of the Senate a report describing the results of the pilot program established under 

subsection (a), including any recommendations of the Secretary concerning whether 

the program or any component of the program should be implemented on a national 

basis. 

(o) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘non-Federal interest’’ includes non-Federal government entities and private entities. 

SEC. 116. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than February 1 of each year, the Secretary shall develop and submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 

the Senate an annual report, to be entitled ‘‘Report to Congress on Future Water 

Resources Development’’, that identifies the following: 

(1) FEASIBILITY REPORTS.—Each feasibility report that meets the criteria established in subsection (c)(1)(A). 

(2) PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES.—Any proposed feasibility study submitted 

to the Secretary by a non-Federal interest pursuant to subsection (b) that meets 

the criteria established in subsection (c)(1)(A). 

(3) PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS.—Any proposed modification to an authorized 

water resources development project or feasibility study that meets the criteria 

established in subsection (c)(1)(A) that— 

(A) is submitted to the Secretary by a non-Federal interest pursuant to 

subsection (b); or 

(B) is identified by the Secretary for authorization. 

(b) REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS.— 

(1) PUBLICATION.—Not later than May 1 of each year, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a notice requesting proposals from non-Federal interests for proposed feasibility studies and proposed modifications to authorized 

water resources development projects and feasibility studies to be included in 

the annual report. 

(2) DEADLINE FOR REQUESTS.—The Secretary shall include in each notice required by this subsection a requirement that non-Federal interests submit to 

the Secretary any proposals described in paragraph (1) by not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of the notice in the Federal Register in order 

for such proposals to be considered for inclusion in the annual report. 

(3) NOTIFICATION.—On the date of publication of each notice required by this 

subsection, the Secretary shall— 

(A) make the notice publicly available, including on the Internet; and 

(B) provide written notification of such publication to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. 

(c) CONTENTS.— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

(1) FEASIBILITY REPORTS, PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDIES, AND PROPOSED MODI- FICATIONS.— (A) CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN REPORT.—The Secretary shall include in 

the annual report only those feasibility reports, proposed feasibility studies, 

and proposed modifications to authorized water resources development 

projects and feasibility studies that— 

(i) are related to the missions and authorities of the Corps of Engineers; 

(ii) require specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise; 

(iii) are not authorized by Congress; 

(iv) have not been included in any previous annual report; and 

(v) if authorized, could be carried out by the Corps of Engineers. 

(B) DESCRIPTION OF BENEFITS.—For each proposed feasibility study and 

proposed modification to an authorized water resources development project 

or feasibility study included in the annual report, the Secretary shall describe the potential benefit of the proposed feasibility study or modification, 

including, to the extent applicable, whether the water resources development project that is the subject of the proposed feasibility study, or the proposed modification, will— 

(i) reduce risks to human life or public safety or property; 

(ii) benefit the national economy; 

(iii) stimulate the creation of jobs; 

(iv) reduce the need for future disaster relief; 

(v) promote the development and delivery of domestic energy resources; 

(vi) improve the competitiveness of United States exports; 

(vii) improve water-related transportation for interstate or international commerce; 

(viii) restore or protect, or mitigate the impacts of a water resources 

development project on, the environment; or 

(ix) promote the use of cost-effective and sustainable solutions to 

water resources challenges. 

(2) TRANSPARENCY.—The Secretary shall include in the annual report, for 

each feasibility report, proposed feasibility study, and proposed modification to 

an authorized water resources development project or feasibility study included 

under paragraph (1)(A)— 

(A) the name of the associated non-Federal interest, including the name 

of any non-Federal interest that has contributed, or is expected to contribute, a non-Federal share of the cost of— 

(i) the feasibility report; 

(ii) the proposed feasibility study; 

(iii) the authorized feasibility study for which the modification is proposed; or 

(iv) construction of— 

(I) the water resources development project that is the subject 

of— 

(aa) the feasibility report; 

(bb) the proposed feasibility study; or 

(cc) the authorized feasibility study for which a modification 

is proposed; or 

(II) the proposed modification to an authorized water resources 

development project; 

(B) a letter or statement of support for the feasibility report, proposed 

feasibility study, or proposed modification to an authorized water resources 

development project or feasibility study from each associated non-Federal 

interest; 

(C) the purpose of the feasibility report, proposed feasibility study, or proposed modification to an authorized water resources development project or 

feasibility study; 

(D) an estimate of the Federal, non-Federal, and total costs of— 

(i) the proposed feasibility study, or proposed modification to an authorized feasibility study; and 

(ii) construction of— 

(I) the water resources development project that is the subject 

of— 

(aa) the feasibility report; or 

(bb) the authorized feasibility study for which a modification 

is proposed, with respect to the change in costs resulting from 

such modification; or 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

(II) the proposed modification to an authorized water resources 

development project; and 

(E) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the monetary and nonmonetary benefits of— 

(i) the water resources development project that is the subject of— 

(I) the feasibility report; 

(II) the proposed feasibility study; or 

(III) the authorized feasibility study for which a modification is 

proposed, with respect to the benefits of such modification; or 

(ii) the proposed modification to an authorized water resources development project. 

(3) CERTIFICATION.—The Secretary shall include in the annual report a certification stating that each feasibility report, proposed feasibility study, and proposed modification to an authorized water resources development project or feasibility study included in the annual report meets the criteria in paragraph 

(1)(A). 

(4) APPENDIX.—The Secretary shall include in the annual report an appendix 

listing the proposals submitted under subsection (b) that were not included in 

the annual report under paragraph (1)(A) and a description of why the Secretary determined that those proposals did not meet the criteria for inclusion 

under such paragraph. 

(d) SPECIAL RULE FOR INITIAL ANNUAL REPORT.—Notwithstanding any other deadlines required by this section, the Secretary shall— 

(1) not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, publish in 

the Federal Register a notice required by subsection (b)(1); 

(2) include in such notice a requirement that non-Federal interests submit to 

the Secretary any proposals described in subsection (b)(1) by not later than 90 

days after the date of publication of such notice in the Federal Register in order 

for such proposals to be considered for inclusion in the first annual report developed by the Secretary under this section; and 

(3) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, submit 

an annual report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

of the Senate. 

(e) PUBLICATION.—Upon submission of the annual report to Congress, the Secretary shall make the annual report publicly available, including through publication on the Internet. 

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply: 

(1) ANNUAL REPORT.—The term ‘‘annual report’’ means the report required by 

subsection (a). 

(2) FEASIBILITY REPORT.—The term ‘‘feasibility report’’ means a final feasibility report developed under section 905 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), and includes— 

(A) a report described in section 105(d)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

2215(d)(2)); and 

(B) where applicable, any associated report of the Chief of Engineers. 

(3) FEASIBILITY STUDY.—The term ‘‘feasibility study’’ has the meaning given 

that term in section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2215). 

(4) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The term ‘‘non-Federal interest’’ has the meaning given that term in section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 

1962d–5b). 

SEC. 117. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL BUDGET 

SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS. 

(a) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN

PRESIDENT’S BUDGET.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year, as part of the President’s annual budget submission to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 

the President shall— 

(A) identify and recommend Corps of Engineers construction projects for 

which Congress should provide funding at the full level authorized for the 

project; and 

(B) provide an explanation of the process used by the President in making the recommendations. 

(2) COVERED PERIOD.—The President shall make recommendations under 

paragraph (1) for the fiscal year for which the budget submission is prepared 

and each of the succeeding 4 fiscal years. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

(3) BASIS FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS.—The President shall base recommendations under paragraph (1) on the assumption that $2,000,000,000 will 

be appropriated for Corps of Engineers construction projects for each fiscal year. 

(b) MISSOURI RIVER BASIN.—To assist in the prioritization of Federal activities 

carried out related to the project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Missouri 

River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (100 Stat. 4143), and in conjunction with the President’s submission to Congress of a budget under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that provides— 

(1) an inventory of all Federal actions taken and a prioritization of all Federal 

actions planned in furtherance of the project, including an inventory of lands 

owned, acquired, or directly controlled by the Federal Government, and lands 

enrolled in federally assisted conservation programs; 

(2) a description of the specific Federal actions proposed for the upcoming fiscal year in furtherance of the project; 

(3) an assessment of the progress made in furtherance of the project, including a description of how each of the actions identified under paragraph (1) have 

impacted such progress; and 

(4) an assessment of additional actions necessary to achieve the results of the 

project. 

SEC. 118. HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY. 

As part of the study for flood and storm damage reduction related to natural disasters to be carried out by the Secretary under title II of division A of the Disaster 

Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, under the heading ‘‘Department of the Army— 

Corps of Engineers—Civil—Investigations’’ (127 Stat. 5), the Secretary shall make 

specific project recommendations. The Secretary may include those recommendations in the report entitled ‘‘Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development’’, developed in accordance with this Act. 

SEC. 119. NON-FEDERAL PLANS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLOOD RISK REDUCTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—If requested by a non-Federal interest, the Secretary shall carry 

out a locally preferred plan that provides a higher level of protection than a flood 

risk management project authorized under this Act if the Secretary determines 

that— 

(1) the plan is technically feasible and environmentally acceptable; and 

(2) the benefits of the plan exceed the costs of the plan. 

(b) NON-FEDERAL COSTS.—If the Secretary carries out a locally preferred plan 

under subsection (a), the cost attributable to the higher level of protection provided 

under the plan shall be paid by the non-Federal interest. 

SEC. 120. REVIEW OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE AUTHORITIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall undertake a review of implementation of 

section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public 

works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), to evaluate the alternatives available to the Secretary to ensure— 

(1) the safety of affected communities to future flooding and storm events; 

(2) the resiliency of water resources development projects to future flooding 

and storm events; 

(3) the long-term cost effectiveness of water resources development projects 

that provide flood control and hurricane and storm damage reduction benefits; 

and 

(4) the policy goals and objectives that have been outlined by the President 

as a response to recent extreme weather events, including Hurricane Sandy, 

that relate to preparing for future floods are met. 

(b) SCOPE OF REVIEW.—In carrying out the review, the Secretary shall— 

(1) review the historical precedents and implementation of section 5 of such 

Act, including those actions undertaken by the Secretary, over time, under that 

section— 

(A) to repair or restore a project; and 

(B) to increase the level of protection for a damaged project to address 

future conditions; 

(2) evaluate the difference between adopting, as an appropriate standard 

under section 5 of such Act, the repair or restoration of a project to pre-flood 

or pre-storm levels and the repair or restoration of a project to a design level 

of protection, including an assessment for each standard of— 

(A) the implications on populations at risk of flooding or damage; 

(B) the implications on probability of loss of life; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

(C) the implications on property values at risk of flooding or damage; 

(D) the implications on probability of increased property damage and associated costs; 

(E) the implications on local and regional economies; and 

(F) the estimated total cost and estimated cost savings; 

(3) incorporate the science on expected rates of sea-level rise and extreme 

weather events; and 

(4) incorporate the work completed by the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task 

Force, established by Executive Order 13632 (December 7, 2012). 

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this section, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results of the review. 

SEC. 121. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION OF RISK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In any river basin where the Secretary carries out flood risk 

management activities subject to an annual operating plan, the Secretary shall establish procedures for providing the public and affected governments, including Indian tribes, in the river basin with— 

(1) timely information regarding expected water levels; 

(2) advice regarding appropriate preparedness actions; 

(3) technical assistance; and 

(4) any other information or assistance determined appropriate by the Secretary. 

(b) PROCEDURES.—The Secretary shall utilize the procedures only when precipitation or runoff exceeds those calculations considered as the lowest risk to life and 

property contemplated by the annual operating plan. 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply: 

(1) AFFECTED GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘‘affected government’’ means a State, 

local, or tribal government with jurisdiction over an area that will be affected 

by a flood. 

(2) ANNUAL OPERATING PLAN.—The term ‘‘annual operating plan’’ means a 

plan prepared by the Secretary that describes potential water condition scenarios for a river basin for a year. 

SEC. 122. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ACT. 

(a) ADMINISTRATOR.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467 et 

seq.) is amended by striking ‘‘Director’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Administrator’’. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 2(3) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 467(3)) is 

amended in the paragraph heading by striking ‘‘DIRECTOR’’ and inserting ‘‘ADMINISTRATOR’’. 

(b) INSPECTION OF DAMS.—Section 3(b)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 467a(b)(1)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘or maintenance’’ and inserting ‘‘maintenance, condition, or 

provision for emergency operations’’. 

(c) NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.— 

(1) OBJECTIVES.—Section 8(c)(4) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 467f(c)(4)) is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘(4) develop and implement a comprehensive dam safety hazard education 

and public awareness initiative to assist the public in mitigating against, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from dam incidents;’’. 

(2) BOARD.—Section 8(f)(4) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 467f(f)(4)) is amended by 

inserting ‘‘, representatives from nongovernmental organizations,’’ after ‘‘State 

agencies’’. 

SEC. 123. RESTRICTED AREAS AT CORPS OF ENGINEERS DAMS. 

Section 2 of the Freedom to Fish Act (Public Law 113–13; 127 Stat. 449) is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘until the date that is 2 years after the 

date of enactment of this Act’’; 

(2) in the heading of subsection (c) by inserting ‘‘OR MODIFIED’’ after ‘‘NEW’’; 

and 

(3) in subsection (c)— 

(A) in matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘new or modified’’ 

after ‘‘establishes any’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘until the date that is 2 years after the 

date of enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘until the Secretary has complied with the provisions of this subsection’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

SEC. 124. LEVEE SAFETY. 

Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

16) is amended by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f) and inserting after 

subsection (d) the following: 

‘‘(e) LEVEE SAFETY.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a State or political subdivision thereof, 

and in consultation with that State and appropriate non-Federal interests, the 

Secretary may provide technical assistance to a State to— 

‘‘(A) encourage effective State or local programs intended to ensure levee 

safety to protect human life and property; 

‘‘(B) assist the State or political subdivision in establishing and carrying 

out a levee safety program; or 

‘‘(C) improve an existing State or local levee safety program. 

‘‘(2) PURPOSES.—The purposes of technical assistance provided under this subsection shall be— 

‘‘(A) to ensure that human lives and property that are protected by new 

and existing levees are safe; 

‘‘(B) to encourage the use of appropriate engineering policies and procedures for levee site investigation, design, construction, operation and maintenance, and emergency preparedness; 

‘‘(C) to encourage effective levee safety programs in a State; 

‘‘(D) to develop and support public education and awareness projects to 

increase public acceptance and support of levee safety programs; 

‘‘(E) to build public awareness of the residual risks associated with living 

in levee protected areas; and 

‘‘(F) to develop technical assistance materials, seminars, and guidelines to 

improve the security of levees in the United States. 

‘‘(3) FEDERAL GUIDELINES.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with States and non-Federal interests, shall establish Federal 

guidelines relating to levee safety. 

‘‘(B) INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.—The guidelines established 

under subparagraph (A) shall encompass, to the maximum extent practicable, activities and practices carried out by appropriate Federal agencies. 

‘‘(C) INCORPORATION OF STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES.—The guidelines established under subparagraph (A) shall encompass, to the maximum extent 

practicable— 

‘‘(i) the activities and practices carried out by States, local governments, and the private sector to safely build, regulate, operate, and 

maintain levees; and 

‘‘(ii) Federal activities that facilitate State efforts to develop and implement effective State programs for the safety of levees, including 

levee inspection, levee rehabilitation, locally developed flood plain management, and public education and training programs. 

‘‘(D) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall allow States and non-Federal interests, including appropriate stakeholders, to review and comment on the 

guidelines established under subparagraph (A) before the guidelines are 

made final. 

‘‘(4) ASSISTANCE FOR STATE LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAMS.— 

‘‘(A) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible for technical assistance under this subsection, a State shall— 

‘‘(i) be in the process of establishing or have in effect a State levee 

safety program under which a State levee safety agency, in accordance 

with State law, carries out the guidelines established under paragraph 

(3); and 

‘‘(ii) allocate sufficient funds in the budget of that State to carry out 

such State levee safety program. 

‘‘(B) WORK PLANS.—The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with 

each State receiving technical assistance under this subsection to develop 

a work plan necessary for the State levee safety program of that State to 

reach a level of program performance that meets the guidelines established 

under paragraph (3). 

‘‘(C) INSPECTION PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall work with States receiving technical assistance under this subsection to develop State technical 

guidelines for levee inspection programs that— 

‘‘(i) address hazard classifications and technically based frameworks 

for levee assessment; and 

‘‘(ii) are incorporated into State levee safety programs. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

‘‘(D) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—Technical assistance may not be provided 

to a State under this subsection during a fiscal year unless the State enters 

into an agreement with the Secretary to ensure that the State will maintain during that fiscal year aggregate expenditures for programs to ensure 

levee safety that are at or above the average annual level of such expenditures for the State for the 2 fiscal years preceding that fiscal year.’’. 

SEC. 125. VEGETATION ON LEVEES. 

(a) REVIEW.—The Secretary of the Army, in accordance with subsection (c), shall 

undertake a comprehensive review of the Corps of Engineers policy guidelines on 

vegetation management for levees (in this section referred to as the ‘‘guidelines’’). 

The Secretary shall commence the review upon the date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) FACTORS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In conducting the review, the Secretary shall examine the 

guidelines in view of— 

(A) the varied interests and responsibilities in managing flood risks, including the need to provide the greatest levee safety benefit with limited 

resources; 

(B) preserving, protecting, and enhancing natural resources, including the 

potential benefit that vegetation on levees can have in providing habitat for 

species of concern; 

(C) protecting the rights of Indian tribes pursuant to treaties and statutes; 

(D) determining how vegetation impacts the performance of a levee or 

levee system during a storm or flood event; and 

(E) such other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

(2) REGIONAL AND WATERSHED CONSIDERATIONS.—In conducting the review, 

the Secretary shall specifically consider factors that promote and allow for consideration of potential variances from national guidelines on a regional or watershed basis. Such factors may include regional or watershed soil conditions, 

hydrologic factors, vegetation patterns and characteristics, environmental resources, levee performance history, institutional considerations, and other relevant factors. The scope of a variance approved by the Secretary may include 

an exemption to national guidelines where appropriate. 

(c) COOPERATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The review shall be undertaken in cooperation with interested Federal agencies and in consultation with interested representatives of 

State and local governments, Indian tribes, appropriate nongovernmental organizations, and the public. 

(2) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Corps of Engineers Regional Integration Teams, representing districts, divisions, and headquarters, in consultation with State and 

Federal resources agencies, and with participation by local agencies, shall recommend to the Secretary vegetation management policies for levees that conform with State and Federal laws and other applicable requirements. 

(d) REVISION OF GUIDELINES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—During the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall— 

(A) provide the public 30 days to review and comment on the guidelines; 

(B) revise the guidelines based on consideration of the results of the public review; and 

(C) submit to Congress a report that contains a summary of the activities 

of the Secretary and a description of the findings of the Secretary under 

this section. 

(2) CONTENT; INCORPORATION INTO MANUAL.—The revised guidelines shall— 

(A) provide a practical process for approving regional or watershed 

variances from the national guidelines, reflecting due consideration of 

measures to maximize public safety benefits with limited resources, levee 

performance, regional climatic and hydrologic variations, environmental 

quality, implementation challenges, and allocation of responsibilities; and 

(B) be incorporated into the manual proposed under section 5(c) of the Act 

entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes’’, approved August 

18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n(c)). 

(e) CONTINUATION OF WORK.—Concurrent with completion of the requirements of 

this section, the Secretary shall proceed without interruption or delay with those ongoing or programmed projects and studies, or elements of projects or studies, that 

are not directly related to vegetation variance policy. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

SEC. 126. REDUCTION OF FEDERAL COSTS. 

Section 204(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 

2326(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(4) REDUCING COSTS.—To reduce or avoid Federal costs, the Secretary shall 

consider the beneficial use of dredged material in a manner that contributes to 

the maintenance of sediment resources in the nearby coastal system.’’. 

SEC. 127. ADVANCED MODELING TECHNOLOGIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—To the greatest extent practicable, the Secretary shall encourage and incorporate advanced modeling technologies, including 3-dimensional digital 

modeling, for activities related to water resources development projects and studies. 

(b) ACTIVITIES.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary, to the greatest extent practicable, shall— 

(1) compile information related to advanced modeling technologies, including 

industry best practices with respect to the use of the technologies; 

(2) disseminate to non-Federal interests the information described in paragraph (1); and 

(3) promote the use of advanced modeling technologies. 

(c) ADVANCED MODELING TECHNOLOGY DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘advanced modeling technology’’ means an available or developing technology, including 

3-dimensional digital modeling, that can expedite project delivery for or improve the 

evaluation of water resources development projects that receive Federal funding 

by— 

(1) accelerating and improving the environmental review process; 

(2) increasing effective public participation; 

(3) enhancing the detail and accuracy of project designs; 

(4) increasing safety; 

(5) accelerating construction and reducing construction costs; or 

(6) otherwise achieving such purposes. 

SEC. 128. ENHANCED USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE IN FEDERAL PROCUREMENT. 

(a) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

of the Senate a report describing the Secretary’s actions to carry out section 2301 

of title 41, United States Code, regarding the use of electronic commerce in Federal 

procurement. 

(b) CONTENTS.—The report submitted under subsection (a) shall include, with respect to the 2 fiscal years most recently ended before the fiscal year in which the 

report is submitted— 

(1) an identification of the number, type, and dollar value of procurement solicitations with respect to which the public was permitted to respond to the solicitation electronically, which shall differentiate between solicitations that allowed full or partial electronic submission; 

(2) an analysis of the information provided under paragraph (1) and actions 

that could be taken by the Secretary to refine and improve the use of electronic 

submission for procurement solicitation responses; 

(3) an analysis of the potential benefits of and obstacles to implementing 

fuller use of electronic submission for procurement solicitation responses, including with respect to cost savings, error reduction, paperwork reduction, increased bidder participation, and competition, and expanded use of electronic 

bid data collection for cost-effective contract management and timely reporting; 

and 

(4) an analysis of the options and technologies available to facilitate expanded 

implementation of electronic submission for procurement solicitation responses 

and the suitability of each option and technology for contracts of various types 

and sizes. 

SEC. 129. CORROSION PREVENTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—To the greatest extent practicable, the Secretary shall encourage and incorporate corrosion prevention activities at water resources development 

projects. 

(b) ACTIVITIES.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary, to the greatest extent practicable, shall ensure that contractors performing work for water resources 

development projects— 

(1) use best practices to carry out corrosion prevention activities in the field; 

(2) use industry recognized standards and corrosion mitigation and prevention 

methods when— 

(A) determining protective coatings; 

(B) selecting materials; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

(C) determining methods of cathodic protection, design, and engineering 

for corrosion prevention; 

(3) use certified coating application specialists and cathodic protection technicians and engineers; 

(4) use best practices in environmental protection to prevent environmental 

degradation, and to ensure careful handling of all hazardous materials; 

(5) demonstrate a history of employing industry-certified inspectors to ensure 

adherence to best practices and standards; and 

(6) demonstrate a history of compliance with applicable requirements of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 

(c) CORROSION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘corrosion prevention activities’’ means— 

(1) the application and inspection of protective coatings for complex work involving steel and cementitious structures, including structures that will be exposed in immersion; 

(2) the installation, testing, and inspection of cathodic protection systems; and 

(3) any other activities related to corrosion prevention the Secretary determines appropriate. 

SEC. 130. RESILIENT CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF INNOVATIVE MATERIALS. 

The Secretary, to the extent practicable, shall encourage the use of durable, resilient, and sustainable materials and practices, including the use of geosynthetic materials, advanced composites, and innovative technologies, in carrying out the activities of the Corps of Engineers. 

SEC. 131. ASSESSMENT OF WATER SUPPLY IN ARID REGIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct an assessment of the management 

practices, priorities, and authorized purposes at Corps of Engineers reservoirs in 

arid regions to determine the effects of such practices, priorities, and purposes on 

water supply during periods of drought. 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

of the Senate a report on the results of the assessment. 

SEC. 132. RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS. 

Section 5019 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1201) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(f) REPORT.—After each fiscal year, if the Secretary did not allocate funds in accordance with subsection (b), the Secretary, in conjunction with the President’s next 

submission to Congress of a budget under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 

Code, shall submit to Congress a report that describes— 

‘‘(1) the reasons why the Secretary did not allocate funds in accordance with 

subsection (b) during that fiscal year; and 

‘‘(2) the impact, on the jurisdiction of each Commission specified in subsection 

(b), of not allocating the funds, including with respect to— 

‘‘(A) water supply allocation; 

‘‘(B) water quality protection; 

‘‘(C) regulatory review and permitting; 

‘‘(D) water conservation; 

‘‘(E) watershed planning; 

‘‘(F) drought management; 

‘‘(G) flood loss reduction; 

‘‘(H) recreation; and 

‘‘(I) energy development.’’. 

SEC. 133. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILLS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

(1) Between 1986 and 2000, a water resources development bill was typically 

enacted every 2 years. 

(2) Since 2000, only 1 water resources development bill has been enacted. 

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that, because the missions 

of the Corps of Engineers are unique and benefit all individuals in the United 

States and because water resources development projects are critical to maintaining 

economic prosperity, national security, and environmental protection, Congress 

should consider a water resources development bill not less than once every Congress. 

SEC. 134. DONALD G. WALDON LOCK AND DAM. 

It is the sense of Congress that, at an appropriate time and in accordance with 

the rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate, to recognize the contribuVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

tions of Donald G. Waldon, whose selfless determination and tireless work, while 

serving as administrator of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway for 21 years, contributed greatly to the realization and success of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Compact, that the lock and dam located at mile 357.5 on the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway should be known and designated as the ‘‘Donald G. 

Waldon Lock and Dam’’. 

SEC. 135. AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES. 

Section 104(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610(a)) is amended 

by inserting ‘‘and aquatic invasive species’’ after ‘‘noxious aquatic plant growths’’. 

SEC. 136. RECREATIONAL ACCESS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not prohibit the use of a floating cabin on 

waters under the jurisdiction of the Secretary if— 

(1) the floating cabin is in compliance regulations for recreational vessels 

issued under chapter 43 of title 46, United States Code, and section 312 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322); and 

(2) the Secretary has authorized the use of recreational vessels on such 

waters. 

(b) FLOATING CABIN DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘floating cabin’’ means 

a vessel, as defined in section 3 of title 1, United States Code, with overnight accommodations. 

SEC. 137. TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES. 

Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310) 

is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary shall waive’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.— 

The Secretary shall waive’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—The Secretary shall adjust the dollar amount specified in subsection (a) for inflation for the period beginning on November 17, 1986, 

and ending on the date of enactment of this subsection.’’. 

SEC. 138. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING INTERSTATE WATER AGREEMENTS AND COMPACTS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

(1) States and local interests have primary responsibility for developing water 

supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other purposes. 

(2) The Federal Government cooperates with States and local interests in developing water supplies through the construction, maintenance, and operation 

of Federal water resources development projects. 

(3) Interstate water disputes are most properly addressed through interstate 

water agreements or compacts that take into consideration the concerns of all 

affected States. 

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that— 

(1) Congress and the Secretary should urge States to reach agreement on 

interstate water agreements and compacts; 

(2) at the request of the Governor of a State, the Secretary should facilitate 

and assist in the development of an interstate water agreement or compact; 

(3) Congress should provide prompt consideration of interstate water agreements and compacts; and 

(4) the Secretary should adopt policies and implement procedures for the operation of reservoirs of the Corps of Engineers that are consistent with interstate water agreements and compacts. 

TITLE II—NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS 

Subtitle A—Ports 

SEC. 201. EXPANDED USE OF HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For any fiscal year in which target appropriations described in 

subsection (b) are met, the Secretary may use up to 5 percent of the total amount 

made available to the Secretary from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for the 

eligible operations and maintenance costs described in section 210(a)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238(a)(2)) for that fiscal year for expanded uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

(b) TARGET APPROPRIATIONS.—For purposes of this section, target appropriations 

are met for a fiscal year if the total amount made available to the Secretary from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for that fiscal year equals or exceeds, as determined by the Secretary, the following: 

(1) For fiscal year 2014, 65 percent of the total amount of harbor maintenance 

taxes received in fiscal year 2013. 

(2) For fiscal year 2015, 67 percent of the total amount of harbor maintenance 

taxes received in fiscal year 2014. 

(3) For fiscal year 2016, 69 percent of the total amount of harbor maintenance 

taxes received in fiscal year 2015. 

(4) For fiscal year 2017, 71 percent of the total amount of harbor maintenance 

taxes received in fiscal year 2016. 

(5) For fiscal year 2018, 73 percent of the total amount of harbor maintenance 

taxes received in fiscal year 2017. 

(6) For fiscal year 2019, 75 percent of the total amount of harbor maintenance 

taxes received in fiscal year 2018. 

(7) For fiscal year 2020, and each fiscal year thereafter, 80 percent of total 

amount of harbor maintenance taxes received in the previous fiscal year. 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply: 

(1) ELIGIBLE HARBORS AND INLAND HARBORS DEFINED.—The term ‘‘eligible harbor or inland harbor’’ means a harbor or inland harbor that, historically, as determined by the Secretary— 

(A) generates an amount of harbor maintenance taxes; that exceeds 

(B) the value of work carried out for the harbor or inland harbor using 

amounts from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

(2) EXPANDED USES.—The term ‘‘expanded uses’’ means the following activities performed for an eligible harbor or inland harbor: 

(A) The maintenance dredging of a berth in a harbor that is accessible 

to a Federal navigation project and that benefits commercial navigation at 

the harbor. 

(B) The maintenance dredging and disposal of legacy-contaminated sediment, and sediment unsuitable for open water disposal, if— 

(i) such dredging and disposal benefits commercial navigation at the 

harbor; and 

(ii) such sediment— 

(I) is located in and affects the maintenance of a Federal navigation project; or 

(II) is located in a berth that is accessible to a Federal navigation 

project. 

(3) TOTAL AMOUNT OF HARBOR MAINTENANCE TAXES RECEIVED.—The term 

‘‘total amount of harbor maintenance taxes received’’ means, with respect to a 

fiscal year, the aggregate of amounts appropriated, transferred, or credited to 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund under section 9505(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for that fiscal year as set forth in the current year estimate 

provided in the President’s budget request for the subsequent fiscal year, submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code. 

(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 9505(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘(as in effect on the date of the enactment of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996)’’. 

(e) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that any increase in harbor 

maintenance programs described in this section shall result from an overall increase 

in appropriations for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers and not 

from similar reductions in the appropriations for other programs, projects, and activities carried out by the Corps of Engineers for other authorized purposes. 

SEC. 202. ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

(a) ASSESSMENT.—Section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2238) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) ASSESSMENT OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 

subsection, and biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall assess the operation 

and maintenance needs of the harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2). 

‘‘(2) TYPES OF HARBORS.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 

assess the operation and maintenance needs of the harbors used for— 

‘‘(A) commercial navigation; 

‘‘(B) commercial fishing; 

‘‘(C) subsistence, including utilization by Indian tribes (as such term is 

defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)) for subsistence and ceremonial purposes; 

‘‘(D) use as a harbor of refuge; 

‘‘(E) transportation of persons; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

‘‘(F) purposes relating to domestic energy production, including the fabrication, servicing, or supply of domestic offshore energy production facilities; 

‘‘(G) activities of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 

Guard is operating; 

‘‘(H) public health and safety related equipment for responding to coastal 

and inland emergencies; 

‘‘(I) recreation purposes; and 

‘‘(J) any other authorized purpose. 

‘‘(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—For fiscal year 2015, and biennially thereafter, in 

conjunction with the President’s annual budget submission to Congress under 

section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall submit to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that, with respect to harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2)— 

‘‘(A) identifies the operation and maintenance costs associated with the 

harbors, including those costs required to achieve and maintain the authorized length, width, and depth for the harbors, on a project-by-project basis; 

‘‘(B) identifies the amount of funding requested in the President’s budget 

for the operation and maintenance costs associated with the harbors, on a 

project-by-project basis; 

‘‘(C) identifies the unmet operation and maintenance needs associated 

with the harbors, on a project-by-project basis; and 

‘‘(D) identifies the harbors for which the President will allocate funding 

over the next 5 fiscal years for operation and maintenance activities, on a 

project-by-project basis, including the amounts to be allocated for such purposes.’’. 

(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGING HARBOR PROJECTS.—Section 210 

of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2238) is further amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(d) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGING HARBOR PROJECTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall 

make expenditures to pay for operation and maintenance costs of the harbors 

referred to in subsection (a)(2), including expenditures of funds appropriated 

from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, based on an equitable allocation of 

funds among all such harbors, regardless of the size or tonnage throughput of 

the harbor. 

‘‘(2) CRITERIA.—In determining the equitable allocation of funds under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall— 

‘‘(A) utilize the information obtained in the assessment conducted under 

subsection (c); 

‘‘(B) consider the national and regional significance of harbor operation 

and maintenance; and 

‘‘(C) not make such allocation based solely on the tonnage transiting 

through a harbor. 

‘‘(3) EMERGING HARBORS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in making expenditures described in paragraph (1) for each of fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the 

Secretary shall allocate not less than 10 percent of the total amount of the 

expenditures to pay for operation and maintenance costs of emerging harbors. 

‘‘(B) EMERGING HARBOR DEFINED.—In this paragraph, the term ‘emerging 

harbor’ means a harbor referred to in subsection (a)(2) that transits less 

than 1,000,000 tons of commerce annually. 

‘‘(4) EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES.—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit the Secretary from making an expenditure to pay for the operation and maintenance costs of a specific harbor, including the transfer of 

funding from the operation and maintenance of a separate project, if— 

‘‘(A) the Secretary determines that the action is necessary to address the 

navigation needs of a harbor where safe navigation has been severely restricted due to an unforeseen event; and 

‘‘(B) the Secretary provides advance notice and information on the need 

for the action to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 

the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. 

‘‘(5) MANAGEMENT OF GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION SYSTEM.—To sustain effective 

and efficient operation and maintenance of the Great Lakes Navigation System, 

including any navigation feature in the Great Lakes that is a Federal responsibility with respect to operation and maintenance, the Secretary shall manage 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

and allocate funding for all of the individually authorized projects in the Great 

Lakes Navigation System as components of a single, comprehensive system, recognizing the interdependence of the projects.’’. 

SEC. 203. PRESERVING UNITED STATES HARBORS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter into an agreement with a non-Federal 

interest, at the request of the non-Federal interest, under which the Secretary 

agrees to maintain a navigation project for a harbor or inland harbor (in this section 

referred to as a ‘‘federally authorized harbor’’) in accordance with section 101(b) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)). 

(b) REPORT BY NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to enter into an agreement under subsection 

(a) with respect to a federally authorized harbor, a non-Federal interest shall 

submit to the Secretary a report justifying economic investment in maintenance 

of the harbor. 

(2) JUSTIFICATION OF INVESTMENT.—A report submitted under paragraph (1) 

may justify economic investment in the maintenance of a federally authorized 

harbor based on— 

(A) projected economic benefits, including transportation savings and job 

creation; and 

(B) other factors, including navigation safety, national security, and sustainability of subsistence harbors. 

(3) TERMINATION OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS.—An agreement entered into under 

subsection (a) with respect to a federally authorized harbor shall contain terms 

to allow the Secretary to terminate the agreement if the Secretary determines 

that Federal economic investment in maintaining the harbor is no longer justified. 

(c) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section may be 

construed to preclude the operation and maintenance of a federally authorized harbor under section 101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2211(b)). 

SEC. 204. CONSOLIDATION OF DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION EXPERTISE. 

Section 2033(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (33 U.S.C. 

2282a(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION PLANNING CENTER OF EXPERTISE.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall consolidate deep draft navigation 

expertise within the Corps of Engineers into a deep draft navigation planning center of expertise. 

‘‘(B) LIST.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the consolidation required under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

a list of personnel, including the grade levels and expertise of the personnel, assigned to the center described in subparagraph (A).’’. 

SEC. 205. DISPOSAL SITES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in accordance with subsections (b) and (c) and 

with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 

is authorized to reopen the Cape Arundel Disposal Site (in this section referred to 

as the ‘‘Site’’) as an alternative dredged material disposal site under section 103(b) 

of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413(b)). 

(b) DEADLINE.—The Site may remain open under subsection (a) until the earlier 

of— 

(1) the date on which the Site does not have any remaining disposal capacity; 

(2) the date on which an environmental impact statement designating an alternative dredged material disposal site for southern Maine has been completed; 

or 

(3) the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(c) LIMITATIONS.—The use of the Site as a dredged material disposal site under 

subsection (a) shall be subject to the conditions that— 

(1) conditions at the Site remain suitable for the continued use of the Site as 

a dredged material disposal site; and 

(2) the Site not be used for the disposal of more than 80,000 cubic yards from 

any single dredging project. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

Subtitle B—Inland Waterways 

SEC. 211. DEFINITIONS. 

In this subtitle, the following definitions apply: 

(1) INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST FUND.—The term ‘‘Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund’’ means the Inland Waterways Trust Fund established by section 9506(a) 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

(2) QUALIFYING PROJECT.—The term ‘‘qualifying project’’ means any construction or major rehabilitation project for navigation infrastructure of the inland 

and intracoastal waterways that is— 

(A) authorized before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act; 

(B) not completed on the date of enactment of this Act; and 

(C) funded at least in part from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

SEC. 212. PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS REFORMS. 

(a) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFYING PROJECTS.—With respect to each qualifying 

project, the Secretary shall require— 

(1) for each project manager, that— 

(A) the project manager have formal project management training and 

certification; and 

(B) the project manager be assigned from among personnel certified by 

the Chief of Engineers; and 

(2) for an applicable cost estimation, that— 

(A) the Secretary utilize a risk-based cost estimate with a confidence level 

of at least 80 percent; and 

(B) the cost estimate be implemented— 

(i) for a qualifying project that requires an increase in the authorized 

amount in accordance with section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280), during the preparation of a postauthorization change report or other similar decision document; 

(ii) for a qualifying project for which the first construction contract 

has not been awarded, prior to the award of the first construction contract; 

(iii) for a qualifying project without a completed feasibility report in 

accordance with section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), prior to the completion of such a report; and 

(iv) for a qualifying project with a completed feasibility report in accordance with section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) that has not yet been authorized, during design 

for the qualifying project. 

(b) ADDITIONAL PROJECT DELIVERY PROCESS REFORMS.—Not later than 18 months 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall— 

(1) establish a system to identify and apply on a continuing basis best management practices from prior or ongoing qualifying projects to improve the likelihood of on-time and on-budget completion of qualifying projects; 

(2) evaluate early contractor involvement acquisition procedures to improve 

on-time and on-budget project delivery performance; and 

(3) implement any additional measures that the Secretary determines will 

achieve the purposes of this subtitle, including— 

(A) the implementation of applicable practices and procedures developed 

pursuant to management by the Secretary of an applicable military construction program; 

(B) the development and use of a portfolio of standard designs for inland 

navigation locks; 

(C) the use of full-funding contracts or formulation of a revised continuing 

contracts clause; and 

(D) the establishment of procedures for recommending new project construction starts using a capital projects business model. 

(c) PILOT PROJECTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary may carry out pilot 

projects to evaluate processes and procedures for the study, design, and construction of qualifying projects. 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—At a minimum, the Secretary shall carry out pilot projects 

under this subsection to evaluate— 

(A) early contractor involvement in the development of features and components; 

(B) an appropriate use of continuing contracts for the construction of features and components; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

(C) applicable principles, procedures, and processes used for military construction projects. 

(d) INLAND WATERWAYS USER BOARD.—Section 302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2251) is amended— 

(1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(b) DUTIES OF USERS BOARD.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Users Board shall meet not less frequently than semiannually to develop and make recommendations to the Secretary and Congress 

regarding the inland waterways and inland harbors of the United States. 

‘‘(2) ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—For commercial navigation features 

and components of the inland waterways and inland harbors of the United 

States, the Users Board shall provide— 

‘‘(A) prior to the development of the budget proposal of the President for 

a given fiscal year, advice and recommendations to the Secretary regarding 

construction and rehabilitation priorities and spending levels; 

‘‘(B) advice and recommendations to Congress regarding any completed 

feasibility report in accordance with section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282) relating to those features and components; 

‘‘(C) advice and recommendations to Congress regarding an increase in 

the authorized cost of those features and components; 

‘‘(D) not later than 60 days after the date of the submission of the budget 

proposal of the President to Congress, advice and recommendations to Congress regarding construction and rehabilitation priorities and spending levels; and 

‘‘(E) advice and recommendations on the development of a long-term capital investment program in accordance with subsection (d). 

‘‘(3) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAMS.—The chairperson of the Users Board shall 

appoint a representative of the Users Board to serve as an informal advisor to 

the project development team for a qualifying project or the study or design of 

a commercial navigation feature or component of the inland waterways and inland harbors of the United States. 

‘‘(4) INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.—Any advice or recommendation made by the 

Users Board to the Secretary shall reflect the independent judgment of the 

Users Board.’’; 

(2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(c) DUTIES OF SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall— 

‘‘(1) communicate not less than once each quarter to the Users Board the status of the study, design, or construction of all commercial navigation features 

or components of the inland waterways or inland harbors of the United States; 

and 

‘‘(2) submit to the Users Board a courtesy copy of all completed feasibility reports relating to a commercial navigation feature or component of the inland 

waterways or inland harbors of the United States. 

‘‘(d) CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 

subsection, the Secretary, in coordination with the Users Board, shall develop 

and submit to Congress a report describing a 20-year program for making capital investments on the inland and intracoastal waterways based on the application of objective, national project selection prioritization criteria. 

‘‘(2) CONSIDERATION.—In developing the program under paragraph (1), the 

Secretary shall take into consideration the 20-year capital investment strategy 

contained in the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Capital Projects 

Business Model, Final Report published on April 13, 2010, as approved by the 

Users Board. 

‘‘(3) CRITERIA.—In developing the plan and prioritization criteria under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that 

investments made under the 20-year program described in paragraph (1)— 

‘‘(A) are made in all geographical areas of the inland waterways system; 

and 

‘‘(B) ensure efficient funding of inland waterways projects. 

‘‘(4) STRATEGIC REVIEW AND UPDATE.—Not later than 5 years after the date 

of enactment of this subsection, and not less frequently than once every 5 years 

thereafter, the Secretary, in coordination with the Users Board, shall— 

‘‘(A) submit to Congress a strategic review of the 20-year program in effect under this subsection, which shall identify and explain any changes to 

the project-specific recommendations contained in the previous 20-year program (including any changes to the prioritization criteria used to develop 

the updated recommendations); and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

‘‘(B) make revisions to the program, as appropriate. 

‘‘(e) PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLANS.—The chairperson of the Users Board and the 

project development team member appointed by the chairperson under subsection 

(b)(3) may sign the project management plan for the qualifying project or the study 

or design of a commercial navigation feature or component of the inland waterways 

and inland harbors of the United States. 

‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATION.—The Users Board shall be subject to the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, other than section 14, and, with the consent of the appropriate 

agency head, the Users Board may use the facilities and services of any Federal 

agency. For the purposes of complying with such Act, the members of the Users 

Board shall not be considered special Government employees (as defined in section 

202 of title 18, United States Code). Non-Federal members of the Users Board while 

engaged in the performance of their duties away from their homes or regular places 

of business, may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.’’. 

SEC. 213. EFFICIENCY OF REVENUE COLLECTION. 

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 

General of the United States shall prepare a report on the efficiency of collecting 

the fuel tax for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which shall include— 

(1) an evaluation of whether current methods of collection of the fuel tax result in full compliance with requirements of the law; 

(2) whether alternative methods of collection would result in increased revenues into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund; and 

(3) an evaluation of alternative collection options. 

SEC. 214. INLAND WATERWAYS REVENUE STUDIES. 

(a) INLAND WATERWAYS CONSTRUCTION BONDS STUDY.— 

(1) STUDY.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall conduct a study on the feasibility of authorizing the issuance of federally tax-exempt bonds secured against the available proceeds, including projected annual receipts, in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund established by section 9506(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

(2) CONTENTS.—In carrying out the study, the Secretary and the Secretary of 

the Treasury shall examine the implications of issuing such bonds, including 

the potential revenues that could be generated and the projected net cost to the 

Treasury, including loss of potential revenue. 

(3) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out the study, the Secretary and the Secretary of the Treasury, at a minimum, shall consult with— 

(A) representatives of the Inland Waterway Users Board established by 

section 302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2251); 

(B) representatives of the commodities and bulk cargos that are currently 

shipped for commercial purposes on the segments of the inland and intracoastal waterways listed in section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue 

Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804); 

(C) representatives of other users of locks and dams on the inland and 

intracoastal waterways, including persons owning, operating, using, or otherwise benefitting from— 

(i) hydropower generation facilities; 

(ii) electric utilities that rely on the waterways for cooling of existing 

electricity generation facilities; 

(iii) municipal and industrial water supply; 

(iv) recreation; 

(v) irrigation water supply; or 

(vi) flood damage reduction; 

(D) other stakeholders associated with the inland and intracoastal waterways, as identified by the Secretary or the Secretary of the Treasury; and 

(E) the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, including the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the Secretary and the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a joint 

report on the results of the study to— 

(A) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee 

on Ways and Means, and the Committee on the Budget of the House of 

Representatives; and 

(B) the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Committee on 

Finance, and the Committee on the Budget of the Senate. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

(b) POTENTIAL FEES FOR BENEFICIARIES AND USERS OF INLAND AND INTRACOASTAL

WATERWAYS INFRASTRUCTURE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study and submit to Congress 

a report on potential user fees and revenues from other sources that could be 

collected to generate additional revenues for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 

established by section 9506(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

(2) SCOPE OF STUDY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall evaluate 

an array of potential user fees and other revenues options that, when combined with funds generated by section 4042 of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986, are sufficient to support one-half of annual construction expenditure levels of $380,000,000 for the authorized purposes of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

(B) POTENTIAL REVENUE OPTIONS FOR STUDY.—In carrying out the study, 

the Secretary, at a minimum, shall evaluate potential user fees and other 

revenue options identified in— 

(i) the report of the Congressional Budget Office entitled ‘‘Paying for 

Highways, Airways, and Waterways: How Can Users Be Charged?’’, 

dated May 1, 1992; 

(ii) the draft bill submitted by the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works) to Congress entitled the ‘‘Lock User Fee Act of 2008’’, 

dated April 4, 2008; 

(iii) the Inland Marine Transportation System (IMTS) Capital 

Projects Business Model, Final Report, published on April 12, 2010, as 

approved by the Inland Waterways Users Board established by section 

302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2251); 

and 

(iv) the draft bill submitted by the President to Congress entitled the 

‘‘Inland Waterways Capital Investment Act of 2011’’, dated September 

2011. 

(3) CONDUCT OF STUDY.—In carrying out the study, the Secretary shall— 

(A) take into consideration whether the potential user fees and revenues 

from other sources— 

(i) are equitably associated with the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of inland and intracoastal waterway infrastructure, including locks, dams, and navigation channels; and 

(ii) can be efficiently collected; 

(B) consult with, at a minimum— 

(i) representatives of the Inland Waterways Users Board; and 

(ii) representatives of other nonnavigation beneficiaries of inland and 

intracoastal waterway infrastructure, including persons benefitting 

from— 

(I) municipal water supply; 

(II) hydropower; 

(III) recreation; 

(IV) industrial water supply; 

(V) flood damage reduction; 

(VI) agricultural water supply; 

(VII) environmental restoration; 

(VIII) local and regional economic development; or 

(IX) local real estate interests; and 

(iii) representatives of other interests, as identified by the Secretary; 

and 

(C) provide the opportunity for public hearings in each of the geographic 

regions that contain segments of the inland and intracoastal waterways 

listed in section 206 of the Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 

U.S.C. 1804). 

(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report on the results of the study to— 

(A) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee 

on Ways and Means, and the Committee on the Budget of the House of 

Representatives; and 

(B) the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Committee on 

Finance, and the Committee on the Budget of the Senate. 

SEC. 215. INLAND WATERWAYS STAKEHOLDER ROUNDTABLE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct an inland waterways stakeholder 

roundtable to provide for a review and evaluation of alternative approaches— 

(1) to address the financial needs of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

(2) to support the water infrastructure needs of the Inland Waterways System. 

(b) SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 45 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to Congress the report required by section 214(b), the Secretary 

shall select individuals to be invited to participate in the stakeholder roundtable. 

(2) COMPOSITION.—The individuals selected under paragraph (1) shall include— 

(A) representatives of affected shippers and suppliers; 

(B) representatives of State and Federal water managers; and 

(C) other interested persons with direct knowledge of the Inland Waterways System. 

(c) FRAMEWORK AND AGENDA.—The Secretary shall work with a group of the individuals selected under subsection (b) to develop the framework and agenda for the 

stakeholder roundtable. 

(d) CONDUCT OF STAKEHOLDER ROUNDTABLE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 120 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to Congress the report required by section 214(b), the Secretary 

shall conduct the stakeholder roundtable. 

(2) ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED.—The stakeholder roundtable shall provide for 

the review and evaluation described in subsection (a) and shall include the following: 

(A) An evaluation of alternatives that have been developed to address 

funding options for the Inland Waterways System. 

(B) An evaluation of the funding status of the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund. 

(C) Prioritization of the ongoing and projected water infrastructure needs 

of the Inland Waterways System. 

(D) Identification of a process forward for meeting such needs, with 

timeline for addressing the funding challenges for the inland waterways 

trust system. 

(e) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the 

Secretary submits to Congress the report required by section 214(b), the Secretary 

shall submit to Congress a report that contains— 

(1) a summary the stakeholder roundtable, including areas of concurrence on 

funding approaches and areas or disagreement in meeting funding needs; and 

(2) recommendations developed by the Secretary for logical next steps to address the issues discussed at the stakeholder roundtable. 

SEC. 216. PRESERVING THE INLAND WATERWAY TRUST FUND. 

(a) OLMSTED PROJECT REFORM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 102(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212(a)), for each fiscal year beginning after 

the date of enactment of this Act, 25 percent of the cost of construction for the 

Olmsted Project shall be paid from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

(2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection the term ‘‘Olmsted Project’’ means the 

project for navigation, Lower Ohio River, Locks 52 and 53, Illinois and Kentucky, authorized by section 3(a)(6) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1988 (102 Stat. 4013). 

(3) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the appropriation 

for the Olmsted project should be not less than $150,000,000 for each fiscal year 

until construction of the project is completed. 

(4) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate regarding the lessons learned from the 

experience of planning and constructing the Olmsted Project and how such lessons might apply to future inland waterway studies and projects. 

(b) ANNUAL REPORT ON PROGRESS AND COSTS.—For any inland waterways project 

that the Secretary carries out that has an estimated total cost of $500,000,000 or 

more, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional committees referred to in subsection (a)(4) an annual financial plan for the project. The plan shall be based on 

detailed annual estimates of the cost to complete the remaining elements of the 

project and on reasonable assumptions, as determined by the Secretary, of any future increases of the cost to complete the project. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

SEC. 217. PUBLIC COMMENT ON LOCK OPERATIONS. 

At least 90 days before carrying out a proposed modification to the operation of 

a lock at a project for navigation on the inland waterways, the Secretary shall— 

(1) provide notice of the proposed modification in the Federal Register; and 

(2) accept public comments on the proposed modification. 

SEC. 218. ASSESSMENT OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS OF THE ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY AND THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall assess the operation and maintenance needs of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. 

(b) TYPES OF ACTIVITIES.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall assess the operation and maintenance needs of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 

and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway as used for the following purposes: 

(1) Commercial navigation. 

(2) Commercial fishing. 

(3) Subsistence, including utilization by Indian tribes (as such term is defined 

by section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 

U.S.C. 450b)) for subsistence and ceremonial purposes. 

(4) Use as ingress and egress to harbors of refuge. 

(5) Transportation of persons. 

(6) Purposes relating to domestic energy production, including fabrication, 

servicing, and supply of domestic offshore energy production facilities. 

(7) Activities of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard 

is operating. 

(8) Public health and safety related equipment for responding to coastal and 

inland emergencies. 

(9) Recreation purposes. 

(10) Any other authorized purpose. 

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—For fiscal year 2015, and biennially thereafter, in conjunction with the President’s annual budget submission to Congress under section 

1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that, with respect 

to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway— 

(1) identifies the operation and maintenance costs required to achieve the authorized length, width, and depth; 

(2) identifies the amount of funding requested in the President’s budget for 

operation and maintenance costs; and 

(3) identifies the unmet operation and maintenance needs of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. 

SEC. 219. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER PROTECTION. 

(a) ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the impact of closing the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam on the 

economy and the environment, including an assessment of the annual average tonnage moving through the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam during the preceding 5 years. 

(b) MANDATORY CLOSURE.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Secretary shall close the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam if 

the Secretary determines pursuant to the study conducted under subsection (a), or 

based on other appropriate information made available to the Secretary, that the 

annual average tonnage moving through the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and 

Dam during the preceding 5 years was not more than 1,500,000 tons. 

(c) EMERGENCY OPERATIONS.—Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent 

the Secretary from carrying out emergency lock operations necessary to mitigate 

flood damage. 

(d) UPPER ST. ANTHONY FALLS LOCK AND DAM DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam’’ means the lock and dam located on Mississippi River Mile 853.9 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

SEC. 220. CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOCK AND DAM ENERGY DEVELOPMENT. 

Section 1117 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4236) 

is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 1117. W.D. MAYO LOCK AND DAM. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma may— 

‘‘(1) design and construct one or more hydroelectric generating facilities at the 

W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam on the Arkansas River, Oklahoma; and 

‘‘(2) market the electricity generated from any such facility. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

‘‘(b) PRECONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.— 

‘‘(1) PERMITS.—Before the date on which construction of a hydroelectric generating facility begins under subsection (a), the Cherokee Nation shall obtain any 

permit required under Federal or State law, except that the Cherokee Nation 

shall be exempt from licensing requirements that may otherwise apply to construction, operation, or maintenance of the facility under the Federal Power Act 

(16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.). 

‘‘(2) REVIEW OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.—The Cherokee Nation may initiate the design or construction of a hydroelectric generating facility under subsection (a) only after the Secretary reviews and approves the plans and specifications for the design and construction. 

‘‘(c) PAYMENT OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may accept funds offered by the Cherokee 

Nation and use such funds to carry out the design and construction of a hydroelectric generating facility under subsection (a). 

‘‘(2) ALLOCATION OF COSTS.—The Cherokee Nation shall— 

‘‘(A) bear all costs associated with the design and construction of a hydroelectric generating facility under subsection (a); and 

‘‘(B) provide any funds necessary for the design and construction to the 

Secretary prior to the Secretary initiating any activities related to the design and construction. 

‘‘(d) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY.—The Cherokee Nation shall— 

‘‘(1) hold all title to a hydroelectric generating facility constructed under subsection (a) and may, subject to the approval of the Secretary, assign such title 

to a third party; 

‘‘(2) be solely responsible for— 

‘‘(A) the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation 

of the facility; and 

‘‘(B) the marketing of the electricity generated by the facility; and 

‘‘(3) release and indemnify the United States from any claims, causes of action, or liabilities that may arise out of any activity undertaken to carry out this 

section. 

‘‘(e) ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE.—The Secretary may provide technical and construction management assistance requested by the Cherokee Nation relating to the design and construction of a hydroelectric generating facility under subsection (a). 

‘‘(f) THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS.—The Cherokee Nation may enter into agreements 

with the Secretary or a third party that the Cherokee Nation or the Secretary determines are necessary to carry out this section.’’. 

TITLE III—DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND BACKLOG 

PREVENTION 

SEC. 301. DEAUTHORIZATION OF INACTIVE PROJECTS. 

(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section are— 

(1) to identify $12,000,000,000 in water resources development projects authorized by Congress that are no longer viable for construction due to— 

(A) a lack of local support; 

(B) a lack of available Federal or non-Federal resources; or 

(C) an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or feasible; 

(2) to create an expedited and definitive process to deauthorize water resources development projects that are no longer viable for construction; and 

(3) to allow the continued authorization of water resources development 

projects that are viable for construction. 

(b) DEAUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BEFORE WRDA 2007.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate, and shall publish in the Federal Register, a 

report that lists each authorized water resources development project, or separable element of a project, authorized for construction before November 8, 

2007— 

(A) for which— 

(i) construction was not initiated before the date of enactment of this 

Act; or 

(ii) construction was initiated before the date of enactment of this 

Act, but for which no funds, Federal or non-Federal, were obligated for 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

construction of the project or separable element during the 5-year period ending on July 1, 2013; and 

(B) that is identified in accordance with paragraph (3). 

(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR ONGOING CONSTRUCTION.—A project or separable element shall not be listed pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(ii) if the project or separable element is being constructed as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

(3) IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall identify in the report submitted 

under paragraph (1) projects and separable elements that— 

(i) meet the requirements described in subparagraph (A) of that paragraph; and 

(ii) in the aggregate have an estimated Federal cost to complete (as 

of the date of the report) that is at least $12,000,000,000. 

(B) SEQUENCING OF PROJECTS.—In identifying projects and separable elements under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall identify projects and 

separable elements according to the order in which the projects and separable elements were authorized, beginning with the earliest authorized 

projects and separable elements and ending upon the aggregate estimated 

Federal cost to complete for the projects and separable elements identified 

satisfying the requirement under subparagraph (A)(ii). 

(4) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW PERIOD; DEAUTHORIZATION.—After the expiration 

of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the submission of the report 

under this subsection, any project or separable element identified in that report 

is hereby deauthorized, unless during such period the non-Federal interest for 

the project or separable element provides, under Federal law, all funds necessary to complete the project or separable element. 

(c) TREATMENT OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.—For purposes of this section, if an 

authorized water resources development project or separable element has been 

modified in an Act of Congress, the date of the authorization of the project or separable element shall be deemed to be the date of the most recent such modification. 

SEC. 302. REVIEW OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS ASSETS. 

(a) ASSESSMENT AND INVENTORY.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct an assessment of all properties under 

the control of the Corps of Engineers and develop an inventory of the properties that 

are not needed for the missions of the Corps of Engineers. 

(b) CRITERIA.—In conducting the assessment and developing the inventory under 

subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the following criteria: 

(1) The extent to which the property aligns with the current missions of the 

Corps of Engineers. 

(2) The economic impact of the property on existing communities in the vicinity of the property. 

(3) The extent to which the utilization rate for the property is being maximized and is consistent with nongovernmental industry standards for the given 

function or operation. 

(4) The extent to which the reduction or elimination of the property could reduce operation and maintenance costs of the Corps of Engineers. 

(5) The extent to which the reduction or elimination of the property could reduce energy consumption by the Corps of Engineers. 

(c) NOTIFICATION.—As soon as practicable following completion of the inventory of 

properties under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide the inventory to the Administrator of General Services. 

(d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the notification under subsection (c), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the findings of the 

Secretary with respect to the assessment and inventory required under subsection 

(a). 

SEC. 303. BACKLOG PREVENTION. 

(a) PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A water resources development project, or separable element of such a project, authorized for construction by this Act shall not be authorized after the last day of the 7-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act unless during that period funds have been obligated for construction of such project. 

(2) IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECTS.—Not later than 60 days after the expiration 

of the 7-year period referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of RepresentVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

atives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 

report that identifies the projects deauthorized under paragraph (1). 

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 60 days after the expiration of the 12- 

year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

a report that contains— 

(1) a list of any water resources development projects authorized by this Act 

for which construction has not been completed during that period; 

(2) a description of the reasons the projects were not completed; and 

(3) a schedule for the completion of the projects based on expected levels of 

appropriations. 

SEC. 304. DEAUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The following projects are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: 

(1) WALNUT CREEK (PACHECO CREEK), CALIFORNIA.—The portions of the project 

for flood protection on Walnut Creek, California, constructed under section 203 

of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (Public Law 86–645; 74 Stat. 488), consisting 

of the Walnut Creek project from Sta 0+00 to Sta 142+00 and the upstream extent of the Walnut Creek project along Pacheco Creek from Sta 0+00 to Sta 

73+50. 

(2) WALNUT CREEK (SAN RAMON CREEK), CALIFORNIA.—The portion of the 

project for flood protection on Walnut Creek, California, constructed under section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1960 (Public Law 86–645; 74 Stat. 488), 

consisting of the culvert constructed by the Department of the Army on San 

Ramon Creek from Sta 4+27 to Sta 14+27. 

(3) HILLSBOROUGH (HILLSBORO) BAY AND RIVER, FLORIDA.—Those portions of 

the project for navigation, Hillsborough (Hillsboro) Bay and River, Florida, authorized by the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1126; chapter 425), that extend 

on either side of the Hillsborough River from the Kennedy Boulevard bridge to 

the mouth of the river that cause the existing channel to exceed 100 feet in 

width. 

(4) KAHULUI WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, MAUI, HAWAII.—The project 

carried out pursuant to the authority provided by section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) to provide shoreline protection for the Kahului 

Wastewater Reclamation Facility, located on the Island of Maui in the State of 

Hawaii. 

(5) CHICAGO HARBOR, ILLINOIS.—The portion of the project for navigation, Chicago Harbor, Illinois, authorized by the first section of the Act of March 3, 1899 

(30 Stat. 1129; chapter 425), and the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 

(40 Stat. 1283; chapter 95), and described as follows: 

(A) Beginning at the southwest corner of Metropolitan Sanitary District 

of Greater Chicago sluice gate that abuts the north wall of the Chicago 

River Lock. 

(B) Thence running north for approximately 290 feet. 

(C) Thence running east approximately 1,000 feet. 

(D) Thence running south approximately 290 feet. 

(E) Thence running west approximately 1,000 feet to the point of origin. 

(6) LUCAS-BERG PIT, ILLINOIS WATERWAY AND GRANT CALUMET RIVER, ILLINOIS.—The portion of the project for navigation, Illinois Waterway and Grand 

Calumet River, Illinois, authorized by the first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An 

Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 

for flood control, and for other purposes’’, approved July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 636; 

chapter 596), that consists of the Lucas-Berg Pit confined disposal facility, Illinois. 

(7) ROCKLAND HARBOR, MAINE.—The portion of the project for navigation, 

Rockland Harbor, Maine, authorized by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works 

on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 

202), and described as follows: 

(A) Beginning at the point in the 14-foot turning basin limit with coordinates N162,927.61, E826,210.16. 

(B) Thence running north 45 degrees 45 minutes 15.6 seconds east 287.45 

feet to a point N163,128.18, E826,416.08. 

(C) Thence running south 13 degrees 17 minutes 53.3 seconds east 129.11 

feet to a point N163,002.53, E826,445.77. 

(D) Thence running south 45 degrees 45 minutes 18.4 seconds west 

221.05 feet to a point N162,848.30, E826,287.42. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

(E) Thence running north 44 degrees 14 minutes 59.5 seconds west 

110.73 feet to the point of origin. 

(8) CORSICA RIVER, QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND.—The portion of the 

project for improving the Corsica River, Maryland, authorized by the first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for 

other purposes’’, approved July 25, 1912 (37 Stat. 205), and described as follows: 

Approximately 2,000 feet of the eastern section of the project channel extending 

from— 

(A) centerline station 0+000 (coordinates N506350.60, E1575013.60); to 

(B) station 2+000 (coordinates N508012.39, E1574720.18). 

(9) GLOUCESTER HARBOR AND ANNISQUAM RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—The portions of the project for navigation, Gloucester Harbor and Annisquam River, 

Massachusetts, 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 of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 12; chapter 19), consisting of an 8-foot anchorage area in Lobster Cove, and described 

as follows: 

(A) Beginning at a bend along the easterly limit of the existing project, 

N3063230.31, E878283.77, thence running northwesterly about 339 feet to 

a point, N3063478.86, E878053.83, thence running northwesterly about 281 

feet to a bend on the easterly limit of the existing project, N3063731.88, 

E877932.54, thence running southeasterly about 612 feet along the easterly 

limit of the existing project to the point of origin. 

(B) Beginning at a bend along the easterly limit of the existing project, 

N3064065.80, E878031.45, thence running northwesterly about 621 feet to 

a point, N3064687.05, E878031.13, thence running southwesterly about 122 

feet to a point, N3064686.98, E877908.85, thence running southeasterly 

about 624 feet to a point, N3064063.31, E877909.17, thence running southwesterly about 512 feet to a point, N3063684.73, E877564.56, thence running about 741 feet to a point along the westerly limit of the existing 

project, N3063273.98, E876947.77, thence running northeasterly about 533 

feet to a bend along the westerly limit of the existing project, N3063585.62, 

E877380.63, thence running about 147 feet northeasterly to a bend along 

the westerly limit of the project, N3063671.29, E877499.63, thence running 

northeasterly about 233 feet to a bend along the westerly limit of the existing project, N3063840.60, E877660.29, thence running about 339 feet northeasterly to a bend along the westerly limit of the existing project, 

N3064120.34, E877852.55, thence running about 573 feet to a bend along 

the westerly limit of the existing project, N3064692.98, E877865.04, thence 

running about 113 feet to a bend along the northerly limit of the existing 

project, N3064739.51, E877968.31, thence running 145 feet southeasterly to 

a bend along the northerly limit of the existing project, N3064711.19, 

E878110.69, thence running about 650 feet along the easterly limit of the 

existing project to the point of origin. 

(10) IPSWICH RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—The portion of the project for navigation, Ipswich River, Massachusetts, authorized by the first section of the Act of 

August 5, 1886 (24 Stat. 317, chapter 929) consisting of a 4-foot channel located 

at the entrance to the inner harbor at Ipswich Harbor, and described as follows: 

(A) Lying northwesterly of a line commencing at N3,074,938.09, 

E837,154.87. 

(B) Thence running easterly approximately 60 feet to a point with coordinates N3,074,972.62, E837,203.93. 

(11) EAST FORK OF TRINITY RIVER, TEXAS.—The portion of the project for flood 

protection on the East Fork of the Trinity River, Texas, authorized by section 

203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1185), that consists of the 2 levees 

identified as Kaufman County Levees K5E and K5W. 

(12) BURNHAM CANAL, WISCONSIN.—The portion of the project for navigation, 

Milwaukee Harbor Project, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, known as the Burnham 

Canal, authorized by the first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act for the protection of commerce on Lake Michigan’’, approved March 3, 1843 (5 Stat. 619; 

chapter 85), and described as follows: 

(A) Beginning at channel point #415a N381768.648, E2524554.836, a distance of about 170.58 feet. 

(B) Thence running south 53 degrees 43 minutes 41 seconds west to channel point #417 N381667.728, E2524417.311, a distance of about 35.01 feet. 

(C) Thence running south 34 degrees 10 minutes 40 seconds west to channel point #501 N381638.761, E2524397.639, a distance of about 139.25 feet. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

(D) Thence running south 34 degrees 10 minutes 48 seconds west to 

channel point #503 N381523.557, E2524319.406, a distance of about 235.98 

feet. 

(E) Thence running south 32 degrees 59 minutes 13 seconds west to channel point #505 N381325.615, E2524190.925, a distance of about 431.29 feet. 

(F) Thence running south 32 degrees 36 minutes 05 seconds west to channel point #509 N380962.276, E2523958.547, a distance of about 614.52 feet. 

(G) Thence running south 89 degrees 05 minutes 00 seconds west to 

channel point #511 N380952.445, E2523344.107, a distance of about 74.68 

feet. 

(H) Thence running north 89 degrees 04 minutes 59 seconds west to 

channel point #512 N381027.13, E2523342.91, a distance of about 533.84 

feet. 

(I) Thence running north 89 degrees 05 minutes 00 seconds east to channel point #510 N381035.67, E2523876.69, a distance of about 47.86 feet. 

(J) Thence running north 61 degrees 02 minutes 07 seconds east to channel point #508 N381058.84, E2523918.56, a distance of about 308.55 feet. 

(K) Thence running north 36 degrees 15 minutes 29 seconds east to channel point #506 N381307.65, E2524101.05, a distance of about 199.98 feet. 

(L) Thence running north 32 degrees 59 minutes 12 seconds east to channel point #504 N381475.40, E2524209.93, a distance of about 195.14 feet. 

(M) Thence running north 26 degrees 17 minutes 22 seconds east to channel point #502 N381650.36, E2524296.36, a distance of about 81.82 feet. 

(N) Thence running north 88 degrees 51 minutes 05 seconds west to 

channel point #419 N381732.17, E2524294.72, a distance of about 262.65 

feet. 

(O) Thence running north 82 degrees 01 minutes 02 seconds east to channel point #415a, the point of origin. 

(13) MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.—The portion of the project for navigation, Manitowoc River, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, authorized by the Act of August 

30, 1852 (10 Stat. 58; chapter 104), and described as follows: The triangular 

area bound by— 

(A) 44.09893383N and 087.66854912W; 

(B) 44.09900535N and 087.66864372W; and 

(C) 44.09857884N and 087.66913123W. 

(b) SEWARD WATERFRONT, SEWARD, ALASKA.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the portion of the project for navigation, Seward Harbor, Alaska, identified as Tract H, Seward Original Townsite, Waterfront Park Replat, Plat No 2012–4, Seward Recording District, shall 

not be subject to navigation servitude beginning on the date of enactment of 

this Act. 

(2) ENTRY BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.—The Federal Government may enter 

upon the property referred to in paragraph (1) to carry out any required operation and maintenance of the general navigation features of the project referred 

to in paragraph (1). 

(c) PORT OF HOOD RIVER, OREGON.— 

(1) EXTINGUISHMENT OF PORTIONS OF EXISTING FLOWAGE EASEMENT.—With respect to the properties described in paragraph (2), beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the flowage easement identified as Tract 1200E–6 on the 

Easement Deed recorded as Instrument No. 740320 is extinguished above elevation 79.39 feet (NGVD 29), the ordinary high water line. 

(2) AFFECTED PROPERTIES.—The properties described in this paragraph, as recorded in Hood River County, Oregon, are as follows: 

(A) Instrument Number 2010–1235. 

(B) Instrument Number 2010–02366. 

(C) Instrument Number 2010–02367. 

(D) Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 2011–12P. 

(E) Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 2005–26P. 

(3) EXTINGUISHMENT OF FLOWAGE EASEMENT.—With respect to the properties 

described in paragraph (2), the flowage easement is extinguished if the elevation of the property is above the standard project flood elevation. 

(4) FEDERAL LIABILITIES.—The United States shall not be liable for any injury 

caused by the extinguishment of the easement under this subsection. 

(5) NO EFFECT ON OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing in this subsection affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of Engineers for authorized project 

purposes. 

SEC. 305. LAND CONVEYANCES. 

(a) TULSA PORT OF CATOOSA, ROGERS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA LAND EXCHANGE.— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

(1) LAND EXCHANGE.—On conveyance by the Tulsa Port of Catoosa to the 

United States of all right, title, and interest in and to the non-Federal land, the 

Secretary shall convey to the Tulsa Port of Catoosa all right, title, and interest 

of the United States in and to the Federal land. 

(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the following definitions apply: 

(A) FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘Federal land’’ means the approximately 

87 acres of land situated in Rogers County, Oklahoma, contained within 

United States Tracts 413 and 427 and acquired for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas Navigation System. 

(B) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘non-Federal land’’ means the approximately 34 acres of land situated in Rogers County, Oklahoma, and 

owned by the Tulsa Port of Catoosa that lie immediately south and east of 

the Federal land. 

(3) SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.— 

(A) DEEDS.— 

(i) DEED TO NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The Secretary may only accept conveyance of the non-Federal land by warranty deed, as determined acceptable by the Secretary. 

(ii) DEED TO FEDERAL LAND.—The Secretary shall convey the Federal 

land to the Tulsa Port of Catoosa by quitclaim deed and subject to any 

reservations, terms, and conditions the Secretary determines necessary 

to— 

(I) allow the United States to operate and maintain the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System; and 

(II) protect the interests of the United States. 

(iii) CASH PAYMENT.—If the appraised fair market value of the Federal land, as determined by the Secretary, exceeds the appraised fair 

market value of the non-Federal land, as determined by the Secretary, 

the Tulsa Port of Catoosa shall make a cash payment to the United 

States reflecting the difference in the appraised fair market values. 

(b) CITY OF ASOTIN, WASHINGTON.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey to the city of Asotin, Asotin 

County, Washington, without monetary consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the land described in paragraph (3). 

(2) REVERSION.—If the land transferred under this subsection ceases at any 

time to be used for a public purpose, the land shall revert to the United States. 

(3) DESCRIPTION.—The land to be conveyed to the city of Asotin, Washington, 

under this subsection are— 

(A) the public ball fields designated as Tracts 1503, 1605, 1607, 1609, 

1611, 1613, 1615, 1620, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1626, and 1631; and 

(B) other leased areas designated as Tracts 1506, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 

1526, 1527, 1529, 1530, 1531, and 1563. 

(c) GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.— 

(1) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and the legal 

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

(2) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 

10, United States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance under this section. 

(3) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may require that any 

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

(4) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.—An entity to which a conveyance is made under 

this section shall be responsible for all reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated 

with the conveyance. 

(5) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section 

shall hold the United States harmless from any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any liability with respect 

to activities carried out, before such date, on the real property conveyed. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

TITLE IV—WATER RESOURCES 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDIES. 

The following final feasibility studies for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plan, and subject to the conditions, described in 

the respective reports designated in this section: 

(1) NAVIGATION.— 

A. State B. 

Name 

C. 

Date of 

Report of 

Chief of Engineers 

D. 

Estimated 

Federal 

Cost 

E. 

Estimated 

Non-Federal 

Cost 

1. TX, 

LA 

Sabine Neches Waterway, Southeast 

Texas and Southwest Louisiana 

July 22, 2011 $779,399,000 $359,227,000 

2. FL Jacksonville HarborMilepoint April 30, 2012 $27,804,000 $9,122,000 

3. GA Savannah Harbor Expansion Project Aug. 17, 2012 $461,000,000 $201,000,000 

4. TX Freeport Harbor Jan. 7, 

2013 

$121,132,000 $116,342,000 

5. FL Canaveral Harbor 

(Sect 203 Sponsor 

Report) 

Feb. 25, 2013 $28,652,000 $11,588,000 

(2) FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT.— 

A. State B. 

Name 

C. 

Date of 

Report of 

Chief of Engineers 

D. 

Estimated 

Federal 

Cost 

E. 

Estimated 

Non-Federal 

Cost 

1. KS Topeka Aug. 24, 2009 $15,494,000 $8,343,000 

2. CA American River Watershed, Common 

Features Project, 

Natomas Basin 

Dec. 30, 2010 $943,300,000 $479,500,000 

3. IA Cedar River, Cedar 

Rapids 

Jan. 27, 2011 $67,216,000 $36,194,000 

4. MN, 

ND 

Fargo-Moorhead 

Metro 

Dec. 19, 2011 $801,542,000 $979,806,000 

5. KY Ohio River Shoreline, 

Paducah 

May 16, 2012 $12,893,000 $6,943,000 

(3) HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION.— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

A. State B. 

Name 

C. 

Date of 

Report of 

Chief of 

Engineers 

D. 

Estimated Initial 

Federal 

Cost and 

Estimated 

Total 

Federal 

Cost for Life of 

Project 

E. 

Estimated Initial 

Non-Federal 

Cost and 

Estimated 

Total 

Non-Federal 

Cost for Life of 

Project 

1. NC West Onslow Beach 

and New River 

Inlet (Topsail 

Beach) 

Sept. 28, 2009 Initial Cost: 

$30,557,000 

Total Cost: 

$132,372,000 

Initial Cost: 

$17,315,000 

Total Cost: 

$132,372,000 

2. NC Surf City and North 

Topsail Beach 

Dec. 30, 2010 Initial Cost: 

$81,484,000 

Total Cost: 

$106,182,000 

Initial Cost: 

$43,900,000 

Total Cost: 

$106,182,000 

3. CA San Clemente Shoreline April 5, 

2012 

Initial Cost: 

$7,500,000 

Total Cost: 

$43,400,000 

Initial Cost: 

$4,000,000 

Total Cost: 

$43,400,000 

(4) HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE RISK REDUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.— 

A. State B. 

Name 

C. 

Date of 

Report of 

Chief of Engineers 

D. 

Estimated 

Federal 

Cost 

E. 

Estimated 

Non-Federal 

Cost 

1. MS Mississippi Coastal 

Improvement Program (MSCIP) Hancock, Harrison, and 

Jackson Counties 

Sept. 15, 2009 $815,090,000 $438,890,000 

(5) ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION.— 

A. State B. 

Name 

C. 

Date of 

Report of 

Chief of Engineers 

D. Estimated 

Federal 

Cost 

E. Estimated 

Non-Federal 

Cost 

1. MD Mid-Chesapeake Bay 

Island 

Aug. 24, 2009 $1,221,721,000 $657,849,000 

2. FL Central and Southern 

Florida Project, 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 

Caloosahatchee 

River (C–43) West 

Basin Storage 

Project, Hendry 

County 

March 11, 2010 $297,189,000 $297,189,000 

3. LA Louisiana Coastal 

Area 

Dec. 30, 2010 $954,452,000 $513,936,000 

4. MN Marsh Lake Dec. 30, 2011 $6,403,000 $3,564,000 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

A. State B. 

Name 

C. 

Date of 

Report of 

Chief of Engineers 

D. 

Estimated 

Federal 

Cost 

E. 

Estimated 

Non-Federal 

Cost 

5. FL Central and Southern 

Florida Project, 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, C–111 

Spreader Canal 

Western Project 

Jan. 30, 2012 $88,992,000 $88,992,000 

6. FL CERP Biscayne Bay 

Coastal Wetland, 

Florida 

May 2, 

2012 

$96,209,000 $96,209,000 

7. FL Central and Southern 

Florida Project, 

Broward County 

Water Preserve 

Area 

May 21, 2012 $433,353,500 $433,353,500 

8. LA Louisiana Coastal 

Area-Barataria 

Basin Barrier 

June 22, 2012 $283,567,000 $152,690,000 

9. NC Neuse River Basin April 23, 2013 $23,253,100 $12,520,900 

SEC. 402. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. 

(a) MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, authorized by section 1001(17) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1052), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 

construct the project at a total cost of $152,510,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $92,007,000 and a non-Federal cost of $60,503,000. 

(2) APPLICABILITY.—Paragraph (1) shall take effect on November 8, 2007. 

(b) 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 

$2,300,000,000, with a first Federal cost of $2,300,000,000. 

(c) LITTLE CALUMET RIVER BASIN (CADY MARSH DITCH), INDIANA.—The project for 

flood control, Little Calumet River Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana, authorized 

by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), 

and modified by section 127 of Public Law 109–103 (119 Stat. 2259), is further 

modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of 

$269,988,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $202,800,000 and a non-Federal 

cost of $67,188,000. 

PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION

H.R. 3080 authorizes the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

to carry out water resources development activities for the Nation, 

usually through cost-sharing partnerships with non-federal sponsors. Activities include navigation, flood damage reduction, shoreline protection, hydropower, dam safety, water supply, recreation, 

environmental restoration and protection, and disaster response 

and recovery. 

H.R. 3080 also makes fundamental reforms to the Corps of Engineers planning process, accelerates project delivery, empowers nonfederal project sponsors, and strengthens congressional oversight. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

America is blessed with an unparalleled network of natural harbors and rivers. The ports, channels, locks, dams, and other infraVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

structure that support our maritime and waterways transportation 

system and provide flood protection for our homes and businesses 

are vitally important to a healthy national economy and job 

growth. 

Ensuring a sound infrastructure network is a shared responsibility, with a strong federal role recognized by our Founding Fathers. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act 

(WRRDA) of 2013 promotes our Nation’s competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth by upholding the seminal federal responsibility to maintain a strong transportation infrastructure and 

ensure the efficient flow of domestic and international commerce. 

Through WRRDA, Congress authorizes the key missions of the 

Corps of Engineers, including developing, maintaining, and supporting the Nation’s economically vital waterway infrastructure 

and supporting effective and targeted flood protection and environmental restoration needs. 

WRRDA also provides Congress the opportunity to make much 

needed policy reforms, strengthen oversight, cut red tape, reduce 

bureaucracy, and open the door to innovation and stronger partnerships that will improve infrastructure development. 

Historically, water resources legislation has been enacted every 

two years to provide oversight of and policy direction to the Administration and the Corps of Engineers. But since such a measure has 

not been enacted since 2007, Congress has been silent on needed 

reforms and has failed to take action to develop, maintain, and 

support our Nation’s vital water infrastructure needs. 

HEARINGS

On April 16, 2013, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

Environment held a hearing on ‘‘The Foundations for a New Water 

Resources Development Act.’’ On April 24, 2013, the Subcommittee 

on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on ‘‘The 

President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget: Administration Priorities for 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.’’ On June 5, 2013, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on 

‘‘A Review of the United States Army Corps of Engineers Chief’s 

Reports.’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSIDERATION

On September 11, 2013, House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking Member Nick 

Rahall and Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 

Chairman Bob Gibbs and Ranking Member Tim Bishop introduced 

H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act 

(WRRDA) of 2013. On September 19, 2013, the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session and ordered 

the bill reported favorably to the House by voice vote with a 

quorum present. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Chairman Shuster 

making several technical and conforming changes, including a 

number of additions and clarifications to the introduced version of 

H.R. 3080. The amendment was unanimously approved by voice 

vote. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

DeFazio, which was withdrawn. The amendment would have created new authority for the Corps of Engineers related to aquatic 

invasive species control. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Hahn, which was withdrawn. The amendment would have increased the percentage spent on expanded uses of the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201 of H.R. 3080. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Hahn, which was withdrawn. The amendment would have taken 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund off-budget. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Southerland, which was amended by a substitute amendment by 

Chairman Shuster. The substitute amendment offered by Chairman Shuster clarifies the roles of the federal government, the 

Army Corps of Engineers, Congress, and the states during interstate disputes over water supply. The Shuster substitute amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Napolitano, which was withdrawn. The amendment would have required that no less than 30 percent of those Harbor Maintenance 

taxes go back to the state in which they were collected. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Brown of Florida, which was withdrawn. The amendment would 

have authorized, on a contingent basis, those Chief’s Reports that 

were completed within one year from the time H.R. 3080 is enacted. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Nolan, which was withdrawn. The amendment would have prohibited states from indemnifying the Corps of Engineers during the 

construction of a project if that indemnification was counter to 

state law. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Frankel, which was withdrawn. The amendment would have authorized the Corps of Engineers to utilize foreign sources of sediment for beach nourishment projects. 

An amendment was offered in Committee by Representative 

Cohen, which was withdrawn. The amendment would direct the development of a management plan through a new multi-agency program for the purpose of identifying opportunities for ecosystem restoration projects along the entire length of the Mississippi River. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires each committee report to include the total number of 

votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to report 

and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the 

names of those members voting for and against. There were no 

record votes taken in connection with consideration of H.R. 3080. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely 

submitted prior to the filing of the report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included in this report. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the 

enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3080 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, October 21, 2013. 

Hon. BILL SHUSTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House 

of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Aurora Swanson. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3080—Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 

Summary: H.R. 3080 would authorize the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) to construct water projects for mitigating storm 

and hurricane damage, restoring ecosystems, and improving flood 

management. The legislation also would authorize the agency to 

assist states and local governments with levee safety programs and 

to assist Indian tribes with planning and technical assistance for 

water resources projects. Finally, H.R. 3080 would direct the Corps 

to implement a pilot program to enter agreements with nonfederal 

partners to manage and construct certain projects. Those agreements would be subject to appropriation of all federal costs. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, including adjustments for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3080 would cost about $3.5 billion over 2014–2018 

period. Spending would continue for authorized projects after 2018, 

and CBO estimates that such spending would total $4.7 billion over 

the 2019–2023 period. 

Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply because enacting the bill 

would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 3080 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3080 is shown in the following table. The costs 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014– 

2018 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Title I 

Program Reforms and Streamlining 

Estimated Authorization Level ........................ 78 78 76 86 90 408 

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 33 57 66 76 81 314 

Title IV 

Water Resources Infrastructure 

Estimated Authorization Level ........................ 787 803 820 838 857 4,105 

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 315 557 687 780 798 3,137 

Other Provisions 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 5 1 * * 1 9 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 3 3 1 * 1 8 

Total Changesa

Estimated Authorization Level ........................ 870 882 897 925 949 4,422 

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 351 617 754 857 880 3,459 

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. * = less than $500,000. 

a CBO estimates that spending on authorized projects would continue after 2018 and total $4.7 billion over the 2019–2023 period. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

3080 will be enacted early in 2014 and that the necessary amounts 

will be appropriated for each fiscal year. Estimates of amounts necessary to implement the bill are based on information from the 

Corps of Engineers, and outlays are estimated based on historical 

spending patterns for similar projects. 

Title I—Program Reforms and Streamlining 

CBO estimates that implementing title I would cost $314 million 

over the 2014–2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

Title I would direct the Corps to establish a pilot program to 

enter into partnerships with nonfederal entities to construct 15 

water infrastructure projects. Those projects would be selected by 

the Corps to improve coastal harbors and navigation; to reduce 

hurricane, storm, and flood damage; and to restore aquatic ecosystems. Under the partnerships, nonfederal entities would manage the construction, financing, and design of those projects according to plans approved by the Corps. However, under title I, the 

Corps could not enter into any such partnerships until the necessary amounts to complete those projects have been appropriated. 

Based on information provided by the Corps on the cost of projects 

that could meet the selection criteria in the bill, CBO estimates 

that federal costs would total $50 million over the 2014–2018 period, assuming appropriation of necessary amounts. 

Title 1 also would direct the Corps to establish federal guidelines 

for ensuring the safety of levees and would authorize the Corps, 

upon request, to enter into agreements with the state or local governments to provide planning assistance and technical expertise to 

improve levee safety. Based on information provided by the Corps 

on federal costs to develop guidelines and provide such assistance 

and assuming appropriation of necessary amounts, CBO estimates 

that the program would cost $61 million over the 2014–2018 period. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

Title I would increase discretionary costs because it would expand and clarify the Corps’ existing authorities to carry out certain 

activities. CBO estimates that those costs would total $193 million 

over the 2014–2018 period. Those activities include: • Controlling aquatic invasive species in the nation’s navigable waters; • Improving fish habitat in areas where the Corps’ projects 

are near fish hatcheries; • Streamlining environmental reviews and coordinating with 

other federal agencies to quickly resolve environmental issues 

that affect water resources projects; • Crediting nonfederal project sponsors with in-kind contributions above their cost-share requirement or prior to finalizing a project cooperation agreement; and • Renewing the Corps’ authority to assist Indian tribes with 

planning and technical expertise for constructing water resources projects. Finally, title I also would cost $10 million to implement a variety 

of specified studies and management initiations. 

Title IV—Water Resources Infrastructure 

CBO estimates that implementing title IV would cost about $3.1 

billion over the 2014–2018 period, assuming appropriation of the 

necessary amounts. 

Title IV would authorize the Corps to construct 23 new projects 

that are designed to improve the nation’s navigation system, 

strengthen flood-risk management, and restore the environment. The six largest projects would have a total estimated cost of $8.8 billion, with the federal share of those costs totaling about $5.3 billion. CBO estimates that $2.1 billion of those costs would be incurred over the 2014–2018 period. Those projects are: • Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project 

to restore wetlands in Maryland; • Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration, including 

six separable elements to restore shoreline and swamp ecosystems and reduce marsh degradation; 

• American River Watershed Common Features project to 

reduce risk from floods in the Natomas Basin near Sacramento, California; 

• Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program to reduce risks 

from hurricanes, storms, and floods; 

• Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan area in Minnesota and 

North Dakota to reduce risks from floods; and 

• Sabine Neches Waterway in southwest Texas and southeast Louisiana to improve navigation. 

Based on information from the Corps, CBO estimates that construction costs for the other 17 projects would total about $1 billion 

over the next five years. 

Other provisions 

H.R. 3080 would direct the Corps to implement changes to navigation projects on the Inland Waterway system aimed at improving 

delivery times and reducing cost overruns. The bill also would require the Corps to evaluate the efficiency of fuel tax collections on 

the nation’s waterways that are deposited into the Inland WaterVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

ways Trust Fund (IWTF), evaluate alternative approaches for increasing collections to the fund, and study the use of tax-exempt 

bonds to fund inland waterways projects. Based on information 

from the Corps, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions 

would cost $7 million over the 2014–2018 period. 

H.R. 3080 also would aim to clear project backlogs by directing 

the Corps to identify and publish in the Federal Register inactive 

projects authorized prior to enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. The bill defines projects as inactive if construction has not commenced or if funds were not provided for a 

project in the five years prior to July 1, 2013. Six months after 

being listed in the Federal Register, those projects would be automatically deauthorized unless a nonfederal sponsor provides funding to complete the project. Also, to prevent future backlogs, 

projects authorized in H.R. 3080 would be automatically deauthorized if no funds have been appropriated for those projects after 

seven years. Based on information from the Corps, CBO estimates 

that the provision would cost around $500,000 to implement over 

the 2014–2018 period. 

The bill would withdraw the authorization for 13 Corps projects 

originally authorized before 1964. Information from the Corps indicates that those projects are complete and no additional construction is planned; therefore, CBO expects that deauthorizing them 

would not have a budget impact. 

Finally, H.R. 3080 would direct the Corps to prioritize navigation 

projects funded with appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund (HMTF) based on regional and national needs associated with the nation’s harbors. The bill also would establish targets 

for appropriations that would be equal to an increasing percentage 

of annual revenues and interest credited to the fund. Over the past 

five years, appropriations from the HMTF have averaged around 

$800 million a year—or about $700 million a year less than the 

revenues and interest credited to the fund. However, because current law authorizes the appropriation of whatever sums as are necessary from the HMTF, CBO estimates that this provision would 

not increase the amounts authorized to be appropriated from the 

HMTF. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3080 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. Several provisions, including those that allow nonfederal 

partners more flexibility and authority to complete water projects 

and those that authorize the Cherokee Nation to build hydroelectric facilities, would benefit state, local, and tribal governments. 

Those new authorities could result in increased spending by public 

entities, but those expenditures would be the result of voluntary 

actions and not intergovernmental mandates. 

Previous CBO estimate: On April 17, 2013, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for a version of S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act of 2013, that was provided to CBO by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 12, 2013. 

CBO estimated that implementing S. 601 would cost $5.7 billion 

over the 2014–2018 period. Significant differences between H.R. 

3080 and S. 601 are highlighted below: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

• H.R. 3080 would authorize four new projects that would not be 

authorized by S. 601. 

• Both H.R. 3080 and S. 601 would authorize the appropriation 

of more than $1 billion for the Olmsted navigation project in Illinois and Kentucky. The cost estimate for S. 601 that CBO prepared 

in April 2013 included the cost of this authorization. However, on 

October 17, 2013, an increase in the authorized cost for the 

Olmsted project was enacted by Public Law 113–46. As a result, 

CBO did not include any additional authorization cost for the 

Olmsted project in the cost estimate for H.R. 3080. 

• S. 601 would authorize the Corps to establish grant programs 

to assist local and state governments with levee safety; CBO estimates that program would cost $230 million over the 2014–2018 

period. H.R. 3080 would authorize the Corps to provide technical 

and planning assistance but does not include grants to provide financial assistance to state and local governments. CBO estimates 

that this provision would cost $50 million over the 2014–2018 period. 

• S. 601 includes a loan guarantee program for state and local 

governments and certain nongovernmental entities to complete 

water infrastructure projects that is not included in H.R. 3080. 

CBO estimates that loan guarantee program would cost $40 million 

over the 2014–2018 period. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Aurora Swanson; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact 

on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals 

and objectives of this legislation are to authorize the key missions 

of the Corps of Engineers, including developing, maintaining, and 

supporting the Nation’s economically vital waterway infrastructure 

and supporting effective and targeted flood protection and environmental restoration needs. Additionally, H.R. 3080 is intended to cut 

federal red tape and bureaucracy, accelerate the project delivery 

process, promote fiscal responsibility, and strengthen our water 

transportation networks to promote competiveness, prosperity, and 

economic growth. Finally, WRRDA will make major reforms to increase transparency, accountability, and congressional oversight in 

reviewing and prioritizing future water resources development activities. 

ADVISORY OF EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits 

as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives. No provision in the bill includes an 

earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit under clause 

9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to section 3(j) of H. Res. 5, 113th Cong. (2013), the 

Committee finds that no provision of H.R. 3080 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another federal program, a program that was included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related 

to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

Pursuant to section 3(k) of H. Res. 5, 113th Cong. (2013), the 

Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 3080 specifically directs 

the completion of a specific rule making within the meaning of section 551 of title 5, United States Code. Section 103 of H.R. 3080 

requires the Corps of Engineers to carry out a rulemaking regarding environmental streamlining of water resources development 

feasibility studies. 

FEDERAL MANDATE STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(Public Law 104–4). 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the 

report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, or tribal law. The Committee states 

that H.R. 3080 does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

H.R. 3080 preserves the rights and permitting authorities of states. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this legislation, 

though the Inland Waterways Users Board, as created in the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986, under Section 212 of 

H.R. 3080 has to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

APPLICABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION

TITLE I—PROGRAM REFORMS AND STREAMLINING 

Section 101. Vertical integration and acceleration of studies 

This section limits Corps of Engineers feasibility studies to 3 

years and $3 million in federal costs per feasibility study. It also 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

requires District, Division, and Headquarters personnel to concurrently conduct reviews of a feasibility study. For any feasibility 

study not complete after 3 years, upon notification of the non-federal project sponsor and Congress, the Secretary of the Army may 

take up to one additional year to complete the feasibility study. If 

the feasibility study is still not complete, authorization for the feasibility study is terminated. 

The Committee has been concerned about the length of time it 

often takes for the Corps of Engineers to complete its feasibility 

studies. While there are several reasons studies can sometimes 

take 15 years or more, the Committee believes that the time can 

be shortened by setting the deadlines established in this legislation. The schedule set by this section closely follows the one which 

the Corps is working to implement administratively. The Committee believes that setting an aggressive schedule in statute will 

increase the likelihood that necessary effort and resources will be 

provided so that feasibility studies will be completed in 3 years 

after the date of a feasibility cost-sharing agreement with a nonfederal sponsor. 

Section 102. Expediting the evaluation and processing of permits 

This section provides permanent authority for the Corps of Engineers to accept funds from non-federal public interests to expedite 

the processing of permits within the regulatory program of the 

Corps of Engineers. Additionally, this section allows public utility 

companies to participate in the program. Finally, this section directs the Secretary to ensure that the use of the authority does not 

slow down the permit processing time of applicants that do not participate in the section 214 program. 

According to testimony presented to the Committee, more than $220 billion in annual economic investment is directly related to 

activities associated with the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, specifically, decisions reached under section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act. Currently, not every Corps of Engineers District utilizes 

the section 214 program. By authorizing a permanent program, the 

Committee provides direction and encourages each District to participate in the section 214 program and ensure regulatory decisions 

are reached in a timely manner. The Committee expects that when 

funds are offered by an entity under this section, the Secretary will 

accept and utilize those funds in an expeditious manner. 

Section 103. Environmental streamlining 

This section accelerates Corps of Engineers studies and reviews 

by requiring that the Secretary of the Army hold the lead role in 

facilitating the environmental review process; creates opportunities 

for non-federal sponsors to assume greater responsibilities in protecting public health, safety, and the environment; and authorizes 

deadlines for all agencies providing materials and comments for 

studies and reviews. 

Section 103(b) applies to water resources project studies carried 

out pursuant to section 905 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986. This section is not intended to apply to the Corps of 

Engineers regulatory authorities, including those related to section 

404 of the Clean Water Act or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

Act of 1899, for other non-Corps of Engineers infrastructure 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

projects. For example, if a pipeline company was pursuing a project 

to construct or expand a pipeline to transport energy products, and 

that pipeline project, because its proposed route was over navigable 

water, would require a permit under the Clean Water Act, nothing 

in this section would affect the regulatory review undertaken by 

the Corps as it relates to such project. 

In this section, non-federal interests are meant to be inclusive in 

nature, and River Basin Commissions should be considered as a 

non-federal interest as it pertains to this section. 

Section 104. Consolidation of studies 

This section repeals requirements that the Corps of Engineers 

conduct a reconnaissance study prior to initiating a feasibility 

study. It creates an accelerated process that allows non-federal 

project sponsors and the Corps of Engineers to proceed directly to 

the feasibility study. 

While repealing the requirement that the Corps of Engineers 

carry out reconnaissance studies and produce a reconnaissance report, some of the activities prescribed by Section 905(b) of the 

Water Resources Development of 1986, as amended, may be carried 

out at the beginning of the feasibility study process as required 

under section 101 of this Act. At any point during a feasibility 

study, the Secretary may terminate the study when it is clear that 

a project in the public interest is not possible for technical, legal, 

or financial reasons. 

Section 105. Removal of duplicative analyses 

This section repeals a requirement that the Corps of Engineers 

re-evaluate cost estimates immediately after initial cost estimates 

have been completed. 

While the Committee applauds the Corps of Engineers for centuries of planning, constructing, and operating and maintaining 

projects that are integral to the Nation’s economic security, implementation of section 911 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986 has led to unnecessary and duplicative reviews. Value engineering is a useful tool in carrying out water resources development projects, however, requiring the analysis of cost estimates immediately after costs have been initially estimated is counter-productive. By repealing section 911, the Committee intends the Corps 

of Engineers to continue to apply value engineering techniques to 

projects, but to apply them in consultation with contractors immediately prior to or after the project has initiated construction. 

Section 106. Expediting approval of modifications and alterations of 

project by non-federal interests 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army to develop a 45- 

day benchmark for reviewing and processing applications from nonfederal entities to modify or improve eligible federal water resources projects, and a 180-day benchmark for those applications 

on more complicated project modifications. 

The Committee has heard from numerous stakeholders regarding 

critiques of Corps of Engineers implementation of section 14 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, commonly referred 

to as ‘‘section 408’’ activities. While the Corps of Engineers should 

continue to make determinations on modifications of existing fedVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

eral projects pursuant to section 408, the Committee supports 

benchmarking as a tool for the agency to utilize to reach decisions 

in a timely manner. The benchmarks in this Act are intended to 

provide clarity for when determinations should be reached in many 

instances. If determinations are reached prior to those benchmarks 

in this Act, it is not the intent of the Committee that the Corps 

delay the determination until the benchmark is reached. Rather, 

the Corps should make the non-federal interest aware of the determination as soon as possible within the benchmark windows required by this section. 

Section 107. Construction of projects by non-federal interests 

This section authorizes non-federal project sponsors to provide 

funds to the Corps of Engineers to carry out studies and authorizes 

non-federal project sponsors to carry out authorized federal water 

resources development projects. 

The Committee has heard from numerous stakeholders who have 

financing in place that is in excess of the non-federal requirements 

and would like the opportunity to either carry out an authorized 

activity on their own, or contract with the Corps of Engineers to 

carry out the work on a federal project, as they can do for flood control projects currently under section 211 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996. Under current law and practice, it is 

very difficult for the Corps of Engineers to accept contributed funds 

to carry out authorized activities if no federal funds have been designated for that activity. This section of this Act is intended to remedy this situation to authorize the Corps of Engineers to accept and 

expend contributed funds absent federal funds, or to authorize the 

non-federal interest to carry out the work on a federal project subject to credit or reimbursement. 

Since 1986, Congress has authorized this arrangement several 

times, but only for a limited set of project purposes. By repealing 

certain sections of law, this section is also intended to harmonize 

section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, section 

404 of the Water Resources Development Act 1990, and section 211 

of the Water Resources Development Act 1996. This section is intended to apply to all congressionally-authorized water resources 

studies and projects, including those activities typically associated 

with pre-construction, engineering, and design work, commonly referred to as ‘‘P.E.D.’’ 

Section 108. Contributions by non-federal interests 

This section clarifies the non-federal interests that may contribute funds toward construction of authorized water resources 

projects. Additionally, this section clarifies that inland navigation 

facilities and the repair of water resources facilities after an emergency declaration are eligible for contributed funds from non-federal interests. 

For example, this section clarifies non-federal interests, as defined by section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 as amended, 

to participate in the financing of the construction of projects on the 

inland navigation system. Currently, capital improvement projects 

are financed 50 percent from the General Fund of the Treasury, 

and 50 percent from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. While this 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

section does not alter that arrangement, it does authorize non-federal interests to finance capital improvement projects on the inland 

navigation system. For instance, under current law, a state cannot 

finance the construction of a new lock and dam. This section is intended to authorize that type of financing activity. 

Section 109. Contributions by non-federal interests for management 

of Corps of Engineers inland navigation facilities 

This section authorizes the Secretary of the Army to accept nonfederal contributions from non-federal entities to operate and maintain the Nation’s inland waterways transportation system. 

The Corps of Engineers is undergoing a review of those 239 lock 

projects at 193 sites on the inland navigation system to prioritize 

operation and maintenance funding needs. Up until several years 

ago, almost all of the locks in the system were manned 24 hours 

a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. However, due to the age 

of the system, limited use for some of the projects that are far up 

on tributaries, and limited operation and maintenance funds, the 

Corps of Engineers is proposing to limit the operations of certain 

locks on a District-by-District basis. While the Committee applauds 

the Corps in their efforts to prioritize projects, the Committee is 

wary of a lack of coordination amongst Districts when implementing these changes in hours of service and, in a few cases, proposals to limit the hours of service based on inaccurate or limited 

data. 

While changes in hours of service are imminent and in some 

cases have already been implemented, non-federal interests have 

expressed a willingness to finance the operations and maintenance 

of projects where the hours of service have been proposed to be reduced. This section is intended to allow the Corps of Engineers to 

accept such funds to ensure traffic is not unduly impacted on the 

inland navigation system. 

Section 110. Additional contributions by non-federal interests 

This section allows the Secretary to accept funds from a non-federal interest for any authorized water resources development 

project that meets or exceeds their cost limit as long as the federal 

share does not increase. 

Section 111. Clarification of impacts to other federal facilities 

This section clarifies that when a Corps of Engineers project adversely impacts other federal facilities, the Secretary of the Army 

may accept funds from other federal agencies to address the impacts, including removal, relocation, and reconstruction of such facilities. 

For instance, the Committee is aware that the Corps of Engineers’ planned Isabella Lake Dam Safety Modification Project will 

require damage to or demolition of multiple U.S. Forest Service administrative, workshop, and recreation buildings and facilities 

around the reservoir. Failure to rebuild or relocate these facilities 

could cause severe economic hardship to the communities in the region. A 1964 memorandum of agreement between the Secretaries 

of the Army and Agriculture indicates the Corps of Engineers’ commitment to replace any Forest Service facilities adversely affected 

by Corps projects. The 2008 Ancillary Operating Agreement No. 4 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

for Lake Isabella, California, between the Corps of Engineers Sacramento District Engineer and Sequoia National Forest Supervisor 

indicates the Corps shall replace recreation and administrative facilities that are impacted by Lake Isabella project activities. However, recently the Corps of Engineers has concluded that it does not 

have sufficient authority to replace Forest Service facilities impacted by the Lake Isabella project. Therefore, the Committee 

strongly encourages the Corps of Engineers to explore all available 

solutions to rebuild or relocate U.S. Forest Service facilities impacted by the Isabella Lake Dam Safety Modification Project. 

Section 112. Clarification of previously authorized work 

This section clarifies that the Corps of Engineers may carry out 

measures to improve fish species habitat within the boundaries and 

downstream of a Corps project that includes a fish hatchery if the 

Corps is explicitly authorized to compensate for fish losses associated with the project. 

The Committee is aware of the confusion surrounding work carried out by the Corps of Engineers related to compliance requirements of other laws outside of the jurisdiction of the Committee. 

This section is intended to clarify the Corps of Engineers has the 

authority to carry out work for compliance activities related to the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Section 113. Tribal partnership program 

This section authorizes the Corps of Engineers to carry out 

water-related planning activities and construct water resources development projects that are located primarily within Indian country. 

Previous Water Resources Development Acts have authorized individual Tribes to carry out these activities. This section is intended to provide this authority generically so that all Tribes may 

benefit. 

Tribes associated with Corps of Engineers projects have specific 

needs regarding management of resources. This section is intended 

to allow Tribes, as sovereign entities, to develop contractual agreements with the federal government to allow for coordinated management of resources and evaluation of the effects of Corps of Engineers management on tribally important issues. 

Section 114. Technical corrections 

This section corrects two provisions in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 that have not been properly executed due 

to unintended interpretations. In previous Water Resources Development Acts, credit was authorized for individual projects. However, many of these provisions had been written differently over 

time, though the intent was the same. In an effort to harmonize 

those activities for which credit could be authorized, Congress requested technical assistance from the Corps of Engineers in drafting a credit provision that could be applied to all Corps projects. 

While the language provided by the Corps of Engineers was part 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, the Corps then 

came back to Congress saying that specific section of law could not 

be executed. This provision ensures non-federal project sponsors receive credit for contributions to carrying out federal water reVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

sources development projects that are in excess of non-federal costsharing requirements. This section also provides for in-kind credit 

for work done by the non-federal sponsor prior to execution of a 

project cooperation agreement with the Corps of Engineers for work 

done prior to the enactment of this Act. 

This section explicitly authorizes the Secretary to enter into a 

written agreement with the non-federal interest to credit certain 

costs and in-kind contributions against the non-federal share of 

cost of the project. 

The Committee typically receives numerous requests for projectspecific credit during the development of this Act. While requests 

for credit typically have received favorable consideration in this 

legislation and prior water resources legislation, the Committee 

has concluded that a general provision allowing credit under specified conditions would minimize the need for future project-specific 

provisions and, at the same time, assure consistency in considering 

future proposals for credit. 

The Committee is becoming increasingly wary of non-federal interests advocating for credit for work not captured by a cost-sharing agreement or a partnership agreement. The Committee would 

strongly encourage non-federal interests to sign cost-sharing agreements and partnership agreements prior to carrying out any work 

related to a proposed project, otherwise such work will not be eligible for credit. 

Section 115. Water infrastructure public-private partnership pilot 

program 

This section authorizes the Secretary of the Army to enter into 

agreements with non-federal interests, including private entities, to 

finance construction of at least 15 authorized water resources development projects. 

The definition of water resources development projects is intended to cover Corps of Engineers activities related to construction 

and major rehabilitation projects. 

Section 116. Annual report to Congress 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army to annually publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting proposals, from 

non-federal interests, for project authorizations, studies, and modifications to existing Corps of Engineers projects. Further, it requires the Secretary submit to Congress and make publicly available an annual report of those activities that are related to the missions of the Corps of Engineers and require specific authorization 

by law. Additionally, this section requires the Secretary to certify 

the proposals included in the annual report meet the criteria established by Congress in this section. 

The section requires that information be provided about each 

proposal that is in the annual report submitted to the Congress. 

This information is meant to help the Committee and the Congress 

set priorities regarding which potential studies, projects, and modifications will receive authorizations. The Secretary is expected to 

make use of information that is readily available and is not expected to begin a detailed and time-consuming analysis for additional information. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

During Committee consideration of H.R. 3080, the Manager’s 

Amendment contained a provision to require the Corps of Engineers submit to Congress an appendix containing description of 

those projects requested by non-federal interests that were not included in the annual report. The activities to be included in the appendix provide an additional layer of transparency that will allow 

Congress to review all non-federal interest submittals to the Corps 

of Engineers. This will allow Congress to receive a more complete 

spectrum of potential project studies, authorizations, and modifications. Activities described in the appendix are not subject to authorization from Congress. 

Section 117. Actions to be taken in conjunction with the President’s 

annual budget submission to Congress 

This section requires the Corps of Engineers, as part of the President’s annual budget process, to identify and recommend to Congress water resources projects that should receive the fully authorized amount of funding in each of the current and succeeding four 

fiscal years, assuming an annual construction budget of $2 billion. 

This information is meant to inform the Congress on which projects 

potentially could be fully funded in a single fiscal year making it 

possible to construct a project using the most efficient construction 

schedule. This section also requires the Corps of Engineers, as part 

of the President’s annual budget process, to report to Congress on 

the prioritization of federal actions to be carried out during the 

next fiscal year to mitigate for fish and wildlife losses as a result 

of Corps of Engineers projects in the Missouri River Basin. 

Section 118. Hurricane and storm damage reduction study 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army to make specific 

project recommendations to Congress as a result of the study funded in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013. 

Section 119. Non-federal plans to provide additional flood risk reduction 

This section authorizes the Secretary of the Army to carry out a 

locally preferred plan at non-federal expense if that project increment provides a higher level of flood protection and is economically 

justified, technically achievable, and environmentally acceptable. 

In certain cases, non-federal project sponsors would prefer the 

Corps of Engineers carry out a locally-preferred plan that is more 

robust than that recommended in a Chief’s Report. In current practice, the Corps of Engineers will carry out a more robust locally 

preferred plan at the request of the non-federal interest. This provision is intended to merely codify current practice as it relates to 

flood damage reduction projects authorized in this Act, and as 

such, is not intended to affect current law with respect to establishing cost share for an authorized project. 

Section 120. Review of emergency response authorities 

This section authorizes the Secretary of the Army to evaluate alternative levels of restoration for federal flood damage reduction 

projects that are damaged after storm events. 

Under Public Law 84–99, section 5 of the 1941 Act, the Corps of 

Engineers has the authority to repair or restore certain qualifying 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

flood damage reduction projects that have been impacted by storm 

events, and may strengthen, raise, extend, or otherwise modify 

these projects at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army. Typically, the Corps of Engineers will, at a minimum, repair these 

projects to their pre-event condition. This section is intended for 

the Corps of Engineers to review their historic and current practices in implementing Public Law 84–99 activities, including activities related to economically feasible, non-structural alternatives. 

Section 121. Emergency communication of risk 

This section authorizes the Secretary of the Army to establish 

procedures for notifying the public and affected governments and 

Indian tribes of flood risk when precipitation and runoff in a river 

basin presents a risk to life and property. 

Following the flood events on the Missouri River and Mississippi 

River in 2011, concern was raised by Members of Congress related 

to the lack of communication from the Corps of Engineers to nonfederal interests during these events. While the duration and volume of these events are difficult to predict and conditions are variable, the Committee has an expectation of improved communications from the Corps of Engineers during subsequent storm events. 

Section 122. Improvements to the National Dam Safety Program act 

This section authorizes technical and clarifying changes to the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Dam Safety 

Program. 

Section 123. Restricted areas at Corps of Engineers dams 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from installing permanent barriers or restricting public access in the vicinity of the 10 dams on the Cumberland River in Kentucky and Tennessee. 

Section 124. Levee safety 

This section amends the Planning Assistance to States program 

to include state and other non-federal levee safety programs as an 

eligible activity and authorizes the Corps of Engineers to provide 

technical assistance to states and other appropriate non-federal interests that voluntarily participate in levee safety activities. 

Section 125. Vegetation on levees 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army to re-issue regulations regarding vegetation on levees that take into consideration 

and incorporate regional characteristics, habitat for species of concern, and levee performance. 

Section 126. Reduction of federal costs 

This section authorizes the Corps of Engineers to place dredged 

material in nearby shoreline systems to protect coastal infrastructure and reduce emergency repair costs. 

Section 127. Advanced modeling technologies 

This section encourages the Corps of Engineers to utilize industry best modeling practices to expedite project delivery or improve 

the evaluation of water resources development projects. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

Section 128. Enhanced use of electronic commerce in federal procurement 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army submit a report 

to Congress detailing activities carried out by the Corps of Engineers in order to comply with procurement laws related to electronic bidding. 

Section 129. Corrosion prevention 

This section encourages the Corps of Engineers to incorporate 

corrosion prevention activities to extend the lifecycle of federal 

water resources projects. 

Section 130. Resilient construction and innovative technology 

This section encourages the Corps of Engineers to use durable, 

resilient, and sustainable materials in carrying out activities related to water resources development projects. 

For the purposes of this section, ‘‘resilient’’ means construction 

methods or materials that allow a project to resist hazards brought 

on by a major disaster and to continue to provide the primary functions of the project after a major disaster, and reduce the magnitude or duration of a disruptive event to a project. 

Section 131. Assessment of water supply in arid regions 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army to issue a report 

on practices, priorities, and authorized purposes at Corps of Engineers reservoirs in arid regions of the United States and their effect on water supply during times of drought. 

The intent of this section is to direct the Secretary to look at reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Secretary in regions typically 

associated with drought conditions in the West to determine if existing operations and management can be modified to allow for 

greater capture of stormwater runoff for potential use in water 

reuse, recycling and groundwater recharge. The Committee believes that the Secretary has some administrative capacity to modify operations to accommodate the capture of stormwater. 

Section 132. River Basin Commissions 

This section requires that, for every year the President does not 

request funding for Corps of Engineers activities related to participating in River Basin Commissions, the Secretary of the Army 

must submit to Congress a justification on the lack of funding and 

an analysis of the associated impacts. 

River Basin Commissions are providing an important role in organization and coordination on watershed level impacts and issues. 

The funding of the River Basin Commissions is based on joint support from the River basin states and the federal government. The 

lack of the federal share is resulting in reduced state involvement, 

which is leading to a loss of important coordination on watershed 

level water quality and water allocation issues. The Committee impresses upon the Secretary the importance of providing support to 

the River Basin Commissions that the Congress, through previous 

Water Resources Development Acts, has directed be accomplished. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

Section 133. Sense of Congress regarding water resources development bills 

This section re-affirms that Water Resources Development Acts 

should be considered by Congress every two years. 

Section 134. Donald G. Waldon lock and dam 

This section provides that it is the Sense of Congress that a lock 

and dam in Alabama be named after Donald G. Waldon, a former 

administrator of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. 

Section 135. Aquatic invasive species 

This section amends section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1958 by adding the removal of aquatic invasive species as an eligible activity under the program for the eradication of noxious aquatic plant growth. The intent of this section is to have the Secretary 

manage and control aquatic invasive species, including both aquatic plant and animal species. 

Section 136. Recreational access 

This section clarifies that floating cabins on reservoirs cannot be 

prohibited by the Corps of Engineers if they meet the United 

States Coast Guard definition of a recreational vessel. 

Section 137. Territories of the United States 

This section updates the cost sharing responsibilities for the 

Corps of Engineers for work performed in American Samoa, Guam, 

Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. 

Section 138. Sense of Congress regarding interstate water agreements and compacts 

This Sense of Congress emphasizes the role of the Congress, the 

Corps of Engineers, states, and non-federal interests during interstate disputes over water supply and water management and recognizes the primary responsibility on interstate water agreements 

and compacts ultimately rests with the states. 

TITLE II—NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS 

Subtitle A—Ports 

Section 201. Expanded use of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

This section sets target expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund increasing each year so that by fiscal year 2020, 

and every year thereafter, no less than 80 percent of the funds collected go to operation and maintenance activities. In each year 

where the target expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund are met, the Secretary of the Army may use up to five percent of the total expenditures on specific expanded uses, to consist 

of the dredging of berths and the dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments affecting a federal navigation project. 

This section is intended to incentivize expenditures out of the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. According to a May 2013 estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, if no revisions were to be 

made to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, in 2020 the fund 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

would collect $3.1 billion in revenues and interest, leading to a balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund of $18.9 billion. By 

incentivizing expenditure through the creation of annual targets, 

thereby leading to expanded uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund to those who currently do not benefit, the Committee believes 

more funds will go to their intended purposes while maintaining 

flexibility for the Committee on Appropriations to continue to fund 

other vital programs and activities. 

Section 202. Assessment and prioritization of operation and maintenance 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army review the operation and maintenance needs of different types of harbors, and to 

identify the unmet needs in the President’s annual budget submission to Congress. To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall make future operation and maintenance expenditures 

based on an equitable allocation among all harbor types regardless 

of size and tonnage, based on the review and assessment made by 

the Secretary. For fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Secretary of the 

Army shall allocate 10 percent of the annual Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund expenditures on harbors that have throughput of less 

than 1 million tons. 

Currently, the Corps of Engineers utilizes annual tonnage as the 

primary metric by which to prioritize harbor maintenance funding. 

While it is important to prioritize limited funds, the Committee remains concerned that the annual tonnage metric is not an accurate 

representation of the values provided by the Nation’s ports. For instance, some oil and gas fabrication ports on the Gulf Coast see little or no tonnage annually. However, these ports are vital to the 

economic security of the Nation. Other ports like some in the 

Northeast, the Gulf States, the Great Lakes, and Pacific Northwest 

are primarily used for subsistence or commercial fishing and are 

integral to regional economies. 

Another category of critical ports include those essential for the 

protection of public health and safety, such as those ports that 

serve as berthing areas for the United States Coast Guard, local 

police or fire vessels, or serve as critical points of access to service 

domestic power generation facilities, including nuclear facilities. 

Approximately 70 percent of annual Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund expenditures go to the 59 ports that receive the most annual 

tonnage. Approximately six percent of Harbor Maintenance Trust 

Fund expenditures go to ports with less than 1 million tons of annual throughput, yet the vast majority of the Nation’s ports see 

less than 1 million tons annually. While the Corps of Engineers 

carries out the assessment, not less than 10 percent of annual expenditures is to be spent on ports with less than 1 million tons of 

annual throughput. 

For the purposes of section 202, the ‘‘Great Lakes’’ means Lake 

Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. In addition, for the purposes of section 202, the ‘‘Great Lakes 

Navigation System’’ means all connecting waters between the 

Great Lakes that are a federal responsibility with respect for operation and maintenance, any navigation features in the Great Lakes 

that are a federal operation or maintenance responsibility, and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

areas of the Saint Lawrence River that are operated or maintained 

by the government for commercial navigation. 

Section 203. Preserving United States harbors 

This section authorizes non-federal interests to enter into agreements with the Secretary of the Army to provide the Corps of Engineers with an economic justification in order to receive priority federal operation and maintenance funding for authorized projects. 

Agreements under this section do not change the Secretary’s responsibility to carry out at federal expense the maintenance of federal navigation channels, and nothing in this section is intended to 

affect the application of section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to harbors that choose not to utilize the authority in this section. 

Many ports in the Nation would likely see more traffic if the 

channels leading to those were dredged on a more consistent basis. 

However, in many cases, to be eligible for funding from the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund, they would have to see more than 1 million tons in annual throughput. Yet, those ports are caught in the 

unenviable situation of not being able to reach the annual tonnage 

metric since the channels leading to the port have not been 

dredged consistently. This section is intended to help ports get out 

of this ‘‘Catch-22’’ scenario created by the Corps of Engineers annual tonnage metric prioritization scheme. 

Section 204. Consolidation of deep draft navigation expertise 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army to consolidate 

coastal navigation expertise into one location. 

Section 205. Disposal Sites 

This section provides the ability for the Secretary of the Army, 

in concurrence with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to reopen the Cape Arundel Disposal site in Maine 

under a set of specific limitations and a timeline. 

Subtitle B—Inland Waterways 

Section 211. Definitions 

This section defines the terms used in this subtitle. 

Section 212. Project delivery process reforms 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army, for all capital 

improvement projects on the inland waterways navigation system, 

to utilize certified project managers, utilize risk-based cost estimates, evaluate early contractor involvement acquisition procedures, review the use of fully funded contracts or continuing contracts, identify best management practices to speed project delivery, and develop a portfolio of standard design for inland navigation locks. This section also augments the duties of the Inland Waterways Users Board and requires the Secretary, in coordination 

with the Board, to submit to Congress a 20-year investment strategy for the Nation’s inland and intracoastal waterways. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

Section 213. Efficiency of revenue collection 

This section requires the Comptroller General of the United 

States to prepare an evaluation of current method of collection of 

the fuel taxes for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and to review 

alternative methods of collection. 

Section 214. Inland waterways revenue studies 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army, in coordination 

with the Secretary of the Treasury, to carry out a study on the feasibility of authorizing the issuance of federally tax-exempt bonds 

secured against available proceeds in the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund. This section also requires the Secretary of the Army to 

evaluate alternative revenue options, including those recommended 

by the Inland Waterways Users Board, for financing inland waterways projects. 

Section 215. Inland waterways stakeholder roundtable 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army to conduct a 

meeting of inland waterway stakeholders to review and evaluate 

alternatives to address the financial needs of the system. 

Section 216. Preserving the Inland Waterway Trust Fund 

This section authorizes a change in cost-share for the inland 

navigation project in the vicinity of Olmsted, Illinois, to provide 

that for each fiscal year after the date of enactment, 25 percent of 

the cost of construction for the Olmsted Project shall be paid from 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund; provides a sense of Congress 

that expenditures for the Olmsted project should be not less than 

$150 million annually until completion; and requires that for any 

inland navigation project that costs more than $500 million, the 

Secretary shall submit to Congress an annual financial plan for the 

project. 

The Committee remains concerned over the pace of progress at 

Olmsted Lock and Dam on the Ohio River. However, since this 

project ultimately impacts the pace of other projects in need of recapitalization, the Committee recommends a change in cost-share 

for the project and is optimistic this will speed the pace of other 

projects on the inland navigation system. 

Section 217. Public comment on lock operations 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army to provide a 90 

day notice and public comment period before carrying out any 

modification to the operation of a navigation lock on the inland system. 

Section 218. Assessment of operation and maintenance needs of the 

atlantic intracoastal Waterway and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army to conduct an assessment of the operation and maintenance needs of the Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway System and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 

system. 

Section 219. Upper Mississippi River protection 

This section directs the Secretary of the Army to assess the implications of changing the operations of a navigation lock on the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

Upper Mississippi River System. Under subsection (b), the Secretary must make such a determination within one year of the date 

of enactment of this section, and may make such a determination 

based on the information provided by the study authorized by subsection (a) or any public or private source made available to the 

Secretary, including information provided by the State of Minnesota. 

The criteria set forth in this section apply solely to the Upper St. 

Anthony Falls Lock and Dam. The Corps of Engineers shall not use 

these criteria to close or limit the hours of operation of any other 

lock on the federal waterways. 

As mentioned in previous sections of this report, tonnage is an 

arbitrary metric and should not be used as the sole justification in 

other instances when addressing lock closures for any reason. The 

concerns at Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam are unique, not 

representative of other projects on the Nation’s inland navigation 

system, and should not be used as precedent for agency determinations on other projects. 

Section 220. Corps of Engineers lock and dam energy development 

This section encourages the development of hydropower generation capacity by non-federal interests at an existing Corps of Engineers lock and dam facility. Any development of hydropower generation capacity developed under this section would be financed entirely by the non-federal interests. 

TITLE III—DEAUTHORIZATIONS AND BACKLOG 

PREVENTION 

Section 301. Deauthorization of inactive projects 

This section establishes a process that will lead to the deauthorization of old inactive projects valued at a minimum of $12 billion. 

It requires the Secretary of the Army submit a list of inactive 

projects to the Congress that were authorized prior to the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007, have not begun construction, 

or, if they have begun construction, have not received any funds, 

federal or non-federal, in the past 5 years. The Secretary shall 

identify projects from the oldest authorization to the newest until 

the total federal cost of the projects on the list totals $12 billion. 

After a 180 day period of congressional review, the projects on the 

list are deauthorized. 

This Section is not intended to apply to project studies, or any 

activities authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 

2007. 

Traditionally, Water Resources Development Acts contained lists 

of projects to be deauthorized. However, the Corps of Engineers has 

seemingly lost track of inactive projects. While the Committee applauds devoting scarce funds and human resources to active 

projects, the Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to be able 

to readily identify those projects subject to this section. 

Section 302. Inventory and expedited disposition of excess properties 

This section requires the Secretary of the Army to complete an 

assessment of property under the control of the Corps of Engineers 

within one year and to identify and inventory property that is unVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

necessary for project needs. The Secretary is further directed to 

provide the inventory to the Administrator of General Services. The 

Corps of Engineers should keep property, real or otherwise, that is 

integral to their primary missions of providing for navigation, flood 

damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

Section 303. Backlog prevention 

This section terminates the authorization for any project or separable element of a project authorized for construction by this Act 

after 7 years unless construction has been initiated. At the end of 

the 7-year period, the Secretary must submit to the Committee on 

Transportation and infrastructure of the House and the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that identifies the projects deauthorized by this section. After the expiration 

of a 12-year period, the Secretary shall submit a report to the committees that identifies any projects for which construction has been 

initiated but not completed, describes the reasons the projects were 

not completed, and provides a schedule for the completion of the 

projects based on expected levels of appropriations. 

Section 304. Deauthorizations 

This section deauthorizes components of 15 Corps of Engineers 

projects that had previously been authorized for navigation, flood 

control, shoreline protection, or public works projects. 

Section 305. Land conveyances 

This section accomplishes the conveyance of land for two projects, 

both of which transfer lands that will be used either for inland waterways navigation or other public uses. 

TITLE IV—WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE 

Section 401. Authorization of final feasibility studies 

This section authorizes 23 water resources projects that have 

completed the technical review by the Corps of Engineers and are 

recommended by the Chief of Engineers. The projects are authorized to be carried out in accordance with the plan, and subject to 

the conditions, described in the Chief’s Reports. Each of the 

projects has as its primary purpose, one of the following: navigation, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, environmental restoration. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 85131A.001

REPLY TO 

ATIENnONOF 

CEMP-SWD (1105-2-IO-a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

441 G STREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20314-1000 

JUl 22 2011 

SUBJECT: Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Southeast Texas and 

Southwest Louisiana 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARl\1Y 

1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on navigation improvements for the 

Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW) in Southeast Texas and Southwest Louisiana. It is 

accompanied by the report of the Galveston District Engineer and the Southwestern Division 

Engineer. These reports are in response to a Congressional resolution adopted on 5 Juue 1997 by 

the Senate Conunittee on Enviromnent and Public Works. The committee requested a review of 

the reports on the SNWW and other pertincnt reports to determine the feasibility of modifying 

the channels serving the ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange, Texas in the interest of 

commercial navigation_ Pre-construction engineering and design activities for this proposed 

project, if fnnded, would be continued under this authority. The existing SNWW 40-Foot 

Navigation Project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1962 and construction of the 

40-foot project was completed in 1968. 

2. TIle report recommends a project that will contribute to the economic efficiency of 

commercial navigation. The SNWW is a system of navigation channels that have been 

superimposed upon the Sabine-Neches estuary in Texas and Louisiana. The study evaluated 

navigation and environmental problems and opportnnities for the entire estuarine system, which 

is defmed as the study area. The study area encompasses a 2,OOO-square-mile area, which 

contains the smaller project area that includes those areas that would be directly affected by 

construction ofthe project (i.e. the dredging footprint, existing and proposed placement areas, 

and mitigation areas). The slndy area includes the following water bodies and adjacent coastal 

wetlands: Sabine Lake and adjacent marshes in Texas and Louisiana, the Neches River channel 

up to the new Neches River Saltwater Barrier, the Sabine River channel to the Sabine Island 

Wildlife Management Area, the GIWW west to Star Bayou, the GlWW east to Gum Cove Ridge, 

the Gulf shoreline extending to 10 miles either side of Sabine Pass, and 35 miles offshore into 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

3. The reporting offlcers recommend the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) to modify the 

existing SNWW. The LPP consists of the following improvements: 

a. Deepen the SNWW from 40 to 48 feet and the offshore channel from 42 to 50 feet in 

depth fTOm offshore to the Port of Beaul110nt Turning Basin; 

Pnnted enS Recyde1 P<'lper 
69 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 85131A.002

CEMP-SWD 

SUBJECT: Sabine-Neches Waterway Chalmellmprovement Project, Southeast Texas and 

Southwest Louisiana 

b. Extend the 50-foot deep offshore channel by 13.2 miles to deep water in the Gulf, 

increasing the total length of channel from 64 to 77 miles; 

c. Taper and mark the Sabine Bank Channel from 800 feet wide to 700 feet wide; 

d. Deepen and widen Taylor Bayou channels and turning basins; 

e. Ease selected bends on the Sabine-Neches Canal and Neches River Channel; 

f. Construct new and enlarge/deepen existing tuming and anchorage basins on the 

Neches River Channel. 

Dredged material placcment for this project would be provided in accordance with the Dredged 

Material Management Plan (DMMP) developed during the study. Deepening of the SNWW 

would generate approximately 98 million cubic yards of new work material and 650 million 

cubic yards of maintenance material over the 50-year period of economic evaluation. Material 

from the extension channel, Sabine Bank Channel, Sabine Pass Onter Bar Channel, and Sabine 

Pass Jetty Channel would be pJaced offshore, either in existing placement areas or newly 

designated sites. Material fTOm the inland reaches would be placed in existing confined, upland 

placement sites adjacent to each reach. Expansion of some existing upland sites would also be 

required. Some dredged material from the inland reachcs would be used beneficially to restorc 

large degraded marsh areas on the Neches River and nourish the Gulf shoreline at Texas and 

Louisiana Points. 

4. As discussed further in the report of the Galveston District Engineer and thc Southwestem 

Division Engineer, the recommended plan includes preliminary conclusions that 41 pipelines 

located within the SNWW Channel must be relocated and are classified as utility relocations for 

which the non-Federal sponsor must perform or assure performance. In accordance with Section 

101 (a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended, one-half of 

the cost of eaeh such relocation will be bome by the owner of the facility being relocated and 

onc-half of the cost of each such relocation will be bome by the non-Federal sponsor. All 

relocations, including utility relocations, are to be accomplished at no cost to thc Federal 

Govemment. The recommended plan also includes preliminary conclusions that there are an 

additional 5 pipelines that must be removed but not replaced. The Government, in coordination 

with the non-Federal sponsor, will conduct further analysis and finalize its conclusions during 

the pcriod of pre-construction engineering and design. 

5. Environmental benefits of the Neches River beneficial use (BU) features would offset all 

environmental impacts in the state of Texas and on all Federal lands, by restoring 2,853 acres of 

emergent marsh, improving 871 acres of shallow water habitat, and nourishing 1,234 acres of 

existing marsh in Texas. After consideration of project impacts in Texas and on Federal Jands in 

the project area, the Neches River BU features will provide a net increase of 316 A veragc 

2 
70 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 85131A.003

CEMP-SWD 

SUBJECT: Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Southeast Texas and 

Southwest Louisiana 

Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs). The Gulf Shore BU features would offset minor erosion 

impacts to Gulf shorelines in Texas and Louisiana by periodically nourishing three miles of 

shoreline in each state. Unavoidable environmental impacts on non-Federal lands in Louisiana 

would be fully compensated by restoring 2,783 acres of emergent marsh, improving 957 acres of 

shallow water habitat and stabilizing and nourishing 4,355 acres of existing marsh. These 

actions will provide 1,181 AAHUs to compensate for a loss of 1,159 AAHUs in Louisiana. 

Post-construction monitoring and adaptive management plans for the BU features and mitigation 

areas will be required until such time that the following performance criteria are met, as 

determined by the Division Commander: (1) each mitigation site and the Neches River BU 

features have an aerial coverage of 60 to 80 percent native, typical, emergent marsh vegetation; 

and invasive noxious and/or exotic plant species comprise less than 4 percent of mitigation site 

marsh coverage; (2) Texas Point BU feature shows a decreased erosion rate averaging less than 

44 ftiyr after two disposal events; and (3) Louisiana Point nu feature shows an aceretion rate 

averaging more than 1.2 ftiyr after two disposal events. 

6. The recorrunended navigation project is not the National Economic Development (NED) 

plan. The recommended SNWW improvement is shallower and will be less costly than tile NED 

plan and is the LPP supported by the non-Federal sponsor. The Sabine-Neches Navigation 

District is the non-Federal cost sharing sponsor. 

7. Project Cost Breakdmvn Based on October 2010 Prices. 

a. Total First Cost of Constructing Projeet. The estimated total first cost of constructing the 

project is $1,053,000,000 which includes the cost of constructing the general navigation features 

and the value oflands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations estimated as follows: 

$894,500,000 for channel modification and dredged material placement; $79,000,000 for 

environmental mitigation; $52,800,000 for bridge fender modifications; $1,270,000 Federal eost 

for cultural resources; $774,000 for additional Corps administrative costs; $3,690,000 for the 

value oflands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations (except utility relocations) provided by 

the non-Federal sponsor; and $21,300,000 for the one-half of the cost of utility relocations borne 

by the non-Federal sponsor pursuant to Section I 01 (a)(4) ofWRDA 1986, as amended. 

b. Estimated Federal and non-Federal Shares. The estimated Federal and non-Federal shares 

of the total first cost of constructing the project are $707,000,000 and $345,990,000, 

respectively, as apportioned in accordance with the cost sharing provisions of Section J 01 of 

WRDA 1986, as amended, as follows: 

(l) The costs for the deepening of the channel from 40 to 45 feet will be shared at the 

rate of75 percent by the Government and 25 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. Aceordingly, 

the Federal and non-Federal shares of the estimated $772,000,000 cost in this zone will be 

approximately $579,000,000 and $]93,000,000, respectively, with the difference of$1,270,000 

being the Federal cost for cultural resources. 

3 
71 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 85131A.004

CEMP-SWD 

SUBJECT: Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Southeast Texas and 

Southwest Louisiana 

(2) The costs for the deepening ofihe channel from 45 to 48 feet will be shared at the 

rate of 50 percent by the Govemment and 50 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. Accordingly, 

the Federal and non-Federal shares of the estimated $256,000,000 cost in this zone will be 

approximately $128,000,000 each. 

(3) In addition to payment by the non-Federal sponsor of its share of costs as estimated 

and addressed in sub-paragraphs (l) and (2) above, the estimated non-Federal share of 

$345,990,000 includes $3,690,000 for the estimated value oflands, easements, rights-of~way, 

and relocations (except utility relocations) that it must provide pursuant to Section 101 (a)(3) of 

WRDA 1986, as amended, and $21,300,000 for one-half of the estimated costs of utility 

relocations bome by the non-Federal sponsor pursuant to Section 101 (a)(4) ofWRDA 1986, as 

anlended. 

c. Additional 10 Percent Payment. In addition to the non-Federal sponsor's estimated share 

of the total first cost of constructing the project in the amount of $345,990,000, pursuant to 

Section 101(a)(2) ofWRDA 1986, as amended, the non-Federal sponsor must pay an additional 

10 percent of the cost of the general navigation features of the project in cash over a period not to 

exceed 30 years, with interest. The value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations 

provided by the non-Federal sponsor under Section 101 (a)(3) ofWRDA 1986, as amended, and 

the costs of utility relocations bome by the non-Federal sponsor under Section 1 01(a)(4) of 

WRDA 1986, as amended, will be credited toward this payment. 

d. Operations and Maintenance Costs. The additional annual cost of operation and 

maintenance for this recommended plan is estimated at $32,800,000. In accordance with Section 

10l(b) ofWRDA 1986, the non-Federal sponsor will be responsihle for an amount eqnal to 50 

percent of the excess of the cost of the operation and maintenance of the project over the cost 

which would be incurred for operation and maintenance of the project if the project had a depth 

of 45 feet. The excess annual cost attributable to operation and maintenance for the depth in 

excess of 45 feet is $12300,000 with the non-Federal sponsor responsible for $6,150,000. 

e. Associated Costs. Estimated total project associated costs of $43,500,000 include 

$20,700,000 in non-Federal costs associated with dredging of berthing areas and development of 

other local service facilities; $1,500,000 for navigation aids (a U.S. Coast Guard expense); and 

$21,300,000 for the one-half of the cost of utility relocations to be bome by the facility o"ners in 

accordanee with Section 101(a) (4) ofWRDA of 1986, as amended. 

f. Authorized Project Cost and Section 902 Calculation. The total estimated first cost of the 

project for the purposes of authorization and calculating the maximun1 cost of the project 

pursuant to Section 902 ofWRDA 1986, as amended, should include the estimates for general 

navigation features (GNF) construction costs, the value of lands. easements, and rights-of~way, 

4 
72 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 85131A.005

CEMP-S\VD 

SUBJECT: Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Southeast Texas and 

Southwest Louisiana 

the value of relocations provided under Section J 01 (a)(3) ofWRDA 1986, as amended, and the 

one-half of the costs of utility relocations borne by the non-Federal sponsor for utility relocations 

under Section lO1(a)(4) ofWRDA 1986, as amended. Accordingly, as set forth in paragraph 7.a. 

above, based on October 2010 prices, the estimated total first cost of the project for these 

purposes is $1,053,000,000 with a Federal share of $707,000,000 and a non-Federal share of 

$345,990,000. 

8. Based on October 2010 price levels, a discount rate of 4118 percent, and a 50-year period of 

economic analysis, the project average annual benefits and costs for the SNWW improvements 

are estimated at $115,400,000 and $90,600,000, respectively, with a resulting net benefit of 

$24,800,000 and a benefit-to-cost ratio of l.3 to l. 

9. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular on review of decision documents, all 

technical, engineering, and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic, and vigorous review 

process to ensure technical quality. This included an Agency Technical Review (ATR), an 

Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), and a Corps Headquarters policy and legal review_ 

All concerns of the A TR have been addressed and incorporated into the final report. The IEPR 

was completed by Battelle Memorial Institute. A total of 1 8 comments were documented. The 

comments were related to plan formulation, vessel fleet analysis, benefits, dredging and 

sedimentation, risk 311d uncertainty, and impact of salinity changes. In response, sections in the 

main report and EIS were expanded to include additional information. The final IEPR Report 

was completed in June 2010 ",-ith all comments addressed sufficiently. 

10. Washington level review indicates that the plan recommended by the reporting offieers is 

technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and on the basis of congressional 

directives, economica1ly justified. The plan complies with all essential elements of the U.S. 

Water Resources Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water 

311d Land Related Resources Implementation Studies, except for the measurement of the 

National Economic Benefits which was modified by Section 6009 of the ESAA of2005. 

Fnrther, the recommended plan complies with other administration and legislative policies 311d 

guidelines. The views of interested parties, including Federal, State and local agencies, have 

been considered. 

I l. I concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend that navigation improvements for the Sabine-Neches Waterway be 

authorized in accordance with the reporting ofiicer's recommended plan at an estimated cost of 

$1,053,000,000 with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be 

advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applicable 

requirements of Federal and State laws and policies, including Section 101 ofWRDA 1986, as 

amended. This recommendation is subject to the non-Federal sponsor agreeing to comply with 

all applicable Federal laws and policies including that the non-Federal sponsor must agree with 

the following requirements prior to project implementation. 

5 
73 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 85131A.006

CEMP-SWD 

SD13JECT: Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Southeast Texas and 

Southwest Louisiana 

a. Provide 10 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs attributable to dredging to 

a depth not in excess of 20 feet; plus 25 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs 

attributable to dredging to a depth in excess of 20 feet but not in excess of 45 feet; plus 50 

percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs attributable to dredging to a depth in excess 

of 45 feet as further specified below: 

(1) Provide 25 percent of design costs allocated by the Government to commercial 

navigation in accordance with the terms of a design agreement entered into prior to 

commencement of design work for the project; 

(2) Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to pay 

the full non-Federal share of design costs allocated by the Government to commercial 

navigation; 

(3) Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution for commercial navigation equal to 10 percent of the total cost of construction of the 

GNFs attributable to dredging to a depth not in excess of 20 feet; plus 25 percent of the total cost 

of construction of the GNFs attributable to dredging to a depth in excess 0[20 feet but not in 

excess of 45 feet; plus 50 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs attributable to 

dredging to a depth in excess of 45 feet; 

b. Provide all lands, casements, and rights-of way (LER), including those necessary for the 

bOITowing of material and the disposal of dredged or excavated material, and perform or assure 

the performance of all relocations, including utility relocations, all as determined by the Federal 

Government to be nccessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of the GNFs; 

c. Pay with interest, over a period not to exceed 30 years following completion of the period 

of construction of the GNFs, an additional amount equal to 10 percent of the total cost of 

construction of the GNFs less the amount of credit afforded by the Government for the value of 

the LER and relocations, including utility relocations, provided by the Sponsor for the GNFs. If 

the anl0unt of credit afforded by the Government for the value of LER, and relocations, 

including utility relocations, provided by the Sponsor equals or exceeds 10 percent of the total 

cost of construction of the G?\'Fs, the Sponsor shall not be required to make any contribution 

under this paragraph, nor shall it be entitled to any refund for the value ofLER and relocations, 

including utility relocations, in excess of 10 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs; 

d. Provide, operate, and maintain, at no cost to the Government, the local service facilities in 

a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable 

Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the Federal 

Government; 

6 
74 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 85131A.007

CEMP-SWD 

SUBJECT: Sabine-Neches Watenvay Channel Improvement Project, Southeast Texas and 

Southwest Louisiana 

e. Provide 50 percent of the excess cost of operation and maintenance of the project over that 

cost which the Federal Government detennines would be incurred for operation and maintenance 

if the project had a depth of 45 feet; 

f. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the Sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose 

of completing, inspecting, operating and maintaining the GNFs; 

g. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction or 

operation and maintenance of the project, any betternlents, and the local service facilities, except 

for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors; 

h. Keep, and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence peliaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of 3 years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents, and other evidence are required, to the 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total cost of the projcct, and in accordance with 

the standards for financial management systems set fOlih in the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and local govemments at 32 CFR, 

Section 33.20; 

i. Perfonn, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), 42 USC 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under LER that the Federal 

Government determines to be necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of the 

GNFs. However, for lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Govemment determines to be 

subject to the navigation servitude, only the Government shall pcrform such investigations unless 

the Federal Government provides the Sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which case 

the Sponsor shall perform such investigations in accordance with such \vritten directi'on; 

j. Assume complete financial responsibility, as bctween the Federal Govenuncnl and the 

Sponsor, for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances regulated 

under CERCLA that are located in, on, or under LER that the Federal Government determines to 

be necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of the project; 

k. To the maximum extent practicable, perform its obligations in a manner that will not cause 

liability to arise under CERCLA; 

1. Comply with Sectio11221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as Ul11ended, 

(42 U.S.C. I 962d-5b) and Section 101(e) of the WRDA 86, Public Law 99-662, as amended, 

7 
75 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 85131A.008

CEMP-SWD 

SUBJECT: Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Southeast Texas and 

Southwest Louisiana 

(33 U.S.c. 2211(e)) which provide that the Secretary of the Army shall not commence thc 

construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, until the Sponsor has 

entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the project or separable 

element; 

m. Comply with the applicabJe provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended, (42 U.S.c. 4601-

4655) and the Unifonn Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way necessary for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

including those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of material, or the disposal of dredged 

or exeavated material; and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and 

procedures in connection with said act; 

n. Comply with all applicablc Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulation 600-7, 

entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department of the Army"; and all applicable Federal labor standards 

requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-3708 

(revising, codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon 

Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

(formerly 40 U.S.c. 327 et seq.), and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 O.S.C. 

276c); 

o. Provide tbe non-Federal share of that portion of the costs of mitigation and data 

recovery activities associated with historic preservation, that are in exeess of 1 percent of the 

total amount authorized to be appropriated for the project; and 

p. No! use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share therefor, to meet any of the Sponsor's obligations for the projeet 

unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in "'Titing that 

sueh funds are authorized to be used to carry out the project. 

12. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not refleet 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the reeommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to the 

8 
76 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 85131A.009

CEMP-SWD 

SUBJECT: Sabine-Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Southeast Texas and 

Southwest Louisiana 

Congress, the States of Louisiana and Texas, the Sabine Neches Navigation District (the nonFederal sponsor), interested Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised of any significant 

modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment further, 

9 

MERDITH 

~J#5~ W,B, TEMPLE 

Major General, USA 

Acting Commander 
77 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 85131A.010

CECW -PC (1105-2-1 Oa) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000 

APR 30 2012 

SUBJECT: Jacksonville Harbor Mile Point Navigation Study, Duval County, Florida 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

I. I submit for transmission to Congress, the final feasibility report and environmental 

assessment on navigation improvements for Jacksonville Harbor Mile Poim, Duval COllilty. 

Florida. It is accompanied by the report ofthe district and division engineers. This report was 

prepared in response to a congressional resolution adopted on March 24. 1998 by the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Congress added funding in the appropriations 

for Fiscal Year 2000 to begin the reconnaissance phase ofibe feasibility study. This report 

constitutes the final report in response to this resolution. Preconstruetion engineering and design 

activities for the Jacksonville Harbor Mile Point, Duval County, Florida Navigation Project will 

continue under the authority provided by the resolution cited above. 

2. The report recommends authorizing a project that will contribute to the economic efficiency 

of commercial navigation. The recommended plan reduces the ebb tide crosscurrents at the 

confluence of the St. Johns River with the Intracoastal Waterway (IWW) by construction of a 

relocated Mile Point training wall. Relocation of the Mile Point training wall involves removal 

of the western 3,110 feet (ft) of existing Mile Point training wall, including land removal and 

dredging to open the confluence of the IWW and St. Jolms River, construction ofa new training 

wall western leg (-4,250 ftl and relocated eastern leg (-2,050 ftl, restoration of Great Marsh 

Island as the least-cost disposal alternative and mitigation site providing beneficial use of 

dredged material, and construction of a flow improvement ehannelto offset project induced 

adverse impacts. 

3. The reporting officers recommend the National Economic Development (:'JED) Plan to 

relocate/reconfigure ibe existing Mile Point Training Wall. The NED plan consists of the 

follov.'ing improvements: 

a. Tbe training wall reconfiguration includes removal ofibe western 3,110 ft ofibe existing 

Mile Point training wall. construction of a relocated Eastern Leg training wall. approximately 

2,050 ft, and a new West Leg training wall, approximately 4,250 ft. Total estimated quantity of 

material to be excavated is approximately 889,000 cubic yards (cy). All usable stone material 

recovered from the existing training wall will be stockpiled for use in eiiber the West or East Leg 

of the relocated training wall and all oiber material excavated will be placed as beneficial use in 

the Salt Marsh Mitigation Area at Great Marsh Island and as foundation for the relocated training 
78 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 85131A.011

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Jacksonville Harbor Mile Point Navigation Study, Duval County, Florida 

wall. It is estimated that approximately 14,600 cy of armor stone can be recovered for reuse 

purposes; however, additional geophysical exploration will more precisely ascertain the exact 

quantities of stone available for reuse during the preconstruction, engineering and design phase. 

b. The East Leg training wall incorporates a larger scour apron (25') than the West Leg (10') 

due to the predicted permanent shift of stronger currents in Pablo Creek towards the east, 

especially during the ebb tide. Channel migration of the IWW is anticipated and realignment of 

the channel to deep water may become necessary. The relocated East Leg consists of building 

approximately 2,050 ft of training wall tying into the existing structure on Helen Cooper Floyd 

Park and the West Leg consists of building approximately 4,250 ft of training wall across the 

breakthrough at Great Marsh Island. Estimated quantities associated with the East Leg are 

26,900 cy of armor stone and 11,900 cy of bedding stone, and for the West Leg are 5,670 cy of 

concrete (567 units at lOcy/unit) and 32,000 square yards (sy) of geotextile fabric for bags and 

tubes to be filled with 40,500 cy of excavated material. Both legs will incorporate the use of a 

total of approximately 34,900 sy of filter fabric. 

C. The least-cost disposal method is to restore the breakthrough at Great Marsh Island by 

constructing an approximate 4,250-foot Western Leg training wall and placing dredged material 

to restore the island. Restoration of this area provides an opportunity for beneficial use of 

dredged material and an opportunity to address impacts caused by the physical decay of the 

ecosystem through erosion of natural habitat caused by the crosscurrents. Without the project, 

Great Marsh Island wiII continue to erode. Restoring Great Marsh Island is both the least-cost 

alternative for dredged material and also provides up to 53 acres of salt marsh restoration. This 

alternative provides incidental environmental benefits, in addition to providing mitigation for 

approximately 8.15 acres of impacted salt marsh by the training wall removal. 

d. The Flow Improvement Channel (FIC) would be constructed to offset any adverse effects 

that would be caused by closing off the breakthrough of Great Marsh Island. If Great Marsh 

Island is restored and the FIC is not built, then water quality is expected to be degraded within 

Chico pit Bay due to non-point source pollution loadings from the upstream watershed not being 

flushed out of the hydrological system. This would occur because the restoration would close off 

the recently formed channel through the eroded portion of Great Marsh Island, which now 

flushes the bay. The FIC would alloW for improved water quality and environmental stability of 

the project area by potentially improving the flushing of sediment and other waterborne 

constituents into the adjacent IWW. The construction of the FIC would also restore the historic 

channel through Chicopit Bay, which has silted in with eroded material from Great Marsh Island. 

The FIC consists of dredging a channel 80 ft wide and 6 ft deep for a length of approximately 

3,620 ft through Western Chicopit Bay. Dredged material from the FIC would be placed back 

into the Great Marsh Island restoration area. 

e. Approximately 51.2 acres ofland are under the control of the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Arnly 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) will coordinate with the U.S. Navy for a license that will allow 

2 
79 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 85131A.012

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Jacksonville Harbor Mile Point Navigation Study, Duval County, Florida 

removal oftlle real property (uplands). Additionally, the federal government has navigational 

servitude over submerged lands impacted by the proposed project. The non-federal sponsor 

(Jacksonville Port Authority) owns lands in the vicinity of the proposed project, but those lands 

will not be impacted by the proposed project. The Nature Conservancy, Incorporated (Inc.) 

owns lands in the vicinity of the proposed project that may be required for construction of the 

western leg training wall through perpetual easement. The Nature Conservancy, Inc. is familiar 

with the proposed project and has indicated their support for the project. 

4. Project Cost Breakdown Based on October 2011 Prices. 

a. Project First Cost. The estimated project first cost is $35,999,000, which includes the cost 

of constructing the general navigation features (GNF) and the value of lands, easements, rightsof-way and relocations (LERR) estimated as follows: $32,812,000 lor channel modification, 

turbidity and endangered species monitoring, and dredged material placement; $3,088,000 for 

environmental mitigation; and $99,000 administrative costs for the value of LERR. The 

Jacksonville Port Authority is the non-fedcral cost-sharing sponsor for all features. 

b. Estimated Federal and Non-Federal Shares. The estimated federal and non-federal shares 

of the project first cost are $26,998,000 and $9,001,000, respectively, as apportioned in 

accordance with the cost sharing provisions of Section 101 oflhe Water Resources Development 

Act (WRDA) 1986, as amended (33 U.S.c. 2211), as follows: 

(I) The cost for the general navigation features from greater than 20 ft to 45 ft will be 

shared at a rate of 75 percent by the Government and 25 percent hy the non-federal sponsor. 

Accordingly, the federal and non-federal shares of the costs in this zone are estimated to be 

$26,924,000 and $8,976,000, respectively. 

(2) In addition to the costs outlined in sub-paragraph (1) above, the project first cost 

includes administrative costs for LERR estimated at $99,000. The federal administrative costs 

include project real estate planning, review, and incidental costs between the U.S. Navy and the 

USACE. Accordingly, the federal and non-federal shares of the administrative costs are 

estimated to be $74,000 and $25,000, respectively. Credit is given for the incidental costs borne 

by the non-federal sponsor for LERR per Section 101 ofWRDA 1986. Of the non-federal share, 

approximately $ J 2,500, is eligible for LERR credit. 

c. Additional 10 Percent Payment. In addition to the non-federal sponsor's estimated share 

of the total first cost of constructing the project in the amount of $9,00 1,000, pursuant to Section 

101(a)(2) ofWRDA 1986, as amended, the non-federal sponsor must pay an additional 10% of 

the costs of general navigation features oflhe project, $3,590,000, in cash over a period not to 

exceed 30 years, with interest. The value of the LERR provided by the non-federal sponsor 

under Section 101(a)(3) ofWRDA 1986 as amended will be credited toward this payment. 

3 
80 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 85131A.013

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Jacksonville Harbor Mile Point Navigation Study, Duval County, Florida 

d. Operations and Maintenance Costs. There are no additional costs of operation and 

maintenance for this recommended plan. 

e. Associated Costs. Estimated associated costs of$431,000 include navigation aids, which 

is a U.S. Coast Guard expense. 

f. Authorized Prqjecl Cost and Section 902 Calculation. The project first cost, fur the 

purposes of authorization and calculating the maximum cost of the project pursuant to Section 

902 of WRDA 1986, as amended, should include estimates for GNF construction costs, the value 

ofLERR provided under Section 101(a)(3) of WRDA 1986, as amended. Accordingly, as set 

forth in paragraph 4.a. above, based on October 2011 prices, the estimated project first cost for 

these purposes is $35,999,000 I'Ilth a federal share of $26,998,000 and a non-federal share of 

$9,001,000. 

5. Based on October 2011 price levels, a 4-percent discow]t rate, and a 50-year period of 

amlysis, the total equivalent average annual costs oflhe project are estimated to be $1,737,000. 

Tbe average annual equivalent bendits are estimated to be $2,440,000. The average annual net 

benefits are estimated to be $703,000. The benefit-Io-cost ratio for the recommended plan is 1.4. 

6. Examination of the maximum flood and ebb tide current vectors indicate that flow velocities 

within the federal navigation channel are very similar between the existing and with-project 

condition and in isolated areas of the Mile Point turn are about 1 foot/second less under the v,rilhproject condition. This comparison suggests that little or no significant net increase in shoaling 

rates will occur in the Jacksonville Harbor federal channel over existing project conditions. A 

natural shift of the IWW at the entrance to Pablo Creek will be expected as a result of the 

realignment of the training wall. Lower water velocities will increase the opportunities for 

sedimentation on the western side of the entrance; while higher velocities along the eastern side 

have the potential to scour and undermine the location of the new training wall if unprotected 

against erosion. However. little or no significant net increase in shoaling of the IWW 

navigational channel is predicted as a result of the rcconfiguration of the Mile Point training 

wall. 

a. Historically, the training walls along the 8t Johns River have performed well and required 

very little maintenance. With proper design and construction, it is anticipated that no 

maintenance of the relocated training wall legs will be required over the 50 year period of 

analysis. All dredged material for the recommended plan will be placed at Great Marsh Island; 

therefore, the selected plan will have no effect on future channel dredging maintenance activities 

for Jacksonville Harbor or the IWW. 

b. Based on model investigations and current measurements, the resulting bottom current 

velocities from the relocated training wall legs and excavation and removal of a portion of the 

existing training wall and entire sUn'ounding area to -13 ft Mean Low Water (ML W) arc of such 

4 
81 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 85131A.014

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Jacksonville Harbor Mile Point Navigation Study, Duval County, Florida 

magnitude to expect little deposition to occur in either of the channels. The Chicopit Bay FIC is 

also no! expected to require maintenance dredging. Prior to the breakthrough of Greal Marsh 

Island, a natural channel existed in the same IDeation as the proposed FIe. Historical maps shov,. 

water depths up to 10ft due to tidal flushing of Chicopit Bay, as well as freshwater runoff from 

the neighboring creeks. Once Great Marsh Island is restored, the water from Greenfield and 

Mount Pleasant Creeks, as well as the large volume of water within Chicopit Bay's tidal prism, 

will flush in and out through the FIC. The water velocities in the channel are expected to be 

sufficient to prevent shoaling "'~thin the channel. 

7. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular (EC) 1165-2-211 on sea level change, the 

study performed an analysis of three Sea Level Rise rates, a baseline estimate representing the 

minimum expected sea level change, an intermediate estimate, and a high estimate representing 

the maximum expected sea level change. Projecting the three rates of change provides a 

predicted low level risc of 0.12 meters (m) or approximately 0.39 ft, an intermediate level rise of 

0.25 m or approximately 0.8l ft, and a high level rise of 0.66 m or approximately 2.17 ft. The 

impact of the low and inlemlediate level increases of 0.39 ft and 0.81 ft, respectively, would be 

inconsequential to the performance of the struetme and the high level increase of 2. J 7 ft would 

only affect theperfonnance oflhe structure during low probahility events that exceeded the 

Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) level by more than 0.33 ft. Even during such low 

probability events, the structure ""ill pertorm its intended purpose to train the river currents with 

the exception of that very small portion of the water column above the structure's crest. In 

addition, if over time the actual measured changes in relative sea level afe closer to the Scenario 

III amounts or greater, then the structure's performance can easily be brought back to an optimal 

level by increasing the crest elevation by up to a foot without major expense. The salt marsh 

restoration design at Great Marsh Island is based on existing conditions, or current sea level, in 

order to achieve requisite elevations that would support low and high salt marsh as well as 

intertidal oyster beds. The restoration of these habitats cannot be performed llsing projected 

future sea level as the target species for these habitats would not be able to survive at current 

water levels. As an adaptive management measure to address future sea level rise, additional 

dredged material could be used when appropriate to increase the elevation of the Great Marsh 

Island restoration site and maintain salt marsh and other habitats. 

8. In accordance with the Corps Ee 1165-2-209 on review of decision documents, all technical, 

engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic and vigorous review process to 

ensure technical quality. This included District Quality Control, Agency Technical Review, 

Policy and Legal Compliance Review, Cost Engineering Directory of Expertise Review and 

Certification, and Model Review and Approval. Given the nature ofthe project, an exclusion 

from the requirement to conduct a Type I Independent External Peer Review was granted on 23 

September 2011. 

9. Washington level review indicates the plan recommended by the reporting officers is 

technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable. and on the basis of congressional 

5 
82 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 85131A.015

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Jacksonville Harbor Mile Point Navigation Study, Duval County, florida 

directives, economically justified. The plan complies with all essential elements oftbe U.S. 

Water Resources Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water 

and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies. The recommended plan complies with 

other administration and legislative policies and guidelines. The views of interested parties, 

including federal, state and local agencies, have been considered. State and agency comments 

received during review of the final report/environmental assessment included GOncerns raised by 

the National Park Service related to channel realignment, unrecorded archaeological sitcs, 

cultural resources, and water quality within the Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve. 

These concerns were addressed through coordination and a multi-agency meeting and ultimately 

resolved in a Jacksonville District, USACE response dated February 27, 2012. 

10. I concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend tbat navigation improvements for Jacksonville Harbor Mile Point be 

authorized in accordance with the reporting officer's recommended plan at an estimated cost of 

$35,999,000 with such modifications as in the discretion of the Cbief of Engineers may be 

advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost sharing, fInancing, and other applicable 

requirements of federal and State laws and policies. including Section 101 of WRDA 1986, as 

amended. Tbis recommendation is subject to the non-federal sponsor agreeing to comply with 

all applicable federal laws and policies including that the non-federal sponsor must agree with 

the following requirements prior to project implementation. 

a. Provide 10 percont ofthe total cost of construction of the GNFs attributable to dredging to 

a depth not in excess of20 ft; plus 25 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs 

attributable to dredging to a depth in excess of20 ft but not in excess 01'45 ft; plus 50 percent of 

the total cost of construction ofthc GNFs attributable to dredging to a depth in excess of 45 ft as 

further specified below: 

(I) Provide the non-federal share of design costs allocated by the Governmcnt to 

commercial navigation in accordance with the terms of a design agrcement entered into prior to 

commencement of design work for the project. 

(2) Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution for commercial navigation equal to 10 percent of the total cost of construction of the 

GNFs attributable to dredging to a depth not in excess of 20 ft; plus 25 percent of the total cost of 

construction of the GNFs attributable (0 dredging to a depth in excess of20 ft but not in excess 

of 45 ft; plus 50 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs attributable to dredging to a 

depth in excess of 45 ft. 

b. Provide all LERRs, including those necessary for the borrowing of material and the 

disposal of dredged or excavated material, and perform or assure the performance of all 

relocations, including utility relocations, all as determined by the federal govemment to be 

necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of the GNfs. 

6 
83 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 85131A.016

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Jacksonville Harbor Mile Point Navigation Study, Duval County, Florida 

c. Pay with interest, over a period not to exceed 30 years following completion of the period 

of construction of the GNFs, an additional amount equal to I (I percent of the total cost of 

construction of the GNFs less the amount of credit afforded by tbe Government for the value of 

the LERR is provided by the sponsor for the GNFs. Ifthe amount of credit afforded by the 

Goverm11enl for the value ofLERR, and relocations, including utility relocations, provided by 

the sponsor equals or exceeds 10 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs, the 

sponsor shall not be required to make any contribution under this paragraph, nor shall it be 

entitled to any refund for the value ofLERR and relocations, including utility reloeations, in 

excess of 10 percent of the total cost of constmction of the GNFs. 

d. Provide, operate, and maintain, at no cost to the Government, the loeal service fae.ilities in 

a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable 

federal and state laws and regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the federal 

government; 

e. Provide 50 percent of the excess cost of operation and maintenance of the project over that 

cost which the federal government determines would be incurred for operation and maintenance 

if the project had a depth of 45 ft. 

f. Accomplish all removals determined neeessary by the federal Government other than those 

removals specifically a~signed to the federal Government; 

g. Give the federal government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the Sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose 

of completing, inspecting, operating and maintaining the GNFs. 

h. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction or 

operation and maintenance of the project, any betterment, and the local service facilities, except 

for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United Stales or its contractors. 

i. Keep, and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidcnce pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of 3 years after completion of the 

accounting for which sueh books, records, docUll1ents, and other evidence are required, to the 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total cost of the project, and in accordance with 

the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Unifonn Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and local governments at 32 Code 

offederal Regulation (CFR), Section 33.20. 

j. Perform, or ensnre performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

detetmined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA),42 United States Code 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, easements, 

7 
84 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 85131A.017

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Jacksonville Harbor Mile Point Navigation Study, Duval County, Florida 

right-of-ways, relocations and disposal areas (LERRD) that the federal government determines to 

be necessary for the constmclion or operation and maintenance of the GNFs. However, for lands, 

easements, or rights-of-way that the Government determines (0 be subject to the navigation 

servitude, only the Government shall perform such investigations unless the federal government 

provides the sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which case the sponsor shall 

perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction. 

k. Assume complete financial responsibility, as between the federal government and the 

sponsor, for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances regulated 

under CERCLA that are located in, on, or under LERRD that the federal government determines 

to be necessary for the constmction or operation and maintenance of the project; 

L Agree, as between the federal Government and the non-federal sponsor, that the nonfederal sponsor shall be considered the operator of the local service facilities for the purpose of 

CERCLA liability. 

m. To the maximum extent practicable. perform its obligations in a manner that will not 

cause liability to arise under CERCLA. 

11. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, 

(42 U.S.c. 1962d-5b) and Section 101(e) of the WRDA 86, Public Law 99-662, as amended, (33 

U.S.c. 2211(e» which provide that the Secretary ofthe Army shall not commence the 

construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, until the sponsor has 

entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the project or separable 

element. 

o. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended, (42 U.S.c. 4601-

4655) and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way necessary for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

including those necessary for relocations, the bOlTowing of material, or the disposal of dredged 

or excavated material; and infonn all affected persons of applicable henefits, policies, and 

procedures in connection with said Act. 

p. Comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulation 600-7, 

entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department ofthe Army"; and all applicable federal labor standards 

requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.5.c. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-3708 

(revising, codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon 

Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

8 
85 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 85131A.018

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Jacksonville Harhor Mile Point Navigation Study, Duval County, Florida 

(formerly 40 U.s.c. 327 et seq.), and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 

276c)); 

q. Provide the non-federal share ofthat portion of the costs of mitigation and data recovery 

activities associated with historic preservation, that are in excess Df I percent of the total amount 

3utJl0rized to be appropriated for the project. 

r. Not use funds from other federal programs, including any non-federal contribution required 

as a matching share therefore, to meet any of the sponsor's obligations for the project unless the 

federal agency providing the federal pcrtion of such funds verities in writing that such funds are 

authorized to be used to carry out the project. 

11. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reHeet 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to the 

Congress, the State of Florida, the Jacksollville Port Authority (the non-federal sponsor), 

interested federal agencies, and other parties will be advised of any significant moditications and 

will be afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

MERDITH 

~M~ W.B. TEMPLE 

Major General, CSA 

Acting Commander 

9 
86 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 85131A.019

CECW-PC (1105-2-lOa) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000 

SGBJECT: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia and South Carolina 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

AUG 1 7 2012 

1. I suhmit for transmission to Congress my report on the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, 

Georgia and South Carolina, which describes na vigation improvements to the existing Savannah 

Harbor Navigation Project. It is accompanied by the report of the district and division engineers. 

The General Re-Evaluation Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement (GRRJFEIS) 

evaluate the advisability of increasing the channel depth, providing environmental mitigation to 

offset project impacts and making other improvements to Savannah Harbor in the interest of 

navigation and related purposes. Both the GRR and the PElS are in response to Section 

101 (b )(9) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1999. This provision 

authorized construction substantially in accordance with a Chiefs Report to be completed no 

latcr than December 31, 1999. The required Chiefs Report was signed on October 21, 1999. 

Section 101(b)(9) also mandated that before the project could be carried out, the Secretary, in 

consultation with affected State and Federal agencies, formulate an analysis oftbe impacts of 

project depth alternatives ranging fTorn -42 feet to -48 feet, along with a recommended plan for 

navigation and an associated mitigation plan, to be approved jointly with the Department of the 

Interior, tbe Department of Commerce and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This 

report is submitted in fulfillment of these conditions, so that the project may be carried out in 

accordance with the WRDA 1999 authorization, subject to the requested statutory modification 

to increase the authorized total project cost, as described in paragraph 10 below. 

2. The report recommends implementation of a project that will contribute to the economic 

efficiency of commercial navigation. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft navigation harbor located 

on the South Atlantic U.S. coast, 75 statute miles south of Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, 

and 120 miles north of Jacksonville Harbor, Florida. Thc Harbor comprises the lower 21.3 miles 

of the Savannah River (which, with certain of its tributaries, forms the boundary between 

Georgia and South Carolina along its entire length of313 miles) and 11.4 miles of cbmmel 

across the bar to the Atlantic Ocean. Improvements were considered from deep water in the 

ocean upstream to the area of the Garden City Terminal operated by the Georgia Ports Authority. 

The recommended plan "ill result in transportation cost savings by allowing the larger PostPanamax vessels to operate more efficiently and experience fewer tidal and transit delays. The 

Georgia Department of Transportation is the non-Federal east sharing sponsor. 

3. The reporting officers recommend construction of a -47 foot Mean Lower Low Water 

(MLL W) depth alternative plan to modify the existing Savannah Harbor Navigation Project. The 

selected plan would require dredging and subsequent placement of 24 million cubic yards of new 

work sediments. Approximately 54% of this sediment would be deposited in existing upland 
87 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 85131A.020

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia and South Carolina 

dredged material containment areas (DMCAs) and about 46% would be deposited in the US 

Environmental Protection Agency-approved Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) 

or an existing DMCA. The required Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the Savannah 

ODMDS must be completed and signed by the EPA and the Corps before the EPA can issue a 

concurrence for disposal of material from the SHEP into the Savannah ODMDS. Any portion of 

this material that does not meet the Ocean Dumping Criteria must be placed within an upland 

Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) that has sufficient capacity for the volume of proposed 

dredged material that does not meet the Ocean Dumping Criteria. The selected plan for 

navigation improvements consists primarily of the following: 

a. Extending the existing entrance channel 7.1 miles from Stations -60+000B to 

-97+680B and deepening to -49 feet MLL W from the new ocean terminus to 

Station -14B+000B, then deepening to -47 feet MLLW from Station ·-14B+000B to 

Station 0+000 and, deepening the inner harbor to -47 feet MLL W from Station 

0+000 to 103+000; 

b. Widening bends on the entrance channel at one location (Stations -23+000B to 

-14+000B) and in the inner harbor channel at two locations; (Stations 27+700 to 31+500, and 

Stations 52+250 to 55+000); 

c. Constructing two meeting areas (Stations 14+000 to 22+000 and Stations 

55+000 to 59+000); 

d. Deepening and enlarging the Kings Island Turning Basin to a width of 1,600-feet; 

e. Restoring dredged material volumetric capacity in existing DMCAs; and 

f. A mitigation plan which includes the features described below. 

Other prior authorized features of the existing Savannah Harbor Navigation Project located 

beyond the limits described above in paragraph 3 would remain unchanged by the selected plan 

of improvement and would remain components ofthe Savannah Harbor Navigation Project. 

4. The mitigation plan includes the following features: 

a. Construction of a fish bypass around the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam in Augusta, 

Georgia. Construction of this feature would compensate for loss of shortnose and Atlantic 

sturgeon habitat in the estuary, by allowing the endangered shortnose sturgeon and the 

endangered Atlantic sturgeon access to historic spawning grounds at the Augusta Shoals that are 

currently inaccessible; 

b. To minimize impacts to ecologically unique tidal freshwater wetlands in the estuary, 

construction of a series of flow re-routing features in the estuary to include a diversion structure, 

cut closures, removal of a tidegale structure, and construction of a rock sill and submerged 

sediment berm; 

2 
88 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 85131A.021

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia and South Carolina 

c. Acquisition and preservation of2,245 acres of wetlands; 

d. Restoration of approximately 28.75 acres of tidal brackish marsh; 

e. Installation of an oxygen injection system, to compensate for adverse effects on dissolved 

oxygen levels in the Savannah River estuary; 

f. Construction of a raw water storage impoundment for the City of Savannah's industrial and 

domestic water treatment facility, to offset increased chloride levels at the intake on Abercorn 

Creek during periods oflow flow and high tide; 

g. Construction of a boat ramp on Hutchinson Island to restore access to areas in Back River 

made inaccessible due to construction of the How re-routing features; 

h. One-time payment to Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA ONR) for a Striped 

bass stocking program, to compensate for loss of Striped bass habitat; 

i. Recover, document, and curate the items of historic significance of a Civil War ironclad 

(CS'S Georgia), listed on the National Register of Historic Places; 

j. Monitoring to ensure that (1) the impacts described in the FEIS are not exceeded, and (2) 

the dissolved oxygen and wetland mitigation features function as intended. Monitoring will 

occur pre-construction, during construction, and up to 10 years post -construction; and 

k. Adaptive management be implemented as outlined in the FEIS to (1) review the results of 

dissolved oxygen (~O) monitoring as well as the success of wetlands mitigation, and (2) modify 

features if necessary. In accordance with the FEIS, an Adaptive Management Team will be 

established, with the active participation of the cooperating agencies, for the purpose of 

effectively implementing the monitoring and adaptive management plan related to DO levels in 

the system and wetlands mitigation, and to ensure that the wetlands mitigation requirements and 

DO levels are met in the system. 

5. The Project Cost Breakdown based on October 2011 Prices is estimated as follows: 

a. Project First Cost. The estimated project first cost is $652,000,000, which includes the 

cost of constructing the General Navigation Features (GNFs) and the value of lands, easements, 

rights of-way and relocations estimated as follows: $257,000,000 for channel modification and 

dredged material placement; $311,000,000 for environmental and other mitigation; $84,000,000 

for pre-engineering and design and construction management; and $163,000 for the value of 

lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations (except utility relocations) provided by the nonFederal sponsor. Included within the environmental mitigation costs is $35,600,000 for 

monitoring and $24,600,000 for adaptive management To the extent appropriated by Congress, 

monitoring and adaptive management will be implemented as outlined in the FEIS, including the 

Corps commitments for the dissolved oxygen mitigation system and wetlands mitigation. 

3 
89 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 85131A.022

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia and South Carolina 

b. Estimated Federal and Non-Federal Shares. The estimated Federal and non-Federal 

shares of the project first cost are $454,000,000 and $198,000,000, respectively, as apportioned 

in accordance with the cost sharing provisions of Section 10 l(a)( I) of WRDA 1986, as amended 

(33 U.S.c. 2211(a)(1 », as follows: 

(1) The costs for the deepening of the GNFs from -42 to -45 feet MLLW will be shared at 

the rate of 75 percent by the Government and 25 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. 

Accordingly, the Federal and non-Federal shares of the estimated $509,000,000 cost in this zone 

are estimated to be $383,000,000 and $126,000,000, respectively. 

(2) The costs for the deepening of the GNFs from -45 to -47 feet MLLW will be shared at 

the rate of 50 percent by the Govemment and 50 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. 

Accordingly, the Federal and non-Federal shares of the estimated $143,000,000 cost in this zone 

are estimated to be $71,500,000 and $71,500,000, respectively. 

(3) As a condition of issuance ofthe Section 401 Water Quality Certification by the South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), the potential non-Federal 

sponsor, the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA), agreed to provide financial assurance, in a manner 

acceptable to DHEC, that it will fund operation and maintenance of the Dissolved Oxygen 

system in any year that sufficient federal funds for the operation and maintenance of the system 

are not made available. This obligation extends for the life of the project. The GP A intends to 

place its full share of funds for adaptive management in an escrow account during 

project construction. 

(4) The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project complies with Executive Order 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income 

Popnlations, dated February 11, 1994. By letter dated July 10,2012, the GPA has indicated that 

it intends to establish, with the assistance of the EPA, a community advisory group that meets 

periodically to identify and address community concerns or recommendations that may arise 

associated with ongoing port activities. GP A will also facilitate sustainability by pursuing 

electrification of port infrastructure, reduced idling at distribution centers, and fleet upgrades 

under the SmartWay Port Drayage Truck progran1. In addition, in consultation with EPA Region 

4 and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, the GP A intends to conduct an air 

monitoring study not to exceed one year at no more than four monitoring sites, to evaluate any 

potential impacts on surrounding communities. This study would occur once the project is 

complete and GPA is serving Post-Panamax ships in normal operations. These efforts by the 

GP A are not included in the project costs. In cooperation with this effort, the Corps ",i.ll provide 

teclmical assistance to the community to help explain scientific data or findings related to 

ongoing port activities and studies. The federal technical assistance is included in the estimatcd 

project costs. 

c. In addition to payment by the non-Federal sponsor of its share of costs as estimated and 

addressed in sub-paragraphs b.(1) and (2), the estimated non-Federal share of$198,000,000 

includes $163,000 for the estimated value oflands, casements, rights-of-way, and relocations 

4 
90 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 85131A.023

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia and South Carolina 

(except utility relocations) that it must provide pursuant to Section 101(a)(3) of WRDA 1986, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(3». 

d. Additional 10 Percent Payment. In addition to the non-Federal sponsor's estimated share 

of the project first cost determined in b. above, pursuant to Section 101(a)(2) ofWRDA 1986, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(2», the non-Federal sponsor must pay an additional 10 percent of 

tbe cost of the GNFs of the project in cash over a period not to exceed 30 years, with interest. 

The additional 10 percent payment is estimated to be $65,000,000 before interest is applied. The 

value oflands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations, estimated at $163,000, provided by the 

non-Federal sponsor under Section 1 01 (a)(3) ofWRDA 1986, as amended (33 U.S.c. 

2211(a)(3», and the costs of utility relocations borne by the non-Federal sponsor under Section 

10 I (a)(4) ofWRDA 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 221 I (a)(4», will be credited toward payment 

of this amount. 

e. Opcration and Maintenance Costs. The additional annual cost of operation and 

maintenance for this recommended plan is estimated to be $5,100,000. In accordance with 

Section 101(b)(1) ofWRDA 1986, as amended (33 U.s.C. 221 I (b)(l», the non-Federal sponsor 

will be responsible for an amount equal to 50 percent of the excess of the cost of the opcration 

and maintenance of the project over the cost which would be incurred for operation and 

maintenance of the project if the project had a depth of -45 feet MLLW. The incremental 

increase in annual cost attributable to operation and maintenance for the depth in excess of 

-45 feet MLL W is $303,000 with the non-Fedcral sponsor responsible for $152,000. As 

specified in the 1999 Report of the Chief of Engineers, the costs of operation, maintenance, 

repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the modified City of Savannah water 

system will remain a City of Savannah responsibility and will not be operated and maintained as 

a project General Navigation Feature. Similarly, the boat ramp on Hutchinson Island will be 

transferred to a local entity upon completion of construction. The local entity will be responsible 

for the OMRR&R. Lands acquired for wetland prcservation would be transferred to the 

Savannah National Wildlife Refuge and the OMRR&R costs would be borne by the US Fish and 

Wildlife Scrvice. Thc project will also make a one-time payment to the existing GA DNR 

Striped bass Stocking Program. This action has no associated OMRR&R costs. Other project 

mitigation features to address the adverse impacts of the project will be operated and maintained 

in the same manner as other GNF are operated and maintained. 

f. Associated Costs. Estimated associated costs of $7,700,000 include $2,600,000 in nonFederal costs associated with development oflocal service facilities (including dredging of 

berthing areas); and $5,100,000 for navigation aids (a U.S. Coast Guard expense). 

g. Authorized Project Cost and Section 902 Calculation. The project first cost, for the 

purposes of calculating the maximum cost of the project pursuant to Section 902 of WRDA 

1986, as amended, includes the cost of constructing the GNFs and the value of lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way. Accordingly, as set forth in paragraph a, above, based on October 2011 

prices, the estimated project first cost for these purposes is $652,000,000 with an estimated 

Federal share of $454,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal share of $198,000,000. 

5 
91 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 85131A.024

CECW-PC 

SlJBJECT: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia and South Carolina 

6. Ba..~ed on October 2011 price levels, a 4-perccnt discount rate, and a 50-year period of 

analysis, the total equivalent average annual costs of the -47 foot depth project are estimated to 

be $38,900,000. The average annual equivalent benefits are estimated to be $213,100,000. The 

average annual net benefits are $174,200,000. The benefit-to-cost ratio for the recommended 

plan is 5.5:1. 

7. Section 119 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations (EWDA), 2003, 

Division D of Public Law 108-7, authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 

of Engineers, to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the Savannah Harbor 

Expansion Project, authorized by Section 101 (b)(9) ofWRDA 1999, an amount equal to the 

Federal share of the costs incurred by the non-Federal interests subsequent to project 

authorization to the extent that the Secretary determines such costs were necessary to ensure 

compliance with the conditions of the project authori7Btion. Of the project total costs, an 

estimated $23,000,000 is included for the creditable work. The non-Federal sponsor will receive 

credit in accordance with cost sharing for Navigation projects as provided for in WRDA 1986. 

8. Risk and Uncertainty. Uncertainties were evaluated for economic benefits, costs, 

environmental impacts, mitigation effect, and sea-level change. The economic sensitivity 

analysis concluded that a Ja..sper County terminal would not have a significant effect on the 

recommendation. In addition, sensitivities to commodity forecasts, vessel availability and 

loadings confirmed that the improvements to Savannah Harbor are economically beneficial. 

Consideration was given to uncertainties that exist in the ability to predict the impacts from the 

proposed harbor deepening alternatives . .In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular EC 

1165-2-212 on sea level change, the study periormed an analysis of three Sea Level Rise (SLR) 

rates. The baseline estimate representing the minimum expected sea level change is 0.5-feet. 

The intermediate estimate is 0.9-feet and the high estimate representing the maximum expected 

sea level change is 2.3-feet. No impact from sea-level rise uncertainty is expected regarding the 

dredging, because dredging depths are relative to the Mean Lower Low Water datum, which 

changes with sea level. Structural features also carry minimal risk from sea-level rise as they are 

designed to function over a wide range of stages. Sea-level rise has a minor risk of the project 

over-mitigating from chloride impacts. Other uncertainties, examined in regards to 

environmental mitigations (dissolved oxygen, biological response), showed little risk. 

9. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular EC 1165-2-209 on review of decision 

documents, all technical, enginecring and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic and 

vigorous review process to ensure technical quality. This included District Quality Control 

(DQC), Agency Technical Review (A TR), Policy and Legal Compliance Rcview, Cost 

Engineering Directory of Expertise (OX) Review and Certification, Model Review and Approval 

and Type I Independent External Peer Review (IEPR). Concerns expressed by the A TR team 

have been addressed and incorporated into the final report. The IEPR was completed by Battelle 

Memorial Institute. A total of24 comments on the report and one comment on the responses to 

agency and public comments were documented. The IEPR panel considered eight of the 

comments of medium significance and the others as low significance. The comments were 

related to plan formulation, eommodity forecasts, modeling, beneficial uses, impacts, risks and 

uncertainties, contingency, and sea-level rise. In response, sections in the main repOlt and EIS 
92 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 85131A.025

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia and South Carolina 

were expanded to include additional information. The final IEPR Report was completed in 

February 2011. 

10. The project was authorized in Scction 101 (b )(9) of WRDA 1999 to be carried out at a total 

cost of $230,174,000. When escalated to October 2011 price levels in accordancc with the 

procedure set out in ER 1105-2-100, Appendix G, implementing Section 902 ofWRDA 1986, 

the authorized total project cost amounts to $469,000,000. The current estimated first cost of 

$652,000,000 exceeds that amount by more than 20 percent, necessitating a statutory 

modification to the project to increase its authorized total cost. 

II. Washington level review indicates that the plan recommended by the reporting officers is 

technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and on the basis of Congressional 

directives, economically justified. The plan complies with all essential elements of the U.S. 

Water Resources Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water 

and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies. The recommended plan complies with 

other administration and legislative policies and guidelines. The views of interested parties, 

including Federal, State and local agencies, have been considered. State and agency comments 

received during review of the final reporUenvironmental assessment included concerns raised by 

the :-Jational Marine Fisheries Service, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Department of Interior which ranged from funding concerns, to the recent listing of the 

Atlantic sturgeon and the possible presence of hard bottoms in or near the project footprint to 

real estate transfer information. These concerns were addressed through coordination and 

USACE responses dated July 11,2012. Comments were also received from state of Georgia 

which were generally in support of the project and recognized that earlier comments had been 

addressed in the final document. Two entities from the state of South Carolina provided 

comments expressing their preference for the -45 foot alternative and their concerns regarding 

the environmental effects. Reponses were provided re-iterating the considerations during the 

planning process and the extensive coordination that occurred regarding environmental effects 

and mitigation with the natural resource agencies. In compliance with Section J 0 1 (b )(9) of 

WRDA 1999, representatives of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and 

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency approve the selected plan and have 

determined that the associated mitigation plan adequately addresses the potential environmental 

impacts of the project. 

12. I concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend that the plan to improve navigation in the Savannab Harbor be 

authorized in accordance with the reporting officers' selected plan at an estimated cost of 

$652,000,000 with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be 

advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applicable 

requirements of Federal and State laws and policies, including WRDA 1986, as amended (33 

U.S.c. 2211). The non-Federal sponsor would provide the non-Federal cost share and all lands, 

easements, and rights-of-way, including tbose necessary for the borrowing of material and the 

disposal of dredged or excavated material, and would perform or assure the performance of all 

relocations, including utility relocations. This recommendation is subject to the non-Federal 

sponsor's agreeing in a Project Partnership Agreement, prior to project implementation, to 

7 
93 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 85131A.026

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia and South Carolina 

comply with all appJicable Federal laws and policies, including but not limited to the 

following requirements: 

a. Provide, during construction, funds necessary to make its total contribution for commercial 

navigation, when added to the non-Federal contribution that may be afforded credit pursuant to 

Section 119 of the EWDA, 2003, equal to: 

(I) 25 percent of the cost of construction of the GNFs attributable to dredging to a depth 

in excess of -20 feet MLL W but not in excess of -45 feet MLL W, plus 

(2) 50 percent of the costs attributable to dredging to a depth over -45 feet MLL W; 

b. Place the estimated non-Federal sponsor's share of the monitoring and adaptive 

management eosts (paragraph 4,j and k) in an escrow account at the time the Project Partnership 

Agreement is executed. 

c. Provide all lands, easement~, and rights-of-way (LER), including those necessary for the 

borrowing of material and the disposal of dredged or excavated material, and perform or assure 

the performance of all relocations, including utility relocations, all as determined by the Federal 

Government to be necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of the GNFs; 

d. Pay with interest, over a period not to excecd 30 years following completion of the period 

of construction of the project, an additional amount equal to 10 percent of the total cost of 

construction of the GNFs less the amount of credit afforded by the Government for the value of 

the LER and relocations, including utility relocations, provided by the non-Federal sponsor for 

the GNFs. If the amount of credit afforded by the Govermnent for the valne of the LER and 

relocations, including utility relocations, provided by the non-Federal sponsor equals or exceeds 

10 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNFs, the non-Federal sponsor shall not be 

required to make any contribution under this paragraph, nor shall it be entitled to any refund for 

the value of the LER and relocations, including utility relocations, in excess of I 0 percent of the 

total cost of construction of the GNFs; 

e. Provide, operate, and maintain, at no cost to the Government, the local service facilities, in 

a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable 

Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the 

Federal Government; 

f. In the case of project features greater than -45 feet MLL W in depth, provide 50 percent of 

the excess cost of operation and maintenance of the project over that cost which the Secretary 

detemlines would be incurred for operation and maintenance if the project had a depth of 

-45 feet MLLW; 

g. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for 

the purpose of completing, inspecting, operating and maintaining the GNFs; 

8 
94 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 85131A.027

CECW-PC 

SUBJECT: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia and South Carolina 

h. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, 

operation and maintenance of the project, any betterments, and the local service facilitics, except 

for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors; 

i. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of three years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents, and other evidence are required, to the 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total cost of the project, and in accordance with 

the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 

CFR Section 33.20; 

j. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Rcsponse, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), 42 U.S.c. 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under the LER that the Federal 

Government determines to he necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of the 

GNFs. However, for lands that the Government determines to be subject to the navigation 

servitude, only the Government shall perform such investigation unless the Federal Government 

provides the non-Federal sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which case the nonFederal sponsor shall perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction; 

k. Assume complete fmancial responsibility, as between the Federal Government and the 

non-Federal sponsor, for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances 

regulated under CERCLA that are located in, on, or under the LER that the Federal Government 

determines to be necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of the project; 

1. To the maximum extent practicable, perform its obligations in a manner that will not cause 

liability to arise under CERCLA; 

m. Comply with Section 221 ofPublic Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and Section lOI(e) ofWRDA J986, Publie Law 99-662, as amended (33 

U.S.c. 2211(e» which provide that the Secretary of the Army shall not commence the 

construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, until the non-Federal 

sponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the projeet or 

separable element; 

n. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Unifonn Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Publie Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601-

4655) and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way necessary for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

including those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of material, or the disposal of dredged 

or excavated material; and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and 

procedures in connection with said act; 

9 
95 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 85131A.028

CECW-PC 

SCBJECT: Savannah Harbor Expansion Project, Georgia and South Carolina 

o. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), and Department of 

Defense Direetive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Army Regulation 600-7, entitled 

"Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted 

by the Department of the Anny"; and all applicable Federal labor standards requirements 

including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-3708 (revising, codifying 

and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 

U.S.C. 276a et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (fonnerly 40 U.S.C. 

327 et seq.), and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276c»; 

p. Provide the non-Federal share of that portion of the costs of mitigation and data recovery 

activities associated with historic preservation, that are in excess of 1 percent of the total amount 

authorized to be appropriated for the proj ect; and 

q. Not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share, therefore, to meet any of the non-Federal sponsor's obligations for 

the project unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in 

writing such funds are authorized to be used to carry out the project. 

13. The recommendation contained herein reflects the infonnation available at this time and 

current departmenta.l policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to Congress as a 

proposal for implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to Congress, the sponsor, the 

State, interested Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised of any significant 

modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

HOMAS 

4-

P. BOSTICK 

Lieutenant General, U.S. Anny 

Commanding 

10 
96 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 85131A.029

DAEN 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

2600 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, DC 20310,2&00 

SUBJECT: Freeport I farbor Channellmproltmel1t Project, Brazoria Count;.J nus 

THE SECRETARY OF TilE ARlvlY 

1. I submit t(lr transmission to Congress my report ol111udgation irnprowments for the Frceport 

Ilarbor Channellmpron:mcl1t Project (FllCIP). [t is accompanied the report of the Galleston 

District Engineer and the Southwestem Division Engineer. The study was conducted 

under the authority of Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, \\hieh authorizes relie\\ of 

completed Corps of Engineers navigation projects when signiticant changes in physical or 

economic conditions haw_ occurred, and the submission of a report to Congress on the 

advisability the project in the overall public interest. Prc-constructi,m engineering 

and design activities this prop()scd project. if funded, \\ould be continued under the authorit) 

provided by the section cited above. TIle cxistint1 Frc<:port Harbor Channel Ims authorized b\ 

the River and I Iarbor Acts of'vlay 1950 and July 1958. 

2. The report recommends a project that will contribute signilicantly to the economic efticiency 

ofcomrnercial navigation inlhc region. The FHCIP is an improwment of the Freepon 

Ilarbor Channel that provides fllr a waterway from the (iulfofMexico to Cil\ of 

Freeport through the original mouth Brazos River. A diversion dam about 7.5 miles aha\ e 

the ongina! river mouth. and a diversion channel the Brazos River irom the dam to an 

oUlleT into the Gulfabon16.5 miles southwest of the mouth. now separate the Freeport 

Harbor Channel from the river system and make lhe and chmmels an entirely tidal system. 

The study evaluated na\'igation and environmental problems and 

mile study area. The stud} area includes the eilies of Freepo!i, 

Freeport Harbor Channel, the Brazos River Diversion Channel. portion ofthe Gulflntraeoastal 

Waterway. the Gulf of,v1cxico shoreline on both sides of the Freeport Harhor Channel, and the 

onshore channel and placement areas 10 miles into the GulfofMcxico. The entire study area is 

!oeated \\ithin Brazoria COHmy. Texas and adjacent state \vaters in the GulrofMcxico. 

3. 111C reponing otTiecrs recommend the 

Freeport 1 larbor Channel. nle LPP consists 

Prcte!Ted Plan (LPP) to modi 1\ the existing 

f()lIowing imprmements: 

a. Deepen the Outer Bar Channel into the Gulfof?vkdco 10 -5X feet mean lower io\\ 

water (:vlLL W): 

b. Deepen from the end of the jetties in the Gulfof \kxico to the Lower Tmning Basin to 

-56 teet MLLW: 
97 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 85131A.030

DM·:\ 

SCTUFCT: In:qx1rt Harbor Channellmprcl\cmenl Prokct. BrazGria (\ll11l1). Tee-a' 

c. Deepcn from the tilwer rurning Basin to Station 1_,:' 66 ncar the Brazospnrt T urn;n" 

Ba,in (0 -56 fed :VI LLW; 

d. Deepen from Station 13::>-'-66. aho\c the Brazospon Turning Basin. through the l 'pper 

lurninfC Ba,in to -5 J kef \lLL \\': 

e. Deepen and "idc'n the hm er 3.700 feet of the Stauffer Chanlld to -S I 

300 feel wide: 

l'v1l.LWand 

r. Dredge the remainder oi"lhc SWuflcrChanneilo -2() feel :VI!.LW (its prc\ii'usl, 

~lllthorized depth lIas -:iO fcen. 

Dredged material placement Illf this project \\ ill be proviJcd in accordance with the DredfCcd 

\laterial i\·lan:lgcmen( Plan dc\'cltlpcd during the stud\,. Deepening oflhe Freepor\ Harbnr 

l'lmnnel would generate approximately 17.3 million cubic yards of ne" \\ urk materiai and 

approximately 176 millioll cubic yards of mainten::H1ee 0\ er the 50-year period (If ccul10mic 

(,alumiol1. :V,lalcriai from the Channel htcnsion. Outer Bar Channel. and .lett} Chdl1l1ei \\ould 

be placed onshore in the e\isting '\Jew Work and ~laintenancc Material OCGan Dr"dgcd ~Ialerial 

Disposal Sites (ODMDS;;\. \latcrial from the inland Freeport Harhor channel, and hasins \\()uld 

he placed in (lne e"isting c(lnlined upland Placement Area (1';\ 11. and two 11('\\ Placement 

,\rcas (P:\ K and P;\ 9). 

\1iligation leaturcs will consist of the preservatioll of approximate!) 131 acres of rip:ll'ial1 tlm~st 

under a pemlancnt conservation easemem and the imprm ement of il'; habitnt value hy 

establishing I I acres of riparian li:m~st in place of 11 acres ofil1v:lsile tree species: th,' creatiol1 

or three acres ofw('tlands and an associmed UIle acre of riparian forest: and required 11l11llitoring 

ui"mitigation performance and impacts!(\ v\('\lands and riparian tl)l"Cst tl)r corrective ac:ic)n. 

i r needed, 

-+. The rccol1111lcmkd na\'igation plan is nN the '\alion31 Economic l)e\clopmcnt ("ED) plan. 

The recommended LPP is ,hallo\\er and \\ ill he less cosll) than the NED plan in the main 

channel portion of the FIIC]P. The LPP is supported hy the l1ol1-rederal. cost sharing sponsor 

(Port Freeport). 

'. Project Cost Breakd[l\\l1 basd on Octont:r 2012 pricl's. 

Project First Cost. The estimated project Ilrst cost of constructing the !-lICIP is 

S23 7.-+ 74.000 which includes the cost of constructing General >;a\igation Fcatrurcs (GNF I 

and the \ all!(: of lands. casements, and relocations estimated as follow,;; 

5::'011.079.000 for channell1lPdilicmiol1 und uredged material placement: S 165.000 1,)]" !ish 

and \\ildlife mitigation: S 1.691.000 for lands. casements. and 
98 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 85131A.031

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Freeport Harbor Channel Improvement Project. Brazoria County, Texas 

non-Federal sponsor: $18,1 35,000 fl)f planning, engineering and design efforts: ::md 

S9A04J)OO for construction management. 

b, Estimated Federal and Non-Federal Shares: The estimated Federal and non-Federal 

shares of the project first cost are S12Ll32,OOO and $116,342,000, respectively, as 

apportioned in accordance with the cost sharing provisions of Section ] 01{a) of the Water 

Rcsourees Development Act (\VRDA) of 1911(" as amended (33 U.S.C 2211 (a». as fllllows: 

(1) 111e costs for deepening the Upper Stanffer Channel will be shared at the rate of 

90 percent by the Government and J 0 percent by the non-Federal sponsor lor dredging 

depths bet\veen ]8 and 20 feet and 75 percent by the Ciovernmcm and 25 percent by the nOtlFederal Sponsor for dredging between 20 and 26 f('et. The tOlal cost for this reach is 

$3.flO7,OOO with $2.7!12.000 in Federal costs and $il2S.000 in non-Federal COS1S. 

(2) The cost for deepening the Lower Stauffer Channel will be shared at the rate of 

90 percent by the Government and 10 pacent by the non-Federal sponsor for dredging 

depths between ]8 and 20 feet and 7S percent by the GovernmiCl11 and 25 percent by the nOI1-

Federal sponsor t()r dredging depths between 20 and 45 feet. Dredging depths deeper than 45 

feet will be shared at the rate of '0 percent by the Ciovcl11mcm and 50 percent by the 1100-

Federal sponsor. Costs for deepening this reach total $](U;69,OOO with $7.693.0(}0 being 

paid by the Goyernment and $3.17(',000 being paid by the non-Federal sponsor. 

(3) The costs for the deepening of the Freeport Harbor channels from the existing 

46-[001 depth to 56 led (58 fet:1 offshore) will be shared al the rate ofSO percent by the 

Goyernmem and 50 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. /\c(:ordingl:, the Federal and nonFederal shares of the estimated S221 JJ40.000 cost in this ZOlle will bc approximately 

S 11 O.520,O(}O being paid by the Government and $11 O.:S20.0()O being paid by the nOJ1-

Federal sponsor. 

(4) The costs for el1\'ironmcntal mitigation will be shared at the proratd share rate 

of 51.4% by the Govemmel11 and 48.6% by the non-Federal sponsor. Costs tor mitigation 

total S267,O()O with $] 37,000 being paid by the Govemmcnl and $130,000 being paid by the 

non-Federal sponsor. 

(5) In addition to payment by the non-Federal sponsor of its share of costs as 

estimated and described in sub-paragraphs b(l), b(2). h(3) and b(4) above, the estimated nunFederal share of$116.342.(}OO includes $L691.0()0 f(lr the estimated value oflands, 

easement, and rights-of-way that it mnst provide pursuallllO Section 10] (alC';) of WRDA 

1<186. as amended (33 U.S.C.2211(a)Cl». 

.1 
99 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 85131A.032

DAEN 

SUBJECT: freeport Harbor Chlilmellmprowment Project. Brazoria County, Texas 

c Additional 10 Percent Payment. In addition to payment by the non-Federal sponsor 

of its share of the project first costs determined in sub-paragraphs b( 1 ). b(2) and b(3) above. 

pursuanlto Section 1 Ol(a)(2) ofWRDA 1986. as amended (33 e.s.c. 221I(a)(2)). the nonFederal sponsor must pay an additional 1 () percent of the cost of the general 

features of the project in cash oYer a period not to exceed 30 years, with interest. The 

additional 10% payment without interest is estimatcd to be $23.578,000. The \alue orlands, 

casements. rights-of-way. and relocations, estimated as $L691.000, provided by the nOllfederal sponsor under Section 101 (a)(3) ofWRDA 1986. as arnended. will be credited 

toward payment of this amOllnt. 

d. Operations and Maintenance Costs. The additional annual cos! of opera lion and 

maintenance for this recommended plan is estimated at $11.371.000. In accordance with 

Section 1 01(b) o[ WRDA 1986. as amended (33 U.S,c. 221 ](b)), the non-Federal sponsor 

will be responsible for an amount equal to 50 percent of the excess of the cost of the 

operation and maimenance of the project over the cost which would be incurred fi)r operation 

and rnaintcnlillce oftbe project if the project had a depth of 45 feeL The Federal (JO\emment 

would be responsible telr S6,254.000 o[the im:remcntal operations and maintenance costs 

and the non-Federal sponsor \vould be responsible ii.lr the S5.117.000, 

e. Associated Costs. Estimated associated costs of$58.88 1.000 include $}9.695.000 in 

non-Federal costs associated with bulkhead modifications. SI8.803.0()0 telr dredging of nonfederal berthing areas adjacent to the Federal channel and S 1,383.000 fix aids to 

(a U.S. Coast Guard expense). 

f Authorized Project Cost and Section 902 Calculation. The project first cost for the 

puq10se of calculating the maximum cost oflhe project pursuant to Section 902 of WRDl\ 

1986. as amended. includes the cost of constructing the GNFs and the value of lands. 

casements, and rights-of-way, .Accordingly. as set t(lrth in paragraph 5.a. abO\c.based on 

October 2012 prices, the total estimated project first cost fix these purposes is 5237.4 74.000 

with an estimated federal share 01'$121.132,000 and an estimated non-Federal share of 

SJ 16.342.000. Based on October 2012 price levcls. a discount rate of3.75 percent. and a 50-

year period of economic analysis. the project average annual benefits and eosts for the 

FHCIP are estimated at $48.042,000 and $25.449.000. respecti\{:ly. with resulting net excess 

bene tits of$22.593.000 and a bencfit-to-cost rmio of 1.9 to I. 

7. The goals and objecti\ es included in the Campaign Plan of the C(II'PS have been 

integrated into the Freeport Harbor Channel study process, The recommended plan was 
100 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 85131A.033

DAEN 

SLJ3JECT: Freeport Harbor Chann..:! ImpnlYement Project. Brazoria Count). Texas 

developed in coordination and consultation with I"arious F;;;deraL State and local agencies 

using a systematic and regional approach to ti:mnulating solutions and evaluating the benefits 

and impacts that would [;;;sult. Th;;; feasibility study evaluated navigation and emironmental 

problems and opportunities lor the entire study area of about 70 square-miles, Risk and 

unctTtainly were addressed during the stud} by sensilili1y analyses that evaluated the 

potential impacts of sea level change and economic as well as cost risk analysis, 

8. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular on review of decision documents, all 

technicaL engineering. and scienlific work underwent an open. dynamic. and vigorous revie\\ 

process to ensure tcclmical qualit:. This included an Agency Technical Re\ iew (ATR). an 

Independent External Peer Review ([EPR). and a Corps Headquarters policy and kgal 

review. All concerns of the A TR have been addressed and incorporated imo the tinal report. 

An JEPR was completed hy Battelle 'vkmoriallnstitutc in .\ugusI2008. A total of:22 

eonmlents were documented. The commellts were related to plan fonnulation. vessel fleet 

analysis. benetits. water quality, and sensitivity analyses. An IEPR back-check was 

completed in June 2011. \\!lich resulted in i()llow-up comments related to thc original 22 

comments. In responsc. scctions in the main report and E1S wen; expanded to include 

additional information. The IEPR responses wcre reviewed by the Deep Orai'! Navigation 

Center of E:-,pertise in Junc 201 J II ilh all comments satisHlCtorily addressed. 

9. Washington level review indicates that the plan recommended by the reporting officers is 

lechnically sound. environmentally and socially acceptable, and economically justitied. The 

plan complies with all essential elements of the LS. Water Resources Coullcil's Economic 

and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land Relatl'd Resources 

Implementation Studies. The recommended plan complies with other administration and 

legislative policies and guidelines_ The vie\\-, of inkrested parties. including Federal, State 

and local agenei"s. hme been considered. A Biological Opinion has been receiled from the 

::--;alional Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for potential incidental take of sea turtles during 

construction. The Biological Opinion has been reviewed and f()und acceptable. 

Stale and at'cilcy cOl1lmcnb receiwd during rei iel\' oflbc final rcport'cmironmciltal impact 

statement included comnh:l1t' hY the U.S. Coast Guard (eSCG) and tbe \ l.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (CSEPA). The tJSCG requested Corps assistance in obtaining fimds lor 

the necessary navigation aid modifications and the Corps response stated that the district 

would coordinate to request the necessary tJSCG funding in conjunction with project 

construction funds. The lJSEPA expressed concerns OIl a variety Ofl0pics in a lettcr dmed 

October 5, 2012 The Corps response stmed that expanded were provided in the 

5 
101 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 85131A.034

DAE;-'; 

SUBJECT: Freeport Harbor CilanIlel ImprO\cmenl Project. Brazoria County, Texas 

report and FEfS on the rationale for fODlmlmion and selection. planned air pollution 

prevention/reduction measures during construction. dredged material placement proc<.:dures 

at ocean sites, and analyses of socio-economic:health and safety effects based on additional 

modeling and analyses. Tile also committed to further USEP;\ review of sediment 

data collected during the pre-construction engineering and design phase and continued 

coordination as needed. depending upon the testing results. 

10. I concur in the findings. conclusions, and recolllmendations o1'lhe reporting officers. 

Accordingly. I recommend that impron:ments for the freeport Harbor Channel be 

authorized in accordance with the reporting officer's recommended plan at an estimated cost 

of $237.474,000 with such modit1cations as in the discreiion of tilt' Chief of 

be advisable. iv1y recommendation is subject to cost sharing, linancing. and other dUllU"dIJ!\.. 

requirements of Federal and State laws and including Section 101 ofWRDA 19X6. 

as amended. This recommendation is to the non-Federal sponsor agreeing to 

with all applicable Federal laws and including that the non-Federal SPOllSI)f must 

agree with the following requirements prior to project 

a, Proyide 10 percent of the total cost of construction of the teatures 

(G~F) attributable [0 dredging to a depth not in excess of 20 Jt:el: plus 25 percent of the total 

cost of construction orlhc G~fs attributable to drcdging to a depth in excess of 20 1\.;et but 

not in excess 01'45 feet: 50 percent of tile IOtal cost of construction orthe G'iFs 

attributable to dredging to a depth in excess of 45 feet as further specified bdow: 

(1) Proyide 25 percent of design costs allocoted by the Government to commercial 

navigation in accordance with the tenns of a design agreement entered into to 

commencement of design work Jor the pn>ject: 

(2) Provide. during the first year of construction. any additional funds necessary to 

pay the t'hll non-Federal share of design coSlS allocated by the Govcrnmentl0 

commercial navigation: 

(3) Provide. during construction. any additional (hnd, necessary 10 make its total 

contribution for commercial navigation equal to 10 percent of the total cost of construction of 

the G\.iFs attributable to dredging to a depth not in excess 01'20 feet plus 25 percent or111r 

lOla I cost of constmction of the G;-';Fs attributable 10 dredging 10 a depth in excess of20 teet 

but not in excess of 45 feCl: plus 50 perccllt of the total cost of constmction of the G'i F s 

attributable to dredging t(l a depth in excess of 45 fcct: 

6 
102 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 85131A.035

DAE:'-i 

S\;BJECT: Freepol1 Harbor ChannellmprO\cment Project. Brazoria County. Tnas 

b. Provide all lands. easement. and rights-of-way (LER). thl1se necessary for 

tbe borrowing of material and placement of dredged or excavated material. and perf{)ml or 

assure perfomlance of all relocations. including utility relocations. all as delel111ined by the 

Govcmmenllo be necessary for the construction or operation and maintenance of the GNFs: 

c. Pay with interest. 0\'(:1' a period not 10 exceed 30 years completion of the 

pcriod ofeonstruetion of the ('NFs. all additional amount equal to 10 percent of tile total cost 

of construction ofGNFs less the amount of credit aff~)rdcd by the Government for the yalue 

of the LER and relocations, including utility relocmions. provided by the non-Federal 

sponsor for the G:'-iFs. If the amount of credit af1brded by the GOYernmcnl f(lr the value or 

LER. and relocations. including utility relocations. provided by the non-Federal spOl1"or 

equals or exceeds 1 0 percent of the total cost of construction of the GNfs, the non-Federal 

sponsor shall not be required to make any contribution under this paragraph, nor shall it be 

entitled to any refund 1()1' the value ofLER and relocations. including utility relocations. in 

excess of 1 () percent of the total costs of construction of the (iNFs: 

d. Provide. operate. and maintain, at no cost to the Government. the local scr.-ice 

facilities in a manner compatible \\'itll the project's authorized purposcs and in aecordancc 

\\ilh applicable Federal and State 13\\s and r,'guiations and any dircctions 

by the Government: 

e. Provide 50 percent of the excess cost of operation and maintenance (.1f the project (1\er 

that cost which the Government determines \HJUld be incurred fiJr operation and maintenanc(: 

if the project had a depth of 45 It'et: 

f Givc the Government a right to enter. at reasonable times and in a rcasonable manner. 

upon property that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls fix ilccess to the project lor the 

purpose of completing, inspecting. operating and mainl<1ining the GNFs: 

g. Hold and sa\'c the Cnited States free from al! dalllages arising il'om the construction 

or operation and maintenance ofthc project. any bt:tterments. and the local service facilities. 

except for damages duc to the I1mlt or negligence of the United States or its contractors: 

h. Kecp and maintain books. records. documents. and other cyjdence pertaining to coslS 

and expenses incurred pursuant to the project. for a minimum of 3 years after of 

the accounting for which such books. records. documents. and other evidence is required. to 

the extent and in such detail as will properly rriket total cost of construction of the 

and in accordance \\ith the standards for financial management svstClllS set Ji)rth in th" 

7 
103 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 85131A.036

1),\1:::".; 

Sf 'i3JFCT: Freeport Hurhor Channel I 111 pro I "men! Project Hrazoria County. T",as 

t:nil(mn AdministratilT Requirements for Grants and Cooperuti,,; Agreements 1(1 Stelle and 

ic>eal go\crnmcnts at .;;: (TR. Section 3:<.20: 

i. Perform. or ensure perl,'rmancc or an) inn;:;\igati(ll]S ii)r hazardous sub"tanccs as :m: 

determined necessary 10 the existencl' and exkllt of any l13zarc!ous substances 

under th~' COll1prehensinr Em ironmental and Liabilil;, 

\cl ((,FRCtA). 42 t·SC %019675. that DEl) exist in. on. Of Linder tER that the 

G"nrrnmClll determines to be nccessaJ':' ti)f tll.: consirueti"!l ,'r and m:tinten:lIlcc of 

the G'-:Fs. Howe\er. illr lanek ea,ements. ilr that the CioV'erllI11Clllckhrnnilll" 

tel be suhiect to the sen itude. Pili) the Gm emmcnt :;hall pCril)f]11 such 

lInks':i the Ciov<;'rIlmcnt the non-Federal sponsor with specific 

"rillen direction. in which case the non-Fcderal Sp'H1'>Or shall perform slich imTstig:niol1s in 

:lCcl1rdance with ,uch written direction: 

j. Assllme comple1e financial rcspllll',ibility_ as hc!\\ccn the (],wcnlmcn1 and til-: non· 

Federal ,pon501'. for all Ilcccssa['~ cleallup and response costs of any hazardous substances 

under CERCLA that arc located in. OIL ()r LInder LLR that the G,l\Cn1mCnl 

ddefmine:s to he nCCCSS31T le.>r the cunstruction or (,[)cratinn and maintenance llfIhc Projl'Ct: 

L 10 the maximum extent III manner tInt 1\ i 11 not 

cause liabili1) to arise: under CEReLA: 

L Ivilh Section ~~1 or!'l, 91-611. Flood Control Act of 1970. as amended. 

(4:' \. Xc. 1 96::'d-'ibJ and Section 10 He) of th.: WRDA 86. Public lim 99-66:2. :15 

amended. (3:1 (',S,C :2211(<::)) which provide, that the Secretary ofllll' Arm) shall nnl 

commence the construction of an\' \vater resources ur clement thereoL 

until thl: non-Federal spnl1snr has entered into a written agreement ttl furnish its 

c(l(lpcralion for the project or element: 

m. Comply with the applicable pro\'isions of the lnirorm Relocation Assistance and 

Real Property Acquisition Policies ACI uf 1970. Pl. tl] -646. as amended. (42 L:.s.C. .j6())-

-+(55) and the Uniii:mn Regulations contained in 49 (TR 24. in land,. casement:s. 

and rights-of-W3>. necessary for construction. and maime:nancc or the 

those necessary for rel,'c'ilions. the of materiaL or the placeillent of 

or cxc3Yatcd material: and inform all affected persons benefits. 

and ill connection \1 itb saiel act: 

n. with all Federal and State laws and but 11(\\ 

iin'ited to. Se:ction 601 of the Civil Act of 1964. PL gS-352 (-+2 \ 'SC 201l0d I. and 

8 
104 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 85131A.037

1l.'\E\ 

SLBJrCT: Freeport Harbor Cllannd lmpw\ (Omeni Project. Bnuuria County. Tl'"'' 

Department of Defense Direct]\c 'i5()O.11 issued pursuant thereto: Arm: hOP-7. 

('milled ":\ondiscrimination nn the Basis nf llandic[lp in Programs and Acti\itics .·\y;is\('d ;)r 

Conducted b) the Department of the Army": and all Fcderallahor standards 

requirements including, but not limited to, 40 l i,S,C. 3141-3148 and 40 l.S,C 370! -~ lOll 

and without slIhSlanli\'C tll" pW\ ision of til" Dc" isHacon Act ({()fmcrly 40 L.S.C. 276a ('[ seq.). the Contract Work Ilours and Safet) 

Swnd:.mis ,\Ci (f(mm:rl) 401 :,S,c. 327 Ci seq.), and the Copeland ,\nti-Kickhack ,\ct 

iformerly ,to USC. 276e/; 

o. l'r0\idc the l1on-Fc'dcrai share () 1'lhm :md data 

n~co\ery actiyities associated with ilis[()ric ',,",'S"'J'\"' 

lotJI ;H110unt authorized to he appropriated for the 

that arc in exccss of 1 percent (,f tlll' 

p, Not usc funds from other Federal programs. including all) non-Federal wntrihutioll 

as a share thcrd(lf(~, to meet all;' oflh<:: 1l0!1-FcdtTal 

costs unless the Federal agenc: pw\iding the Federal portion of such funel> 

that snch 1lll1ds arc authorized to he llsed to earr:- om the and 

q. the firsl phase "Cthe Velasco Container Terminal (800-t()ot herth and 3:' 

acres of supporting hacklandl on the Stauffer Channel 

of the Staulfer Channel portion of tile project. 

to til.: initiation of construct ion 

II. Ihc recommendation contained herein rcnects the inj(1 rmminl1 mailahle allhis lime and 

current departmental policies g(werning formulation of indi\ idual projects. It docs not 

rdkct program and inherent in the t()rl1lulati(l11 of a national ci\ il \\ orb 

construction prngram or the pcrspecti\c of higher reyi,,\\ Ic\cls withillthe F:-;cculiH' Branch. 

Cnnscqucntly the recommendation may he modi lied he[()]'(~ it is transmitlcd to the Congress 

as a proposal for authorization and implementation Ilo\\'c\cr. prior to transmillallt1 

the Congress. the State of fe.xas. Port Freeport (the non-Fc:deral sl'(ll1snr). intt:r('stcd Feder;]1 

will he achised of any significant modifications and \\ill he 

afforded an tu commc:nt fhrther. 

Lieutenant GCIllTal. ('SA 

ChicI' "I' 

9 
105 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 85131A.038

DAEN 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CHIEF OF ENGIN EERS 

2600 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, DC 20310-2600 

FEB 2 5 2013 

SUBJECT: Canaveral Harbor Section 203 (WRDA 1986) Navigation Study, Brevard County, 

Florida 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

l. I submit for transmission to Congress the final feasibility repoli and environmental 

assessment on navigation improvements for Canaveral Harbor, Brevard County, Florida. It is 

accompanied by the reports of the Canaveral Port Authority (CPA). and the endorsements of tile 

Jacksonville District Engineer and the SOllth Atlantic Division Engineer. These reports were 

prepared by the CPA under the authority granted by Section 203 of Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA) of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), which allows non-Federal interests, such as 

the CPA, to undertake feasibility studies of proposed harbor projects and submit them to the 

Secretary of the Army. This report constitutes the final report submitted to the Secretary as 

described in Section 203 of WRDA 1986. 

2. The report recommends authorizing a project that will contribute to the economic efficiency 

of commercial navigation, provide greater safety for the operations of commercial and naval 

vessels. and increase the operational effectiveness of the national defense missions of the U.S. 

Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force. The recommended plan increases the nominal depth of 

the federal channel to -44 feet mean lower low water (mllw) for the inner channel and -46 feet 

mllw for the outer channel (middle and outer reach). widens the federal channel to a width of 500 

feet, increases the diameters of two turning circles, and widens the bend widener in the entrance 

channel. Widening the federal channel requires removal of 8 acres of U. S. Air Force property. 

The U. S. Air Force concurs with this action. Environmental impacts of the recommended plan 

are minor, short-term impacts, which, in coordination with dle appropriate resource agencies, do 

not require mitigation. Effects on Threatened and Endangered species have been addressed 

through special measures and conditions. A portion of the material excavated for the project will 

be beneficially used as fill or for containment dike improvements. The remaining dredged 

material is suitable for placement in the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency designated 

Canaveral Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS). 

3, The reporting officers recommend the most economical plan analyzed, which is the plan that 

has the greatest net economic benefits of all plans considered. At the request of the non-Federal 

sponsor, plans greater in depth and width were not analyzed due to financial and logistical 

constraints I. The recommended plan is described in terms of outer, middle, and inner reaches, 

the Middle Turning Basin and west access channels, and the West Turning Basin. The outer 

reach is oriented on roughly a northwest-southeast alignment. Thc remainder of the channels is 

oriented in a generally east-west alignment. Various cuts comprise the outer. middle, and inner 

reaches. The recommended plan consists of widening the main ship channel from the harbor 

entrance inland to the West Turning Basin and West Access Channel. from its current authorized 

I This plan is recommended under the Categorical Exemption to the NED Plan provision of ER 1105-2-100 

(Paragraph 3-2.b.(1O»). 
106 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 85131A.039

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Canaveral Harbor Section 203 (WRDA 1986) Navigation Study, Brevard County, 

Florida 

width of 400 feet to 500 feet In addition to widening, deepening of the existing Federal project 

and expansion of turning basins is recommended in the following reaches (all depths mllw): 

a. Outer Reach, Cut lA: deepen from -44' to -46' for a length of 11,000'; 

b. Outer Reach, CutlE: deepen from -44' to -46' depth for a length of 5,500'; 

c. Outer Reach, Cut 1: deepen from -44' to -46' for the 5,300' long portion of Cut 1 that is 

seaward of buoys 718 (Station 0+00 to Station 53+00). The remainder of Cut J from 

buoys 7/810 the apex of the channel turn, a length of 7,200', would also be deepened 

from -44' to -46'; 

d. New 203 Turn Widener: decpcn to -46' X 23.1 acres (irrel-,rular shaped area) bounded to 

the north and northeast by the Civil Turn Widener and Outer Reach, Cutl; 

e. US Navy Turn Widener: deepen from -44' to -46' X 7.7 acres (triangular shaped area) 

bounded by outer and middle reaches to thc north and northeast and the Civil Tum 

Vy'idener to the southwest; 

f Civil Turn Widener: deepen from -41' to -46' X 15.6 acres (irregular shaped area) 

bounded to the north and northeast by the middle reach and the US Navy Turn 

Widener; 

g. Middle Reach: deepen from -44' to -46' for a length of 5,658'. The middle reach extends 

from the apex of the channel turn westward to the western bOlmdary of the Trident 

access channel; 

h. Inner Reach, Cut 2 and Cut 3: deepen from -40' to -44' for a length of 3,344'; 

1. Middle Turning Basin: expand and deepen to encompass 68.9 acres to a project depth of 

-43' and a turning circle diameter of 1422'; 

j. West Access Channel (east of Station 260+00): deepen from -39' to -43' for a length of 

1,840'; and 

k. West Turning Basin and West Access Ch31mel (west of Station 260+00): expand the 

turning circle diameter from 1,400' to 1,725' X 141 acres at a depth of -35'. 

4. Project Cost Breakdo\vn Based all Octobcr 2012 Prices. 

a. Project First Cost. The estimated project flrst cost is $40,240,000, which includes the 

cost of constructing the general navigation features and the "atue of lands, easements, rights-ofway and relocations (LERR) estimated as follows: $40,136,000 for channel modifications and 

2 
107 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 85131A.040

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Canaveral Harbor Section 203 (WRDA 1986) Navigation Study, Brevard County, 

Florida 

dredged material placement and $] 04,000 for the administrative costs of obtaining LERRs. 

There is no enviromnental mitigation required due to short term impacts. 

b. Estimated Federal and non-Federal Shares. The estimated Federal and non· Federal 

shaTes of the project first cost are $28,652,000 and $11,588,000, respectively, as apportioned in 

accordance with the cost sharing provisions of Section 101 of WRDA 1986, as amended (33 

V.S.c. 2211), as follows: 

(1) The cost for dredging to a depth in excess of 20 feet, but not in excess of 45 feet 

will be shared at a rate of 75 percent by the Govermnent and 25 percent by the non-Federal 

sponsor. Accordingly, the Federal and non-Federal shares of the costs in this zone are estimated 

to be $25,783,000 and $8,615,000, respectively. The cost for dredging in excess of 45 feet \\ill 

be shared at a rate of 50 percent by the Govermnent and 50 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. 

Accordingly, the Federal and non-Federal shares of the costs in this zone are estimated to be 

$2,870,000 and $2,870,000, respectively. 

(2) In addition to the costs outlined in sub-paragraph (1) above, the project first cost 

includes administrative costs for LERR estimated at $104,000. The administrative costs include 

project real estate planning, review, and incidental eosts between the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. 

A.'1l1Y Corps of Engineers (USACE). This cost will be a non-Federal cost. Credit is given for the 

incidental costs borne by the non-federal sponsor for LERR per Section 101 of \VRDA 1986. 

c. Additional 10 Percent Payment. In addition to the non-Federal sponsor's estimated 

share of the total first cost of constructing the project in the amolUlt of $11,588,000, pursuant to 

Section 101 (a)(2) of WRDA 1986, a~ amended, the non-Federal sponsor must pay an additional 

10% of the costs of general navigation featmes of the project, $4,013,700, in cash over a petiod 

not to exceed 30 years, with interest. The value of the administrative costs for lands, easements, 

rights-of-way and relocations provided by the Federal sponsor under Section 101(a)(3) of 

WRDA 1986 as amended ($103,300) will bc credited toward this payment, which results in a net 

10% General Navigation Features (GNF) requirement of $3,91 0,400. 

d. Operations and Maintenance Costs. Additional costs of operation and maintenance for 

this recommended plan, over and above the costs to operate and maintain the existing Federal 

project, are estimated to be $633,000 annually. In accordance with Section 101(b)(l) ofWRDA 

1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)(1»), the non-Federal sponsor will be responsible for an 

amount equal to 50 percent of the excess of the cost of operation and maintenance of the project 

over the cost of which would be incurred for operation and maintenance for the depth in excess 

of 45 feet. The excess annual cost attributable to operation and maintenance for the depth in 

excess of 45 feet is $364,000, v"ith the non-Federal sponsor responsible for 8182,000. Therefore 

the Federal share of the incremental annual maintenance cost is estimated to be $451,000. 

e. Associated Costs. Estimated associated CDsts of $3,251,000 include $364,000 in 110nFederal costs associated with development of local service facilities (including dredging of 

berthing areas) and $2,886,000 for navigation aids (a U.S. Coast Guard expense). 

3 
108 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 85131A.041

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Canaveral Harbor Section 203 (WRDA 1986) Navigation Study, Brevard County, 

Florida 

f. Authorized Project Cost and Section 902 Calculation. The project tirst cost, for the 

purposes of authorization and calculating the maximum cost of the project pursuant to Section 

902 of WRDA 1986, as amended, includes the cost of constructing the (GNE) construction costs 

and the value of LERRs provided under Section 101(a)(3) of WRDA 1986, as amended (33 

U.S.C.221(A)(3». Accordingly, as set forth in paragraph 4.a. above, based on October 2012 

prices, the estimated project first cost for these purposes is $40,240,000 with a Federal share of 

$28,652,000 and a non-Federal share of$11,588,000. 

5. Based on October 2012 price levels, a 3.75-percent discount rate, and a 50-year period of 

analysis, the total equivalent average annual costs of the project are estimated to be $2,647,000. 

The average annual equivalent benefits are estimated to be $5.393,000. The average annual net 

benefits are $2,747,000. The benefit-to-costratio for the reeommended plan is 2.0. 

6. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular EC 1165-2-212 on sea level change, the 

study performed an analysis of three Sea Level Rise (SLR) rales, a baseline estimate representing 

the minimwn expected sea level change, an intetmediate estimate, and a high estimate 

representing the maximum expected sea level change. The results of calculations from the 

project completion in 2014 through 2064 indicate that sea-level change estimates over a 50-year 

life of the projcct range from 0.120 meters (0.39 ft) for the low rate of change scenario, to 0.245 

m (0.80 ft) for the intermediate rate scenario, and 0.653 ill (2.14 ft) for the high rate scenario. 

Sea-level rise at these rates will have little or no impacts related to the proposed navigation 

improvements. 

In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular EC 1165-2-209 on review of decision 

documents, all technical, engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic and 

vigorous review process to ensure technical quality. This included District Quality Control 

(DQC), Agency Technical Review (ATR), Policy and Legal Compliance Review, Cost 

Engineering Directory of Expertise (DX) Review and Certitication, and Model Review and 

Approval. Given the project uses standard economic analyses, has a cost estimate of less than 

$45 million; does not represent a threat to health and safety; is not controversial; and has not had 

a request for Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) from a Governor or the head of a Federal 

or State agency, I have granted an exclusion from the requirement to conduct a Type I rEPRo 

7. Washington level review indicates that the plan recommended by the reporting officers is 

technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and on the basis of congressional 

directives, economically justified. The plan complies with all essential elements of the U.S. 

V-later Resources Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water 

and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies. The recOlnmended plan complies with 

other administration and legislative policies and guidelines. The views of interested parties, 

including Federal, State and local agencies, have been considered. 

8. r concur in the tindings, eoncJusions, and recommendations of the reporting omcers. 

Accordingly, I recommend that navigation improvements for Canaveral Harbor be authorized in 

4 
109 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 85131A.042

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Canaveral Harbor Section 203 (WRDA 1986) Navigation Study, Brcva::d County, 

Florida 

accordance with the reporting officer's recommended plan at an estimated cost of $40,240,000 

with such moditlcations as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable. My 

recommendation is subjcct to cost sharing, financing. and other applicable requirements of 

Federal and State laws and policies, including Section 101 of WRDA 1986, as amended. This 

recommendation is subject to the non-Federal sponsor agreeing to comply \vith all applicable 

Federal laws and policies including that the non-Federal sponsor must agree with the following 

requirements prior to project implementation. 

The CPA will: 

a. Provide 25 percent of design costs in accordance with the terms of a design agreement 

entered into prior to commencement of design work for the project; 

b. Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to pay the 

full non-Federal share of design costs; 

c. Provide, during the period of construction, a cash contribution equal to the following 

percentages of the total cost of construction of the general navigation features: 

L Twenty-five percent of the costs attributable to dredging to a depth in excess of 20 

feet, but not in excess of 45 feet; plus 

ii. Fifty percent of tlle cost, attributable to dredging to 11 depth in excess of 45 feet; 

d. Provide 50 percent of the exccss cost of operation and maintenance of the project over 

that cost which the Federal Government determines would be incurred for operation and 

maintenance for depths deeper than 45 feet; 

e. Pay with interest, over a period not to exceed 30 years following completion of the period 

of construction of thc project, up to an additional 10 percent of the total cost of construction of 

GNEs. The value of LERRs and deep-draft utility relocations provided by the Sponsor for the 

GNFs, described below, may be credited toward this required payment. The value of deep-draft 

utility relocations for which credit may be afforded shall be that portion borne by tlIe Sponsor, 

but not to exceed 50 percent, of deep-draft utility relocation costs; 

f. If the amount of credit equals or exceeds 10 percent of the total cost of constmction of 

the general navigation features, the Sponsor shall not be required to make any contribution under 

this paragraph, nor shall it be entitled to any refund for the value of LERRs and deep-draft utility 

relocations in excess of 10 percent of the total cost of construction of the general navigation 

features; 

g. Provide all LERRs and perfonn or ensure the performance of all relocations 311d deepdraft utility relocations detennined by tlle Federal Government to be necessary for the 

construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the general 

5 
110 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 85131A.043

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Canaveral Harbor Se..:tion 203 (WRDA 1986) Navigation Study, Brevard County, 

Florida 

navigation features (including all LERRs, and deep-draft utility relocations necessary for the 

dredged material disposal facilities); 

h. Provide, operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate, at its own expense, the local 

service facilities in a manner compatible \\'ith the project's authorized purposes and in 

accordance with applicable Federal a.l1d State laws and regulations and any specific directions 

prescribed by the Federal Govel11ment; 

i. Accomplish all removals dete1111ined necessary by the Federal Govennnent other than 

those removals specifically assigned to the Federal Govennnent; 

j. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that t.hc Sponsor owns or controls for access to the project tor the purpose 

of operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and rehabilitating the general navigation features; 

k. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, 

'operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project, any betterments, 

and the local service facilities, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United 

States or its contractors; 

I. Keep, and maintain books, records, docnments, and other evidence pertaining to costs 

and expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of 3 years after completion oftlle 

accounting for which such books, records, docnments, and other evidence is required, to the 

extent and in such detail as wilt properly reflect totai cost of construction of the general 

navigation featmes, and in accordance with the standards for financial management systems set 

forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to 

State and local govemments at 32 CFR, Section 33.20; 

m. Perform, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances as are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, casements, or rights of 

way that the Federal Govennnent determines to be necessary for construction, operation, 

maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of the general navigation features. However, 

for lands that the Govennnent determines to be subject to the navigation servitude. only the 

Govemment shall perf 01111 such investigation unless the Federal Government provides the 

Sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which case, the Sponsor shall perfonn such 

investigations in accordance with sllch \\Titten direction; 

n. Asswne complete financial responsibility, as between the Federal Government and the 

Sponsor, for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA regulated materials 

located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights of way that the Federal Government 

determines to be necessary for the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 

rehabilitation of the project; 

6 
111 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 85131A.044

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Canaveral Harbor Section 203 (WRDA 1986) Navigation Study, Brevard County, 

Florida 

o. To the maximum extent practicable, perform its obligations in a maImer that will not 

cause liability to arise under CERCLA; 

p, Comply with Scctiou 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, 

and Section 103 of the Water Resources DeVelopment Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, as 

amended, which provides that the Secretary of the Army shalillot commence the construction of 

any water resources project or separable element thereof, until the Sponsor has entered into a 

written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the project or separable element; 

q. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Unifonn Relocation Assistance and Real 

Propelty Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended by Title IV of the 

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, and the Unifoffil 

Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, 1U1d rights of way, 

required for constmction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the 

general navigation features, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and 

procedures in connection with said act; 

r. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to, Section 60] of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Almy 

Regulation 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and 

Activities Assisted·or Conducted by the Department of the Army." The State is also required to 

comply with aU applicable Fedemllabor standards requirements including, but not limited to, the 

Davis-Bacon Act (40 USC 3144 et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 

USC 3701 et seq.), and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (40 USC 3145 et seq.); 

s. Provide the non-Federal share that portion of the costs of mitigation and data recovery 

activities associated with historic preservation, that are in excess of 1 percent oftbe total amount 

authorized to be appropriated for the project, in accordance with the cost sharing proviSions of 

the agreement; 

t. Prevent obstructions of or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) which might reduce the 

ecosystem restoration, hinder its operation aJld maintenance, or interfere with its proper function, 

such as any new development on project lands or the addition of facilities wbich would degrade 

the benefits of the project; 

u. Do not use Federal funds to meet the Sponsor's share of total project costs 1mless the 

Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of 811Ch funds in authorized; 

v. Provide a cash contribution equal to the non-Federal cost share of the project's total 

historic preservation mitigation and data recovery costs attributable to commercial navigation 

7 
112 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 85131A.045

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Canaveral Harbor Section 203 (WRDA 1986) Navigation Study, Brevard County, 

Florida 

that are in excess of 1 percent of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for commercial 

navigation; and 

w. In the case of a deep-draft harbor, provide 50 percent of the excess cost of operation and 

maintenance of the project over that cost which the Secretary determines would be incurred for 

operation and maintenance if the project had a depth of 45 feet. 

9. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

progranl and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher rcview levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to the 

Congress, the State of Florida, the CPA (the non-Federal sponsor), interested Federal agencies, 

and other parties will be advised of any significant modifications and will be afforded an 

opportunity to comment further. 

8 

.~~e~ Lieutenant General, USA 

Chief of Engineers 
113 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 85131A.046

CECW-PC (1105-2-10a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314.1000 

SUBJECT: Topeka Flood Risk Management Project, Topeka, Kansas 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

AUG 24 2009 

J. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on flood risk management improvements on 

the Kansas River in the vicinity of Topeka, Kansas. It is accompanied by the report of the 

district and division engineer. These reports are submitted pursuant to Section 216 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1970, authorizing me to detennine whether any modifications to the local flood 

risk management projects are advisable in order to improve the reliability and perfonnance of the 

existing levee system. The existing units were originally authorized by the Flood Control Acts 

of 1936 and 1954. Project construction of the levee system was completed in 1974. The study 

was requested by the local sponsors and the Congress of the United States. Preconstruction 

engineering and design activities, if funded, would be continued under the authority provided by 

the act cited above. 

2. The reporting officers recommend autborizing a plan to reduce flood damages by construction 

of modifications to significantly improve reliability and perfonnance of tbe levee system in tbe 

vicinity of Topeka, Kansas. The recommendation is supported by the non-Federal Sponsors, the 

City of Topeka, Kansas, and the North Topeka Drainage District. Tbe recommended plan is the 

National Economic DeVelopment (NED) plan. All features arc located in the State of Kansas. 

The plan includes recommendations for modifications to four existing levee uniL~ within the 

Topeka Flood Risk Management Project: the Soutb Topeka Unit, the Oakland Unit, the Nortb 

Topeka Unit, and the Waterworks Unit. 

a. South Topeka Unit. Levee under-seepage concerns will be addressed by installation of a 

control benn. Structural strengtb and uplift concerns will be improved by modifications of the 

Kansas Avenue Pump Station and three manholes. Approximately 2,000 linear feet of existing 

concrete floodwall on timber-pile foundations will be removed and replaced with a new 

floodwall on concrete piles following the same alignment and to tbe same heigbt as the existing 

floodwall. The work in this unit will result in the removal of 7.5 acres of woodland habitat and 

appropriate mitigation measures are included in tbe Recommended Plan. 

b. Oakland Unit. An area of under-seepage concern will be controlled with a benn and a 

stability benn will be installed to improve the stability factor of safety of the existing floodwall. 

Structural modification of the East Oakland Pump Station will be implemented to address uplift 

failure concerns. 
114 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 85131A.047

CECW-NWD 

SUBJECT: Topeka Flood Risk Management Project, Topeka, Kansas 

c. North Topeka Unit: Two areas oflow under-seepage reliability will be improved by 

installation of an under-seepage control berm and a series of pumped relief wells, respectively. 

One pump station that is no longer required, and currently poses an uplift failure risk, will be 

removed. 

d. Waterworks Unit: Landside stability berms will be installed to increase the reliability of 

an existing concrete floodwall protecting the primary water source for the City of Topcka and 

surrounding communities. 

3. Project costs are allocated to the Flood Risk Management purpose. Based on the October 

2008 price levels, the estimated first cost to the plan is $21,157,000. In accordance with the cost 

sharing provisions of Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, 

as amended by Section 202 of WRDA 1996, tbe Federal share of the total project cost would be 

$13,752,000 (65 percent) and the non-Federal share would be $7,405,000. The non-Federal 

costs include thc costs of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged (LERRO) or 

excavated material disposal areas, estimated at $1,279,000. 

4. Based on a 4.625 percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent 

average annual costs of the project, including operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 

rehabilitation (OMRR&R), are estimated to be $1,168,000. The selected plan is estimated to be 

approximately 95 percent reliable in protecting the study area from the flood with a one percent 

chance of occurrence in any year (formerly referred to as the "100-year flood"). The selected 

plan would reduce average annual flood damages by about 67 percent and would leave average 

annual residual damages estimated at $7,438,000. Aunual average economic benefits are 

estimated to be $15,428,000; net average annual benefits are $14,260,000. The system-wide 

benefit-to-cost ratio is 13.2 to I. The selected plan is composed of three separable clements: 

South Topeka/Oakland, North Topeka, and Waterworks Units. Although South Topeka and 

Oakland are separate units, they are linked hydrologically and therefore combine to form a 

single, separable element. The South Topeka/Oakland Units would provide $4,014,000 in 

annual benefits with an annual cost of $996,000 for a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.0. Tbe North 

Topeka Unit would provide $11,408,000 in annual benefits with an annual cost of$169,000 for a 

benefit-to-cost ratio of67.4. The Waterworks Unit would provide $6,000 in annual benefits with 

an annual cost of$3,000 for a benefit-to-cost ratio of2.0. 

5. The goals and objectives included in the Campaign Plan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

have been full integrated into the study process. The project effectively implements a 

comprehensive systems approach with full stakeholder participation. The project study has 

undergone rigorous quality control reviews in accordance with rccent USACE guidance. These 

reviews included technical review of the engineering, economic, and environmental analyses by 

another USACE district. These reviews strengthened the recommendations of the reporting 

officers. The study report describes existing risks to the community, risks that will be reduced 

by the Recommended Plan, and residual risks that will remain from large, infrequent, flood 

events. In accordance with EC 1105-2-410, Appendix 0, and future guidance that may be 

developed, a Safety Assurance Review (SAR) will be conducted prior to initiation of physical 

construction and periodically thereafter until construction activities are completed. The SAR 

2 
115 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 85131A.048

CECW-NWD 

SUBJECT: Topeka Flood Risk Management Project, Topeka, Kansas 

will be conducted by an independent (outside of the Corps of Engineers) panel. Establishment of 

the panel will be in accordance with applicable guidance at the time of project construction. 

6. The levee system consist of six separately authorized units and is a component of a larger 

system of levees and reservoirs that provides flood damage reduction benefits to the Kansas 

River basin. There are no significant direct or cumulative environmental impacts associated with 

the recommended plan, primarily because it sustains the existing levee rather than encnmbering 

additional resources for a "new" project. The long-term environmental and cultural 

consequences of plan implementation are positive as the increased reliability of the units aet to 

guard the social and environmental fabric that has developed within the study area. The plan 

also contributes to regional economic development. 

7. Washington level review indicates that the project recommended by the reporting officers is 

technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and economically justified. The plan 

complies with all essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and 

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation 

Studies and complies with other administration and legislative policies and guidelines. Also, the 

views of interested parties, including Federal, State, and local agencies have been considered. 

Agency Technical Review was conducted for the study and all issues were satisfactorily 

resolved. This study was not required to conduct an Independent External Peer Review (lEPR). 

A safety assurance review (TYPE II IEPR) will be conducted during the design phase of the 

project. 

8. I generally concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting 

officers. Accordingly, I recommend that the plan to reduce flood damages for Topeka, Kansas, is 

authorized in accordance with the reporting officers' recommended plan at an estimated cost of 

$21,157,000 with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be 

advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applicable 

reguirements of Federal and State laws and policies, ineluding Section 103 of WRDA 1986, as 

amended, and in accordance with the following required items of cooperation that the nonFederal sponsor shall, prior to project implementation, agree to perform: 

a. Provide a minimum of 35 percent, but not to exceed 50 percent of total project costs as 

further specified below: 

1. Provide 25 percent of design costs in accordance with the terms of a design 

agreement entered into prior to commencement of design work for the project; 

2. Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to 

pay the full non-Federal share of design costs; 

3. Provide, during construction, a contribution of funds equal to 5 percent of total 

project costs; 

3 
116 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 85131A.049

CECW-NWD 

SUBJECT: Topeka Flood Risk Management Project, Topeka, Kansas 

4. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for 

relocations, the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated 

material; perform or ensure the performance of all relocations; and construct all 

improvements required on lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the 

disposal of dredged or excavated material all as determined by the Government to 

be required or to be necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of 

the project; 

5. Provide, during cons,truction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution equal to at least 35 percent oftotal project costs; 

b. Shall not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share therefore, to meet any of the non-Federal obligations for the 

project unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in 

writing that expenditure of such funds for such purpose is authorized; 

c. Not less than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded 

by the project; 

d. Agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain managemcnt and 

flood insurance programs; 

e. Comply with Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended 

(33 U.S.C. 701b-12), which requires a non-Federal interest to prepare a floodplain 

management plan within one year after the date of signing a project cooperation 

agreement, and to implement such plan not later than one year after completion of 

construction of the project; 

f. Publicize floodplain information in the area concerned and provide this information to 

zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in adopting regulations, or taking other 

actions, to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection 

levels provided by the project; 

g. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new 

developments on project lands, easements, and rights-of-way or the addition of facilities 

which might reduce the level of protection the project affords, hinder operation and 

maintcnance of the project, or interfere with the project's proper function; 

h. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4601-4655), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring 

lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the project, including those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of 

materials, or the disposal of dredged or excavated material; and inform all affected 

4 
117 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 85131A.050

CECW-N\\<TI 

SUBJECT: Topeka Flood Risk Management Project, Topeka, Kansas 

persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act; 

i, For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project, or functional portions of the project, including any mitigation 

features, at no cost to the Federal Government, in a manner compatible with the project's 

authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and 

regulatiom and any specific directions prescribed by the Federal Government; 

j. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the 

project for the purpose of completing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, 

rehabilitating, or replacing the pro] ect; 

k. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, 

operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the project and any 

betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its 

contractors; 

L Keep and maintain books, records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of 3 years after completion of 

the accounting for which such books, records, documents, or other evidence are required, 

to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in 

accordance with the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local 

Governments at 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 33.20; 

m. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.c. 

2000d) and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army 

Regulation 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and 

Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army"; and all applicable 

Federal labor standards requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 3141- 3148 

and 40 U.S.c. 3701 3708 (revising, codifying and enacting without substantial change 

the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.), the Contract 

Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) and the 

Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 276c et seq.); 

n. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances 

regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.c. 9601-9675), that may 

exist in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government 

determines to be required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. 

However, for lands that the Federal Government determines to be subject to the 

navigation servitude, only the Federal Government shall perform such investigations 

5 
118 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 85131A.051

CECW-NWD 

SUBJECT: Topeka Flood Risk Management Project, Topeka, Kansas 

unless the Federal Government provides the non-Federal sponsor with prior speeifie 

written direction, in which case the non-Federal sponsor shall perform such investigations 

in accordance with such written direction; 

0, Assume, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, complete 

financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous 

substances regulated under CERCLA that are located in, on, or under lands, easements, 

or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required for construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the project; 

p. Agree, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, that the 

non-Federal sponsor shall be considered the operator of the project for the purpose of 

CERCLA liability, and to the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, repair, 

rehabilitate, and replace the project in a manner that will not cause liability to arise under 

CERCLA; and 

q. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.c. 1962d-5b), and Section 1030) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986, Public Law 99-662, as amended (33 U.S.c. 22130)), which provides that the 

Secretary of the Army shall not commence the construction of any water resources 

project or separable element thereof. until each non-Federal interest has entered into a 

written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the project or separable element. 

9. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current Departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before they are transmitted to the Congress 

as proposals for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to the 

Congress, the sponsors, the State, interested Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised 

of any significant modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

6 

P 

SArmy 
119 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 85131A.052

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

CEMP-SPD (1105-2-10a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, DC 20314·1000 

DEC j a 2010 

SUBJECT: American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas Basin, 

Sacramento and Sutter Counties. California 

THE SECRET AR Y OF THE ARMY 

I. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on flood risk management for the Natomas 

Basin portion of the American River Watershed in the vicinity of Sacramento, California. It is 

accompanied by the report of the Sacramento District Engineer and the South Pacific Division 

Engineer. These reports supplement the 29 June 1992 and 27 June 1996 reports of the Chief of 

Engineers, and the March 2002 (revised July 2002) Post-Authorization Change Report, and were 

prepared as an interim general reevaluation study of the American River Common Features 

Project. The present study was conducted specifically to determine ifthere is a Federal interest 

in modifYing the current authorized project features to address flood risk management issues 

related to levee seepage and stability in the Natomas Basin portion of the Common Features 

project area. The Common Features Project was authorized by Section 101(a)(I) of the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-303), as modified by Section 

366 of WRDA 1999 (Public Law 106-53) and as further modified by Section 129 of the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-137); and as amended by 

Section 130 the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 

(Division C of Public Law 110-161). 

2. The reporting officers recommend modifying the authorized Common Features project to 

include a comprehensive plan to reduce the systemic risk associated with seepage and stability 

for the ring levee system surrounding the Natomas Basin. The recommendation is supported by 

the non-Federal sponsors, the State of California and the Sacramento Area Flood Control 

Agency. The principal features of the recommended modifications include widening of about 

41.9 miles of existing levee, installation ofabou! 34.8 miles of soil bentonite cutoff wall and 

about 8.3 miles of seepage bern1s, and bridge remediation at State Route 99. In addition, 

mitigation features pursuant to the Endangered Species Act are recommended, including creation 

of75 acres of canal habitat and up to 200 acres ofmaTsh habitat, creation of up to 60 acres of 

landside woodlands, creation of 1,600 linear feet of tree plantings, and establishment of a 

monitoring program for assessing mitigation performance. 

3. Based on October 2010 price levels, the estimated first cost of the recommended 

modifications for the Natomas Basin is $1,111,600,000. Adding these improvements to the 

currently authorized Common Feature project cost 0[$277,900,000 increases the estimated first 

cost of thc total Common Features project to $1,389,500,000. The Federal share of the total 

PfI:'lI<!1dOn$ReCl'cJ<><lpaoer 
120 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 85131A.053

CEMP-SPD (1105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: SUBJECT: Amcrican River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas 

Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, Califomia 

project cost would be about $921,200,000 and the non-Federal share would be about 

$468,300,000. All project costs arc allocated to the Flood Risk Management purpose. 

4. In accordance with the cost sharing provisions of Section I 03(a) ofWRDA 1986 (Public Law 

99-662), as amended by Section 202(a) ofWRDA 1996, and of Section 366(c) ofWRDA 1999, 

the Federal share of the first costs of the flood damage reduction features would be about 

$921,200,000 and the non-Federal share would be about $468,300,000. The cost of lands, 

easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged or excavated material disposal areas is 

estimated at $352,200,000. The State of Cali fomi a would be responsible for the operation, 

maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the project after 

construction, a cost currently estimated at about $5,300,000 per year. 

5. Based on a 4.3 75-percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent 

average annual costs of the project are estimated to be $82,500,000, including operation, 

maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R). The selected plan is estimated 

to be 81 percent reliable in providing flood risk management for the study area from the onepercent flood event. The selected plan would reduce average annual flood damages by about 96 

percent and would leave average annual residual damages estimated at $19,000,000. Average 

annual economic benefits are estimated to be $502,500,000; net average annual benefits are 

$420,000,000. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 6 to 1. 

6. In accordance with the provisions of Section 104 of WRDA 1986, the reporting officers 

recommend the non-Federal sponsor receive credit for work carried out which is compatible with 

the plan recommended for authorization, an amount currently estimated to be $519,230,000. 

This credit eligibility was approved in concept by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works on 19 July 2007,7 April 2009, 4 May 2010, and 10 November 2010, contingent upon the 

determination of the actual elements of such non-Federal work requiring authorization as 

features of the new Federal improvements, and inclusion of these elements in the plan 

recommended by this reevaluation report. Section 104 credit does not relieve the non-federal 

sponsor of the requirement to pay five percent of the project costs in ca<;h during construction of 

the remainder of the project. No Section 104 credit is available for non-Federal work 

commenced after project authorization. The non-Federal features of the plan constructed or 

being constructed that are recommended under the above criteria include the following: 

a. Strengthen approximately 5.5 miles of the Natomas Cross Canal south levee by flattening 

the landside levee slope and installing seepage cut-off walls. 

2 
121 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 85131A.054

CEMP-SPD (1105-2-1 Oa) 

SUBJECT: SUBJECT: American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas 

Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California 

b. Strengthen approximately 4.9 miles of the Sacramento River east levee from Verona to 

Elverta Road by constructing a landside adjacent levee and installing seepage cut-off walls and 

landside seepage berms. 

c. Strengthen approximately 4.0 miles of the Sacramento River east levee from Elverta Road 

past Interstate Highway 5 by eonstructing a landside adjacent levee and installing seepage cut-off 

walls and landside seepage berms. 

d. Strengthen approximately 3.7 miles of the Sacranlento River east levee from just 

downstream of Interstate Highway 5 to just past Powerline Road. 

7. The goals and objectives included in the Campaign Plan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) have been fully integrated into the Natomas Basin study process. The recommended 

plan was developed utilizing a systems approach in formulating flood risk management solutions 

and in evaluating the impacts and benefits of those solutions. The levee system was viewed in 

context with the overall Sacramento River Flood Control Project to ensure that the recommended 

plan complemented the goals of the larger system and did not induce any negative impacts to 

other system components. A collaborative approach to solving water resource problems was 

implemented that included engagement of the project sponsors throughout the feasibility process, 

integration of the recommended plan with the sponsors' Natomas Levee Improvement Program, 

coordination with State and Federal resource agencies during National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) compliance document preparation, and incorporation of the agencies' draft report 

comments into the final report. 

8. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular EC 1165-2-209 on review of decision 

documents, all technical, engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic and 

vigorous review process to ensure technical quality. This included an independent Agency 

Technical Review (ATR), an independent External Peer Review (lEPR), and a USACE 

Headquarters policy and legal review. The ATR resulted in comments on levee performance 

curves, the plan formulation process, appropriate cost sharing percentages, issues related to levee 

vegetation, and historic versus modeled flood damage comparison. Consensus and resolution 

was reached on all ATR comments. The IEPR was managed by an outside eligible organization 

(Battelle Memorial Institute) that assembled a panel of six experts with combined expertise in the 

fields of geotechnical, hydraulic engineering, economics, and environmentallNEP A. Ultimately, 

the panel identified and documented 35 comments. Six of the panel comments were classified as 

having high significance. These comments were related to the plan forn1Ulation process and the 

without project conditions, additional clarification of the discussion on induced floodplain 

development as related to Executive Order (EO) 11988, and clarification of including Native 

American residents in the discussion of EO 12898. An additional comment requested 

3 
122 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 85131A.055

CEMP-SPD (1105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: SUBJECT: American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas 

Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California 

clarification on the order of implementation for levee fixes. In response, sections in the main 

report and Economics Appendix were expanded to include additional information on the plan 

formulation and economic analysis process, including a reach-by-reach description of the 

problems and solutions that were considered in developing the system-wide alternatives. The 

rationale for the project not inducing growth was provided and the report was revised to eIarify 

the discussion on EO 11988, and sections of the report were revised to indicate compliance with 

EO 12898 in that no Native American tribes currently reside in the project area as a distinct 

population group. Level II IEPR for Safety Assurance will be conducted in accordance with EC 

1165-2-209 during the implementation of the Project Engineering and Design phase. The IEPR 

panel has concurred with all of the USACE responses and this process has led to improved report 

quality. 

9. The USACE Headquarters review indicates that the project recommended by the reporting 

officers is technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and economically 

justified. The goal to reduce loss of life is incorporated into this project but it is a shared 

responsibility that can never be completely mitigated by structural solutions. Discussion in the 

report states that residual risk will remain with this plan in place and emphasizes the roles of all 

partners in addressing and communicating residual risk, including the need for a well 

coordinated flood evacuation plan and implementation of local measures to mitigate residual risk 

through prudent land use planning. The plan complies with all essential elements of the U.S. 

Water Resources Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water 

and Land Related Resources implementation studies and complies with other administrative and 

legislative policies and guidelines. 

10. I concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend that the Common Features project be modified to reduce flood risk 

for the Natomas Basin portion of the American River Watershed in the vicinity of Sacramento, 

California, in accordance with the reporting officers' recommended plan, at an estimated cost of 

$1,389,500,000 with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be 

advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applieable 

requirements of Federal and State laws and policies, including Section 103 of WRDA 1986, as 

amended, and in accordance with the required items of cooperation that the non-Federal sponsor 

shall agree to perform: 

a. Provide a minimum of at least 25 percent of total project costs for the lower American 

River portion of the project and at least 35 percent for the Natomas Basin portion of the project 

but not to exceed 50 percent of total project costs as further specified below: 

(1) Provide a cash contribution equal to five percent of total project costs; 

4 
123 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 85131A.056

CEMP-SPD (l105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: SUBJECT: American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas 

Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California 

(2) Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to pay the 

full non-Federal share of design costs; 

(3) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for 

relocations, the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; 

perform or ensure the performance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required on 

lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as 

determined by the Government to be required or to be necessary for the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of the project; 

(4) Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution equal to at least 25 percent of total project costs for the lower American River 

portion of the project and at least 35 percent for the Natomas Basin portion of the project; 

b. Provide 100 percent of all costs for local betterments. 

c. Shall not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share therefore, to meet any of the non-Federal obligations for the project 

unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in writing that 

expenditure of such funds for such purpose is authorized; 

d. Not less than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of flood risk 

management afforded by the project; 

e. Agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and 

flood insurance programs; 

f. Comply with Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended 

(33 U.S.C. 70J b-12), which requires a non-Federal interest to prepare a floodplain management 

plan within one year after the date of signing a project cooperation agreement, and to implement 

such plan not later than one year after completion of construction of the project; 

g. Publicize floodplain information in the area concerned and provide this information to 

zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in adopting regulations, or taking other 

actions, to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with flood risk 

managment levels provided by the project; 

h. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and enforcing 

regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new developments on 

5 
124 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 85131A.057

CEMP-SPD (I105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: SUBJECT: American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas 

Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California 

project lands, easements, and rights-of-way or the addition of facilities which might reduce the 

level of flood risk managment the project affords, hinder operation and maintenance of the 

project, or interfere with the project's proper function; 

i. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601-

4655), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, including 

those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of materials, or the disposal of dredged or 

excavated material; and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and 

procedures in connection with said Act; 

j. For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project, or functional portions of the project, including any mitigation features, at no 

cost to the Federal Government, in a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes 

and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific 

directions prescribed by the Federal Government; 

k. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for 

the purpose of completing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, or 

replacing the projcct; 

l. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, 

operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement ofthe project and any betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors; 

m. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of three years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents, or other evidence are required, to the 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in accordance with the 

standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 

Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Section 33.20; 

n. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to: Section 106 ofthc National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 601 of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and Department of Defense 

Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulation 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination 

6 
125 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 85131A.058

CEMP-SPD (1105-2-1 Oa) 

SUBJECT: SUBJECT: American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas 

Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California 

on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department 

of the Army"; and all applicable Federal labor standards requirements including, but not limited 

to, 40 U.S.C. 3141- 3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701 3708 (revising, codifying and enacting without 

substantial change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 276a et seq.), the 

Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) and the 

Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 276c et seq.); 

o. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), that may exist in, on, or 

under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required 

for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. However, for lands that the Federal 

Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Federal Government 

shall perform such investigations unless the Federal Government provides the non-Federal 

sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which case the non-Federal sponsor shall 

perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction; 

p. Assume, as betwecn the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, complete 

financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances 

regulated under CERCLA that are located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that 

the Federal Government determines to be required for construction, operation, and maintenance 

of the project; 

q. Agree, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, that the 

non-Federal sponsor shall be considered the operator of the project for the purpose of CERCLA 

liability, and to the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project in a manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA; and 

r. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.c. I 962d-5b), and Section 1030) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 

Public Law 99-662, as amended (33 U.S.C. 22130», which provides that the Secretary of the 

Army shall not commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element 

thereof, until each non-Federal interest has entered into a written agreement to furnish its 

required cooperation for the project or separable element. 

II. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation ofindividual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

7 
126 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 85131A.059

CEMP-SPD (l105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: SUBJECT: American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas 

Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transrnitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the sponsor, the State, interested Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised of 

any significant modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

Lieutenant General, US 

Chief of Engineers 

8 
127 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 85131A.060

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

CECW-MVD (l105-2-IOa) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000 

SUBJECT: Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

JAN 27 2011 

I. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on flood risk management along the Cedar 

River in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. It is accompanied by the report of the district and division 

engineers. These reports are in response to a House Resolution adopted April 5, 2006, by the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senate Resolution adopted May 23, 2006, 

by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Both resolutions "requested the review of 

past pertinent reports to determine whether any modifications to the recommendations are 

advisable in the interest of flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and related 

purposes along the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids, Iowa." Preconstruction engineering and design 

activities for the Cedar River project will continue under the authority provided by the 

resolutions cited above. 

2. The reporting officers recommend authorization of a plan to reduce flood risk along the east 

bank of the Cedar River in the City of Cedar Rapids. The recommended plan consists of2.2 

miles offloodwall and 0.8 miles of earthen levee with a height of approximately 14 feet, 15 

closure structures, and six pumping stations constructed on the east bank of the Cedar River. 

Recreation or ecosystem restoration measures were found to be not justified and are therefore not 

part of the recommended plan. The project does not require any separable mitigation as the 

project has been design to offset any adverse impacts which may occur. The recommended plan 

is the National Economic Development (NED) plan. 

3. Based on an October 2010 price level, the estimated total first cost of the recommended plan 

is $99,000,000. In accordance with the cost sharing provisions of the Section 103 ofthe Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986), as amended by Section 202 of WRDA 

1996, the Federal share of the total project cost is estimated at $64,350,000 (65 percent) and the 

non-Federal share is estimated at $34,650,000 (35 percent). The cost oflands, easements, rightsof-way, relocations, and excavated material disposal areas is estimated at $11,700,000. The City 

of Cedar Rapids, Iowa is the non-Federal cost sharing sponsor for the recommended plan. The 

City of Cedar Rapids would be responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, 

Pnn'ed one RecycledPape' 
128 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 85131A.061

CECW-PC (l105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the project after construction, a cost currently estimated at 

$18,000 per year. 

4. Based on a 4. 125-percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent 

average annual costs of the project, including OMRR&R, are estimated to be $5,125,000. The 

equivalent average annual benefits are estimated to be $6,144,000 with net average annual 

benefits of$I,019,000. The benefit-cost ratio is approximately 1.2 to 1. The reporting officers 

estimate that the recommended plan has a 99.99 percent chance of containing a 1 percent flood 

event and a 91.24 percent chance of containing a 0.2 percent flood event. The recommended 

plan would reduce expected annual flood damages to the east bank area by about 84 percent. 

5. The goals and objectives included in the Campaign Plan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

have been fully integrated into the Cedar Rapids study process. As part of an Integrated Water 

Resources Management Plan (IWRMP), the recommended plan was developed in coordination 

and consultation with various Federal, State and local agencies using a systems approach in 

formulating flood risk management solutions and in evaluating the impacts and henefits of those 

solutions. Study formulation looked at a wide range of non-structural and structural alternatives 

with only the downtown east bank being justified for structural flood risk reduction measures 

under Corps policy and guidelines. Alternative formulation optimized the costs and benefits of 

an array of design heights based on various flood event risks. Floodwall and levee components 

incorporate robust, sustainable designs like aT-wall atop a sheetpile curtain, and a clay levee 

with a 10-foot top width and 3 on I horizontal to vertical side slopes. In addition, the levee 

system was viewed in context with the sponsor's Preferred Flood Management System to ensure 

that the recommended plan complemented the goals of the larger system and did not induce any 

negative impacts to other system components. Since the record flood event in June 2008 flood 

(which exceeded the 0.2 percent flood), the District has participated in four meetings, multiple 

workshops and town halls hosted by thc sponsor involving over 2,600 citizens. As part of the 

IWRMP, the non-Federal sponsor developed the locally Preferred Flood Management System in 

which providing a structural flood risk management alternative for both sides of the floodplain 

was viewed as critical. As the first phase of executing the IWRMP (which includes the Corps' 

east side plan), the non-Federal sponsor, Linn County, and private property owners arc 

implementing non-structural measures using FEMA, HUD, and Local Option Sales Tax 

programs. This approach allows each agency's programs to provide funding targeted at reducing 

the risk to the west side floodplain and other areas within the City. Finally, the [WRMP includes 

the development of the overarching Iowa-Cedar River Comprehensive Plan which will work to 

formulate a comprehensive watershed plan and process for interagency collaboration to address 

water resource and related land resource problems and opportunities within the watershed. The 

development of this collaborative approach to solving water resource problems engaged the nonFederal sponsor throughout the feasibility process leading to the development of an overall 

2 
129 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 85131A.062

CECW-PC (1105-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

Integrated Water Resources Management Plan through integration of the recommended plan 

with the non-Federal sponsor's Preferred Flood Management System. 

6. The non-Federal sponsor wishes to perform design and construction of structural flood risk 

management measures that are elements of the recommended plan. The non-Federal sponsor 

intends to design and construct a segment of floodwall on the east side of the Cedar River 

upstream of Interstate 380, from approximately station 165+00 to approximately station 186+00. 

This approximately 2,1 OO-foot segment of floodwall would effectively reduce flood risk for the 

1 % flood event to industrial properties in this area. Pursuant to Section 221 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1970 as amended, the non-Federal sponsor will be eligible to receive credit for the work, 

subject to a determination by the Secretary of the Army that the work is integral to the project 

and execution of an agreement covering the work that is executed by the Corps and the nonFederal sponsor prior to work being carried out. 

7. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular on review of decision documents, all 

technical, engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic and vigorous review 

process to ensure technical quality. This included an independent Agency Technical Review 

(ATR), an Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), and a Corps Headquarters policy and legal 

review. All concerns of the ATR have been addressed and incorporated into the final report. 

The IEPR report was completed by Battelle Memorial Institute and provided to the Rock Island 

District in 2010. A total of 12 comments were received, of which two were deemed significant 

regarding (a) the potential for additional sponsor costs for the ongoing Phase 1 Archeological 

and Architectural Survey and (b) the potential for the 2008 flood event to create additional 

economic uncertainties related to the existing and future project damage estimates. In response, 

sections in the district's main report and Economics Appendix were expanded to include 

additional information. All comments from the above referenced reviews have been addressed 

and incorporated into the final project documents and recommendation as appropriate. Level II 

IEPR for Safety Assurance will be conducted in accordance with EC 1165-2-209 during the 

implementation of the Preeonstruction Engineering and Design phase. Overall the reviews have 

resulted in the improvement in the technical quality of the report. 

8. The Washington level review indicates that the plan recommended by the reporting officers is 

technically sound, economically justified, and environmentally and socially acceptable. As the 

report discusses, residual risk will remain with this plan in place and emphasizes the role of the 

non-Federal sponsor in addressing and communicating residual risk. The plan complies with 

essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and Environmental 

Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies and 

complies with other administration and legislative policies and guidelines. Also, the views of 

interested parties, including Federal, State, and local agencies have been considered. 

3 
130 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 85131A.063

CECW-PC (l105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

9. I concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I reconunend that the Cedar Rapids project be authorized in accordance with the 

reporting officer's recommended plan at a total estimated cost of $99,000,000 with such 

modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable. My 

recommendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applicable requirements of 

Federal and State laws and policies, including Section 103 of WRDA 1986, as amended by 

Section 202 ofWRDA 1996, Accordingly, the non-Federal sponsor must agree with the 

following requirements prior to project implementation. 

a. Provide a minimum of 35 percent, but not to exceed 50 percent of total first costs further 

specified as follows: 

(I) Provide 25 percent of design costs allocated by the Federal Government to flood risk 

management in accordance with the terms of a design agreement entered into prior to 

commencement of design work for the flood risk management features; 

(2) Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to pay 

the full non-Federal share of design costs allocated by the Federal Government to flood risk 

management; 

(3) Provide, during construction, a contrihution of funds equal to 5 percent of total flood 

risk management costs; 

(4) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for 

relocations, the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; 

perform or ensure the performance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required on 

lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as 

determined by the Federal Government to be required or to be necessary for the construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the flood risk management features; 

(5) Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution for flood risk management equal to at least 35 percent of total flood risk 

management costs; 

b. Not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share therefore, to meet any of the City obligations for the project unless 

the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in writing that such funds 

are authorized to he used to carry out the project; 

4 
131 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 85131A.064

CECW-PC (1105-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

c. Not less than once each year, infonn affected interests of the extent of flood damage 

reduction afforded by the flood risk management features; 

d. Agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and 

flood insurance programs; 

e. Comply with Section 402 of the WRDA of 1986, as amended (33 U.s.C. 701b-12), which 

requires a non-Federal interest to prepare a floodplain management plan within one year after the 

date of signing a project cooperation agreement, and to implement such plan not later than one 

year after completion of construction of the flood risk management features; 

f. Publicize floodplain infonnation in the area concerned and provide this infonnation to 

zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in adopting regulations, or taking other 

actions, to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with degrees of flood 

risk management provided by the flood risk management features; 

g. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and enforcing 

regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new developments on 

project lands, easements, and rights-of-way or the addition of facilities which might reduce the 

level of protection the flood risk management features afford, hinder operation and maintenancc 

of the project, or interfere with the project's proper function; 

h. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Unifonn Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601-

4655), and the Unifonn Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, including 

those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of materials, or the disposal of dredged or 

excavated material; and infonn all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and 

procedures in connection with said Act; 

i. For so long as the project remains authorized, opcrate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project, or functional portions of the project, including any mitigation features, at no 

cost to the Federal Government, in a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes 

and in accordance with applicable Federal and state laws and regulations and any specific 

directions prescribed by the Federal Government; 

j. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the City owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose of 

completing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, or replacing the project; 

5 
132 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 85131A.065

CECW-PC (l105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

k. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, 

operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the project and any 

betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its 

contractors; 

I. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of three years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents, or other evidence are required, to the 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in accordance with the 

standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 

Code of Federal Regulations Section 33.20; 

m. Comply with all applicable Federal and state laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulation 600-7, 

entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department of the Army"; and all applicable Federal labor standards 

requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 3141- 3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701 3708 

(revising, codifying and enacting without substantial change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon 

Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

(formerly 40 U.S.c. 327 el seq.), and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276c 

el seq.); 

n. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under CERCLA, Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), that may exist in, on, 

or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be 

required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. However, for lands that the 

Federal Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Federal 

Government shall perform such investigations unless the Federal Government providcs the City 

with prior specific written direction, in which case the City shall perform such investigations in 

accordance with such written direction; 

o. Assume, as between the Federal Government and the City, complete financial 

responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances regulated 

under CERCLA that are located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the 

Federal Government determines to be required for construction, operation, and maintenance of 

the project; 

6 
133 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 85131A.066

CECW-PC (Il05-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Cedar River, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 

p. Agree, as between the Federal Government and the City, that the City shall be considered 

the operator of the project for the purpose ofCERCLA liability, and to the maximum extent 

practicable, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace the project in a manner that will 

not cause liability to arise under CERCLA; and 

q. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.c. 1962d-5b), and Section 103(j) of the WRDA of 1986, Public Law 99-662, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 2213(j», which provides that the Secretary of the Army shall not commence 

the construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, until the City has 

entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the project or separable 

element. 

r. Provide the non-Federal share of that portion of the costs of mitigation and data recovery 

activities associated with historic preservation, that are in excess of one percent of the total 

amount authorized to be appropriated for the project. 

s. Provide the non-Federal share of that portion of the costs of mitigation and data recovery 

activities associated with historic preservation, that are in excess of one percent of the total 

amount authorized to be appropriated for the project. 

10. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the non-Federal sponsor, the State, interested Federal agencies, and other parties will 

be advised of any significant modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment 

further. 

7 

Lieutenant General, US 

Chief of Engineers 
134 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 85131A.067

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

CECW-MVD (lIOS-2-IOa) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000 

DEC 1 9 20n 

SUBJECT: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project, North 

Dakota and Minnesota 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

I. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on flood risk management in the FargoMoorhead metropolitan area of North Dakota and Minnesota. It is accompanied by the report of 

the district and division engineers. These reports are in response to a resolution of the Senate 

Committee on Public Works, adopted 30 September 1974_ The resolution requested the review 

of "reports on the Red River of the North Drainage Basin, Minnesota, South Dakota and North 

Dakota, submitted in House Document Numbered 185,81" Congress, I" Session, and prior 

reports, with a view to determining if the recommendations contained therein should be 

modified at this time, with particular reference to flood control, water supply, wastewater 

management and allied purposes." Preconstruction engineering and design activities will be 

continued under the authority provided by the resolution cited above. 

2. The reporting officers recommend authorization of a plan to reduce flood risk in the FargoMoorhead metropolitan area by constructing a diversion channel within North Dakota combined 

with upstream floodwater staging and storage. The recommended plan consists of a 36 mile 

20,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) diversion channel that would start approximately four miles 

south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice rivers and extend west and north around the 

North Dakota cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood and ultimately re-enter the Red 

River of the North downstream of the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne rivers near 

Georgetown, Minnesota. The diversion channel would cross the Wild Rice, Sheyenne, Maple, 

Lower Rush and Rush rivers and incorporate the existing Horace to West Fargo Sheyenne River 

diversion channel. The main line of protection at the south end of the project includes the 

embankments adjacent to the diversion channel, floodwater Storage Area 1 embankments, and 

two tie-back levees. Project features would be located in both North Dakota and Minnesota. 

Unavoidable environmental impacts would be mitigated for with construction of fish passage 

structurcs along the Red and Wild Rice rivers; construction of additional fish passage projects in 

the Red River basin; stream restorations on tributaries near the project; conversion of floodplain 

agricultural land to floodplain forest; and creating wetlands within the diversion channel 

footprint. These mitigation features along with adaptive management would be monitored for up 

P'1nted on$ Recyc:ed Paper 
135 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 85131A.068

CECW-MVD (1l05-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project, North Dakota 

and Minnesota 

to twenty years to ensure their performance. This would include pre- and post-project 

monitoring. The recommended plan is a deviation from the national economic development 

(NED) plan and is the locally preferred plan (LPP). 

3. The currently identified NED Plan is a diversion channel located east of Moorhead, MN with a 

capacity of 40,000 cfs. The NED Plan diversion channel would be approximately 25 miles long 

with approximately 10 miles of tie-back levees and includes a large control structure on the Red 

River of the North. The NED Plan would reduce the stage from the 0.2 percent flood event from 

approximately 46.7 to 37.6 feet on the Fargo gage. 

4. The recommended LPP (following an alignment in North Dakota) would reduce flood stages 

on the Red River to a lesser degree than the NED plan (following an alignment in Minnesota); 

the LPP would reduce the stage from the 0.2 percent flood event from approximately 46.7 to 

40.0 on the Fargo gage. But the LPP would benefit a larger geographic area and address 

flooding on four tributaries to the Red River that are not addressed by the NED plan. The LPP 

provides approximately $6,000,000 less in average annual flood risk management benefits than 

the NED plan. Since the LPP provides fewer average annual benefits than the NED plan, a 

comparable smaller scale plan with similar outputs to the LPP was identified along the NED 

alignment to set the Federal cost share. This plan was identified as the Federally Comparable 

Plan (FCP) and serves as the basis to determine the project cost sharing apportionment. Federal 

investment in the flood risk management features of the LPP is capped at the investment that 

would have been made for the FCP. Based on October 2011 price levels, the estimated first cost 

of the FCP flood risk management features is $1,205,207,000. In accordance with the cost 

sharing provisions of Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, 

as amended, the Federal share of the first cost of the FCP flood risk management features is 

estimated at $783,384,000 (65 percent). 

5. Based on October 2011 price levels, the estimated first cost of the recommended LPP is 

$1,781,348,000. The first cost of the recommended LPP includes approximately $1,745,033,000 

for flood risk reduction and approximately $36,315,000 for recreation. In accordance with 

Section 103 of WRDA 1986, as amended, recreation features would be shared 50 percent Federal 

and 50 percent non-Federal. Federal cost sharing in the recommended LPP is limited to the 

Federal share of the FCP and the non-Federal sponsor would be required to provide 100 percent 

of the additional costs associated with design and construction of the LPP. The flood risk 

management features have an estimated first cost of$I,745,033,000, with the Federal and nonFederal shares estimated at $783,384,000 and $961,649,000, respectively. The recreation 

features have an estimated first cost of$36,315,000, with the Federal and non-Federal shares 

estimated at $18,157,500 and $18,157,500 respectively. Thus, the overall Federal share of the 

first costs of the LPP, including recreation, is estimated at $801,542,000, and the non-Federal 

share is estimated at $979,806,000. The cost includes $17,600,000 for environmental monitoring 

and adaptive management. The cities of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota are the 

2 
136 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 85131A.069

CECW-MVD (J 105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project, North Dakota 

and Minnesota 

non-Federal cost sharing sponsors for the recommended plan. The cities of Fargo and Moorhead 

would be responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation 

(OMRR&R) of the project after construction, a cost currently estimated at $3,631,000 per year. 

The OMRR&R estimate includes $527,135 for monitoring and adaptive management beyond the 

construction phase. 

6. Based on a 4.0-percent discount rate, October 2011 price levels and a 50-year period of 

analysis, the total equivalent average annual costs of the recommended LPP, including 

OMRR&R, are estimated to be $99,952,000, including $98,098,000 for flood risk management 

and $1,854,000 for recreation. The recommended LPP would significantly reduce risk to the 

Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area from a flood which has a I-percent chance of occurrence in 

any year; the I-percent chance stage would be reduced from approximately 42.4 feet to 30.6 feet 

on the Fargo gage, which would require only minimal emergency measures to pass safely. The 

recommended LPP would leave average annual residual damages estimated at $32,000,000. The 

equivalent average annual benefits are estimated to be $174,617,000 for flood risk management 

and $5,130,000 for recreation, respectively. The net average annual benefits would be 

$76,519,000 for flood risk management and $3,276,000 for recreation, respectively. The benefitto-cost ratio for flood risk reduction is 1.78 to I; and the benefit- to-cost ratio for recreation is 

2.77 to I; and the overall project benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.8 to 1. 

7. The project would modity three existing Federal projects: the Rush River Channel 

Improvement project authorized by the Flood Control Acts of 1948 and 1950; the Lower Rush 

River Channel Improvement project authorized under provisions of Section 205 of the 1948 

Flood Control Act; and the Sheyenne River project authorized by the 1986 Water Resources 

Development Act. The modifications to these projects will not impact the purposes for which 

they were authorized or the benefits they currently provide, and in some cases will curtail or 

eliminate the need for their continued operation and maintenance. All modifications will be 

carried out in a manner that fulfills the authorized purposes and provides the intended benefits of 

existing projects as well as the recommended plan. For example, approximately 2.1 miles of the 

Rush River project and 3.4 miles of the Lower Rush River project between the diversion channel 

and their respective confluences with the Sheyenne River, while no longer necessary to reduce 

flood risk in the same manner as when they were originally constructed, would continue to 

convey local drainage and need some measure of maintenance. The Horace to West Fargo 

portion of the existing Sheyenne River Diversion project would be incorporated into the LPP. 

8. The recommended LPP was developed in coordination and consultation with various Federal, 

State and local agencies using a systems approach in formulating flood risk management 

solutions and in evaluating the impacts and benefits of those solutions. Study formulation 

looked at a wide range of structural and non-structural alternatives. 

3 
137 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 85131A.070

CECW-MVD (1105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project, North Dakota 

and Minnesota 

9. The non-Federal sponsors wish to perform design and construction of structural flood risk 

management measures that are elements of the recommended plan. Pursuant to Section 221 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 as amended, and in accordance with existing guidance governing 

in-kind contribution credit, the non-Federal sponsors will be eligible to receive credit for the 

work, not to exceed their share, subject to a determination by the Secretary of the Anny that the 

work is integral to the project. Prior to the work being carried out by the non-Federal sponsors, 

an In-Kind Memorandum of Understanding must be executed between the Corps and the nonFederal sponsors. 

10. In accordance with the Engineering Circular on review of decision documents, all technical, 

engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic and rigorous review process to 

ensure technical quality. This included an independent Agency Technical Review (ATR), an 

Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), and a Corps Headquarters policy and legal review. 

All concerns of the ATR have been addressed and incorporated into the report. The IEPR was 

conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute. IEPR of the draft report was completed on July 6, 

2010. A total of23 comments were generated; all were resolved to the satisfaction of the IEPR 

panel. A second IEPR review began on April 21, 2011 to assess the Supplemental Draft 

Feasibility Report and EIS and supporting analyses. The IEPR report was completed in July 

2011. A total of 16 comments were documented, one was flagged as high, eleven were flagged 

as medium, and four were flagged as low significance. The comment of high significance 

addressed the potential risks associated with the operation of the gates at the diversion control 

structures and the need for redundancy. In response, the Corps will conduct additional hydraulic 

modeling in the design phase to address the issue and ensure that all structures are designed to be 

safe and meet all Corps criteria. All other comments from this review have been addressed and 

incorporated into the final project documents and recommendation as appropriate. Type II IEPR 

for Safety Assurance will be conducted during the Preconstruction Engineering and Design 

phase and throughout implementation. 

II. 1 concur with the [mdings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, r recommend that the Fargo-Moorhead project be authorized in accordance with 

the reporting officers' recommended plan at an estimated flood risk management cost of 

$1,745,033,000 and estimated recreation cost of $36,315,000 for an overall cost of 

$1,781,348,000 with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be 

advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applicable 

requirements of Federa! and State laws and policies, including Section 103 ofWRDA 1986, as 

amended by Section 202 of WRDA 1996. Accordingly, the non-Federal sponsors must agree 

with the following requirements prior to project implementation. 

a. Provide a minimum of35 percent, but not to exceed 50 percent of tot a! FCP flood risk 

management costs as further specified below: 

4 
138 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 85131A.071

CECW-MVD (I105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project, North Dakota 

and Minnesota 

(l) Provide the non-Federal share of design costs allocated by the Government to flood risk 

management in accordance with the terms of a design agreement entered into prior to 

commencement of design work for the flood risk management features; 

(2) Provide, during construction, a contribution of funds equal to 5 percent of total FCP flood 

risk management costs; 

(3) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for relocations, 

the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; perform or ensure 

the performance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required on lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as determined by 

the Government to be required or to be necessary for the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the flood risk management features; 

(4) Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution for flood risk management equal to at least 35 percent of total FCP flood risk 

management costs; 

(5) Provide 100 percent of all incremental costs of the Locally Preferred Plan. 

b. Provide 50 percent of total recreation costs as further specified below: 

(I) Provide the non-Federal share of design costs allocated by the Government to recreation 

in accordance with the terms of a design agreement entered into prior to commencement of 

design work for the recreation features; 

(2) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for relocations, 

the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; perform or ensure 

the performance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required on lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as determined by 

the Government to be required or to be necessary for the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the recreation features; 

(3) Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution for recreation equal to 50 percent of total recreation costs; 

(4) Provide, during construction, 100 percent of the total recreation costs that exceed an 

amount equal to 10 percent of the Federal share of total FCP flood risk management costs; 

c. Shall not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share therefore, to meet any of the non-federal obligations for the project 

5 
139 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 85131A.072

CECW-MVD (I105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project, North Dakota 

and Minnesota 

unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in writing that 

expenditure of such funds for such purpose is authorized; 

d. Not less than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded by 

the flood risk management features; 

e. Agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood 

insurance programs; 

f. Comply with Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended (33 

U.S.C. 701 b-12), which requires a non-Federal interest to prepare a floodplain management plan 

within one year after the date of signing a project cooperation agreement, and to implement such 

plan not later than one year after completion of construction of the flood risk management 

features; 

g. Publicize floodplain information in the area concerned and provide this information to zoning 

and other regulatory agencies for their use in adopting regulations, or taking other actions, to 

prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided 

by the flood risk management features; 

h. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and enforcing 

regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new developments on 

project lands, easements, and rights-of-way or the addition of facilities which might reduce the 

level of protection the flood risk management features afford, hinder operation and maintenance 

of the project, or interfere with the project's proper function; 

i. Keep the recreation features, and access roads, parking areas, and other associated public use 

facilities, open and available to all on equal terms; 

j. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.c. 4601-

4655), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, including 

those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of materials, or the disposal of dredged or 

excavated material; and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and 

procedures in connection with said Act; 

k. For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project, or functional portions of the project, including any mitigation features, at no 

cost to the Federal Government, in a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes 

6 
140 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 85131A.073

CECW-MVD (l105-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project, North Dakota 

and Minnesota 

and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific 

directions prescribed by the Federal Government; 

l. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for 

the purpose of completing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, or 

replacing the project; 

m. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, 

operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the project and any 

betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its 

contractors; 

n. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of 3 years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents, or other evidence are required, to the 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in accordance with the 

standards for fmancial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 33.20; 

o. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not limited 

to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and 

Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulation 600-7, 

entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department of the Army"; and all applicable Federal labor standards 

requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 3141- 3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701- 3708 

(revising, codifYing and enacting without substantial change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon 

Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

(formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.), and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276c 

et seq.); 

p. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identifY the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), that may exist in, on, or 

under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required 

for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. However, for lands that the Federal 

Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Federal Government 

shall perform such investigations unless the Federal Government provides the non-Federal 

7 
141 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 85131A.074

CECW-MVD (1105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project, North Dakota 

and Minnesota 

sponsors with prior specific written direction, in which case the non-Federal sponsors shall 

perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction; 

q. Assume, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsors, complete 

fmancial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances 

regulated under CERCLA that are located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that 

the Federal Government determines to be required for construction, operation, and maintenance 

of the project; 

r. Agree, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsors, that the nonfederal sponsors shall be considered the operator of the project for the purpose of CERCLA 

liability, and to the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project in a manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA; and 

s. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), and Section 103(j) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 

Public Law 99-662, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213(j», which provides that the Secretary of the 

Army shall not commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element 

thereof, until each non-Federal interest has entered into a written agreement to furnish its 

required cooperation for the project or separable element. 

12. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the sponsors, the States, interested Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised 

of any significant modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

8 

Major 

~¥~ General, U.S. Army 

Acting Chief of Engineers 
142 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 85131A.075

~E?LYTO 

ATTENTlO.'-J OF 

CECW-LRD (I105-2-10a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000 

SUBJECT: Ohio River Shorelinc. Paducah, Kcntucky Reconstruction 

THE SECRETARY or TIlE ARMY 

!'lAY 16 2012 

1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on flood risk management along the left 

bank "fthe Ohio River at Paducah. Kentucky. It is accompanied by the report orlhe district and 

division engineers_ This rcport rcsponds to Section 5077 of the Waler Rcsources Dcvelopmcnt 

Act (WRDA) ~007 which directs the Secretary to complete a feasibility report 1'01' rchabilitation 

(reconstruction) of the existing flood damage reduction project at Paducah, Kentucky (Paducah. 

Kentucky Local Flood Protection Project) authorized by Section 4 ofthc Flood Control Act of 

June 2X, J 93R. Further. Section S077 authorizes the Secretary to carry out the project. if 

determined feasiblc. at a total cost of $3.000.000. The reconstruction project. as currently 

proposed. exceeds the amount authorized by Section 5077. Prcconstruction engineering and 

design activities t'or the Ohio River Shoreline_ Paducah. Kentucky Reconstruction project will 

continue under the authority provided by Section S077 of WRDA 2007. 

2. The existing Paducah. Kentucky. Local Flood Protection Project is a 12.2 mile-long levee and 

J1ood\\all system completed in 1949. The project consists of about 9.2 miles of earthen Ievce 

and 3 miles of Jloodwalls and includes 12 floodwater pumping stations. and other interior 

drainage facilities. There arc 47 movable closure and service openings in the flood wall system 

that must be manually secnred in advancc of flooding . 

. '. rhe reporting officers rCC0111111Cnd authorizing a Hood risk management plan to significantly 

improve reliahility and restore system perflmnance of the more than 60 year-old project at 

Paducah. Kcntllcky, by reconstructing certain features of the project. The proposed 

reconstruction work will extend functionality of. and update to modern design and safety 

standards_ deteriorated mechanical, electrical. and structural components that have exceeded 

their design service lives. Additionall), the proposed plan provides for construction of one new 

floodwater pumping plant to address changcs in interior flooding. The addition of this nc\\ 

pump plant will increase project efficiency and bring the reconstructed project features up to 

current design standards. Reconstructioll items will generally consist of the t'oll(ming: 

(a) Recondition pumps, motors and 111otor control systems. major pump plant components 

and other miscellaneous items at each of the 12 existing pumping plants: 

(11) Construct a new pumping plant at Station III "'67;\: 

(e) Slip-line 37 existing deteriorated corrugated metal pipes: 
143 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 85131A.076

CLC\v-LRD (1105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Ohio River Shoreline, Paducah, Kentucky Reconstruction 

(d) Stabilize diversion channel banks: 

(c) Replace Hoodwall water stop joints; 

(f) Plug and I or replace existing deteriorated toe drains; 

(g) Replace existing drainage inlet structures (two new gatewell structures) at Bee Branch -at 

approximate stations 32+ 12C and 32+ 38C; 

(h) ConstTuet new gate well structures at stations 11l+67A (at proposed pump plant #14) 

and 19+ 11 section B; 

(i) Permanently close 8 existing tloodwall closures and raise an existing closure sill; 

(j) Install scour erosion control pad at Wall/Levee transitions; and 

(k) Provide other miscellaneous items 

The proposed project does not require separable mitigation, The report includes an 

Environmental Assessment and linding of no significant impact-on the quality of the 

environment. The recommended plan is the national economic development (NED) plan. 

4. The estimated total first cost ofthe recommended plan is $19,500,000 at the October 2011 

price level, In accordance with the cost sharing provisions of the Section 1 03(a) of Puhlic Law 

99-662. as amended by Section 202 of WROA 1996, the Federal share of the total cost of this 

project is estimated at $12,675,000 (65 percent) and the non-Federal share is estimated at 

$6,825.000 (35 percent), which includes $436,000 for the estimated value of lands, easements. 

rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas. The city of Paducah, Kentucky is the non-Federal 

cost sharing sponsor for the recommended plan. The city of Paducah would be responsible for 

the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the project 

aftcr construction, a cost currently estimated at $636,000 per year. 

5. Based on a 4,O-percent discount rate and a 50-year period of economic analysis, the total 

equivalent average annual costs of the project, including OMRR&R, are estimated to be 

$1,599,000. The equivalent average annual benefits are estimated to be $7,349,000. Net average 

annual benefits are estimated as $5,750,000. The benetit-to-cost ratio is approximately 4.6 to I, 

6. Implementation of the proposed reconstruction project would reduce expected equivalent 

annual flood damages in the project area by about 85 percent, from $8,174,000 to $1,257,000. 

111e reporting officers estimate that the recommended plan has a 99.9 percent probability of 

containing a flood that has a I-percent chance of happening in any year and a 99.6-percent 

probability of containing a flood that has a O,2-percent chance of occurring in any year. 

7, In accordance with implementation guidance on the in-kind contribution provisions of Section 

221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended by Section 2003 of WRDA 2007. the 

reporting otlicers recommend that the non-Federal sponsor receive credit, currently estimated to 

be $2,100,000, for completed reconstruction of drainage structures, including corrugated metal 

pipes, at the Paducah, Kentucky Local Flood Protection Project- Crediting is subject to the 

Secretary's determination that such work is integral to the proposed project. This credit 

2 
144 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 85131A.077

CECW-LRD (1I05-2-10a) 

Sl:B.lECT: Ohio River Shoreline, Paducah, Kentucky Reconstruction 

eligibility was approved in cOllcept by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on 

November 14, 2008. Affording this credit would not relieve the non-Federal sponsor of the 

requirement to pay 5 percent of the total pruject costs in cash during construction of the 

remainder of the proposed project. 

8. All technical, engineering and scientiiic work underwent an open, dynamic and vigorous 

review process to ensure technical quality. This included an independent Agency Technical 

Review (ATR) and a Headquarters, USACE policy and legal review. All concems of the ATR 

and policy and legal revicws have been addressed and incorporated into the final report. Given 

the nature of reconstructing an existing project in the original project footprint, I have granted an 

exclusion from the requirement to conduct a Type 1 Independent Extemal Peer Review. 

9. I concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations ofthe reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend that the Ohio River Shoreline, Paducah, Kentucky Reconstruction 

project be authorized in accordance with the reporting ofticer's recommended plan with such 

modifications as may be advisable in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers. My 

recommendation is subject to cost sharing. financing, and other applicable requirements of 

Federal and State laws and policies, including Section 103 ofWRDA 1986, as amended by 

Section 202 of WRDA 1996. Accordingly, the non-Federal sponsor must agree with the 

following requirements prior to project implementation: 

a. Provide a minimwll of35 percent, but not to exceed 50 percent of total first costs further 

specified as follows: 

(I) Provide 35 percent of design costs in accordance with the terms of a design 

agreement entered into prior to commencement of design work for project; 

(2) Provide, during construction, a contribution offunds equal to 5 percent of total 

proj eet costs; 

(3) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for 

relocations, the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; 

perform or ensure the performance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required on 

lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as 

determined by the Federal Government to be required or to be necessary for the construction. 

operation, and maintenance of the project; 

(4) Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution equal to at least 35 percent of total project costs; 

b. Not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share for that other program, to meet any of its obligations for the project 

3 
145 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 85131A.078

CECW-L!W (ll05-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Ohio River Shorelin~, Paducah, Kentucky Reconstruction 

unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verities in writing lhat 

such funds are authorized to be used to carry oul the project; 

c. Not less than once each year, in/emn affected interests of the l'xtent of flood damage 

reduction afforded by the Hood risk management features: 

d. Agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and 

f100d insurance programs; 

e. Comply with Section 402 ofWRDA 1986, as amended (33 U.S.c. 701b-12), which 

requires a non-Federal interest to prepare a floodplain management plan within one year after the 

date of signing a project cooperation agreement, and to implement such plan not later than one 

year after completion of construction ofthc Hood risk management features: 

t: Publicize floodplain information in the arca concel11ed and provide this information to 

zoning and other regulatory agencics for their use in adopting regulations, or taking other 

actions, to prevent umvise future development and to ensure compatibility with degrees of flood 

risk management provided by the flood risk management features; 

g. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and enforcing 

regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new developments on 

project lands, easements, and rights-of-way or the addition offacilities which might reducc the 

level of protection the flood risk management features afford, hinder operation and maintenance 

of the project, or interfere with the project's proper function; 

h. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Unifol111 Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601-

4655), and the Unifonn Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, including 

those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of materials, or the disposal of dredged or 

excavated material; and infonn all affected persons of applicablc benefits, policies, and 

procedures in connection with said Act; 

i. For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate. and 

replace the project, or functional portions of the project, including any mitigation features, at no 

cost to the Federal Govenunent, in a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes 

and in accordance with applicable Federal and state laws and regnlations and any specific 

directions prescribed by the Federal Government; 

j. Give the Federal Government a right to cnter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the City owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose of 

completing, inspecting. operating. maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating. or replacing the project: 

4 
146 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 85131A.079

CECW-LRD (1105-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Ohio River Shorcline, Paducah. Kentucky Reconstruction 

k. Hold and save the United States frcc from all damages arising from the construction, 

operation, maintenance. repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the project. except for damagcs 

due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors; 

I. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to cost, and 

expenses incuITed pursuant to the project, i(lf a minimum of three years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents, or other evidence are required, to the 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in accordance with the 

standards for financial management systems set torth in the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 

Code of Federal Regulations Section 33.20; 

m. Comply with all applicable Federal and state laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulation 60()-7, 

entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department of the Arn1Y"; and ali applicable Federal labor standards 

requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.s.c. 3141- 3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-3708 

(revising, codifying and enacting without substantial change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon 

Act (fonnerly 40 U.S.c. 276a el seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

(fonnerly 40 U.S.C. 327 el seq.). and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (fonnerly 40 U.S.C. 276c 

et seq.); 

n. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under CERCLA, Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.c. 9601-9675), that may exist in, on, 

or under lands, easements, or rights-or-way that the Federal Government determines to be 

required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. However, for lands that the 

Federal Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Federal 

Government shall perform such investigations unless the Federal Government provides the City 

with prior specific written direction, in which case the City shall perform such investigations in 

accordance wi th such wri tten direction; 

o. Assume, as between the Federal Government and the City, complete financial 

responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances regulated 

under CERCLA that are located in. on. or under lands, easements, or rights-oj~way that the 

Federal Government determines to be required for construction, operation, and maintenance of 

the project; 

p. Agree, as between the Federal Govcmment and the City, that the City shall be considered 

the operator of the project for the purpose ofCERCLA liability. and to the maximum extent 

5 
147 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 85131A.080

CECW-LlW (I ]05-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Ohio River Shoreline, Paducah, Kentucky Reconslruction 

practicable, operate. maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace the project in a manner that will 

not cause liability to arise under CERCLA; and 

q. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act ofl970, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. I 962d-5b), and Section 1(30) of WRDA 1986, Public Law 99-662, as amended (33 

U.S.c. 22130), which provides that the Secretary of the Anny shall not COlmnence the 

construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, until the City has 

cntered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation lor the project or separable 

elemenL 

r. Provide the non-Federal share of that portion of the costs of mitigation and data recovery 

activities associated with historic preservation, that are in excess of one percent of the total 

amount authorizcd to be appropriated tor the project. 

10. The recommendation contained herein reflects the intonnation available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the fonnulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the sponsor, the State, interested Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised of 

any significant modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

7l;frltl11l if/!l;;;:"7id:---

MERDITH W. B. TEMPLE 

Major GeneraL U.S. Anny 

Acting Commander 

6 
148 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 85131A.081

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF: 

CECW-SAD (1105-2-lOa) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY u.s. Army Corps of Engineers 

441 G Street N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314·1000 

SEP 28 2009 

SUBJECT: West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), North Carolina 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

I. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on hurricane and storm damage reduction 

along a 5-mile reach of Atlantic Ocean shoreline at Topsail Beach, North Carolina. It is 

accompanied by the report of the district and division engineers. Thesc reports are in final 

response to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public 

Law 106-377, which included funds for the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers to initiate a General 

Reevaluation Report (GRR) of the West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach) 

Shore Protection Project, and the remaining shoreline at Topsail Beach. The original project was 

authorized in Section 101(15) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992 at a 

total cost of$14,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,600,000, and an estimated nonFederal cost of $6,500,000. The authorized project was never constructed. Several recent 

coastal storms and hurricanes along many portions of North Carolina's shoreline and increasing 

threats to existing and new development within the Town of Topsail Beach led to initiation of 

this post-authorization investigation. Preconstruction engineering and design activities for 

Topsail Beach will be continued under the authorities above, 

2, Tbe reporting officers recommend a new authorization for a locally preferred plan (LPP) to 

reduce hurricane and storm damages by construction of a sand dune and berm along the Topsail 

Beach shoreline. The recommended plan includes a 26,200-foot long dune and berm system to 

be constructed to an elevation of 12 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) fronted by a 

50-foot wide berm at an elevation of7-foot NGVD, with a main fill length 0[23,200 feet and a 

2,000-foot transition length on the north end into the Town of Surf City and a 1,000-foot 

transition on the south end. The recommended plan also includes periodic nourishment at 

four-year intervals. Other associated features of the project are dune vegetation and construction 

of23 dune walkover structures for public access. The estimated in-place volume offill for the 

initial project construction is 2,387,000 cubic yards, which does not include placement of 

690,000 cubic yards for the first nourishment. Fill material for the sand dune and berm 

construction and nourishment will be dredged from offshore borrow sites identified off the coast 

of Topsail Beach. The recommended plan also includes post-construction monitoring over the 

life of the project to ensure project performance. Since the recommended plan does not have any 

significant adverse effects, no mitigation measures (beyond management practices and 

avoidance) or compensation measures are required. Compared to the National Economic 

Development (NED) Plan, the LPP has a dune three feet lower and extends the main fill 

protection 400-feet southwest to include properties south of Godwin Avenue that are vulnerable 
149 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 85131A.082

to coastal stann damage. The Assistant Secretary ofthe Anny (Civil Works) approved a policy 

exception allowing the Corps of Engineers to recommend the LPP by letter dated May 8, 2008. 

The 400-foot project extension costs an additional $320,000, and is not economically justified. 

The extension will therefore be funded entirely by the non-Federal sponsor. All features are 

located in North Carolina. 

3. Based on October 2008 price levels the estimated total first cost of the NED plan is 

$50,332,000, of which $32,712,000 (65 percent) is Federal and $17,620,000 (35 percent) is 

non-Federal. The estimated first cost of the LPP is $37,712,000. The total initial cost of the 

recommended plan, including sunk preconstruction engineering and design (PED) costs from 

project authorization in 1992 through completion of this ORR and Environmental Impact 

Statement (ElS), is $42,558,000. These sunk PED costs include initial project PED costs of 

$616,000 and the ORR and EIS cost of $4,230,000, for a total of$4,846,000. The sunk PED 

costs for the original project are cost shared 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal and 

the expanded portion of the project is cost shared 50 percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal. 

The total initial project construction cost is composed of both the total first cost of the LPP plus 

sunk PED costs. Cost sharing for the construction of the project is applied in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 103 ofWRDA 1986, as amended by Section 215 ofWRDA 1999. The 

Federal share of the total cost for the LPP is estimated to be $27,455,000 and the non-Federal 

share is estimated to be $15,103,000, but will be based upon conditions of public ownership and 

use of the shore when the Project Partnership Agreement is signed. The non-Federal share 

includes $320,000 for the incremental cost of the 400-foot benn and dune extension. The 

estimated cost oflands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged or excavated material 

disposal areas (LERRD) is $ 1,654,000, of which $1,481,000 is estimated to be creditable to the 

non-Federal sponsor's share. 

4. Total periodic nourishment costs for the LPP are estimated to be $113,904,000 (October 2008 

price level) over the 50-year period following initiation of construction. These costs are based on 

an estimated cost for each periodic nourishment of $9,492,000 occurring at four year intervals 

subsequent to completion of the initial construction (year zero) and include engineering and 

design and monitoring. The 'ultimate project cost, which includes initial construction, project 

monitoring, and periodic nourishment is estimated to be $170,032,000 (October 2008 price 

level). The equivalent annual cost of periodic nourishment is estimated to be $2,190,000, based 

on a Federal discount rate of 4.625 percent and a 50-year period of analysis. Based on WRDA 

1996, as amended, subject to the availability of funds, periodic nourishment is cost-shared 50 

percent Federal and 50 percent non-Federal, based upon conditions of public ownership and use 

of the shore. The Federal share of each periodic nourishment cost is estimated to be $4,746,000 

(50 percent) and the non-Federal share is estimated to be $4,746,000 (50 percent). The project 

includes beach fill and environmental monitoring costs estimated at $269,000. Annual beach fill 

monitoring includes semi-annual beach profile surveys ($137,000), annual hydrographic surveys 

of New Topsail Inlet ($6,000), annual aerial photography of the inlet and beach (cost included in 

inlet hydrographic survey), an annual monitoring report ($93,000), and monitoring program 

coordination ($15,000). Annual environmental monitoring includes sea turtle nesting ($17,000) 

and sea beach amaranth surveys ($1,000), and a one-time cost for benthic invertebrate 

monitoring ($120,000). 1be estimated Federal share of annual monitoring costs is $134,500 

(50 percent) and the estimated non-Federal share is $134,500 (50 percent). The estimated 

2 
150 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 85131A.083

Federal share of the one-time benthic invertebrate monitoring is $60,000 (50 percent) and the 

estimated non-Federal share is $60,000 (50 percent). The Town of Topsail Beach is the nonFederal cost-sharing sponsor for all features and is responsible for the operation, maintenance, 

repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the project after construction, a cost 

currently estimated at about $22,000 per year. 

5. Based on a 4.625-percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent 

average annual costs of the project are estimated to be $4,450,000, including monitoring and 

OMRR&R. The equivalent average annual benefits are estimated to be $13,328,000 with net 

average annual benefits of $8,878,000. The benefit-cost ratio is three to one. 

6. The goals and objectives included in the Campaign Plan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

have been fully integrated into the Topsail Beach study process. From inception, the district has 

implemented an effective comprehensive systems approach with full stakeholder participation. 

The study included an integrated analysis of the Topsail Beach shoreline system and cumulative 

environmental effects. A statistical, risk based model was used to formulate and evaluate the 

project. The study report describes risks associated with residual coastal storm damages and risks 

that will not be reduced such as sound side flooding and wind damages. Loss oflife is prevented 

by the existing procedure of evacuating the barrier island completely well before expected 

hurricane landfall, removing people from harm's way. The study recommends continuation of 

the evacuation policy both with and without the project. The selected plan would reduce average 

annual coastal storm damages by about 84 percent and would leave average annual residual 

damages estimated at $1,543,000. Additional institutional nonstructural measures to be 

implemented by the local government are contained in the study report recommendation. The 

project contains adaptive management measures through the development of borrow area 

contingency plans to be applied during construction and by an annual project monitoring 

program to reevaluate and adjust the periodic renourishment actions. The project monitoring 

program will be a useful research tool for other beach and shoreline studies. 

7. I eoncur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. The 

plan developed is technically sound, economically justified, and environmentally and socially 

acceptable. The plan confonns to essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's 

Economic and Environmental Principle~" and Guidelines forjVater and Related Land Resource~ 

Implementation Studi,,~ and complies with other administrative and legislative policies and 

guidelines. Also, the views of interested parties, including Federal, State, and local agencies 

have been considered. Substantive comments concerned borrow material compatibility, potential 

existence of near shore hard bottom areas, and avoiding impacts to sea turtles and piping plover. 

The comments resulted in some changes to the text of the GRR and EIS, but did not change the 

design of the recommended plan. Independent external peer review (IEPR) was not undertaken 

for this project, since it was not considered to be unusually complex, novel approaches or 

methods were not employed, there is no significant threat to public safety from project failure, 

and it was not controversial. Additionally, the project did not generate significant interagency 

interest, and only negligible adverse impacts would result. 

8. Accordingly, I recommend that the plan to reduce hurricane and storm damages at Topsail 

Beach, North Carolina be authorized in accordance with the reporting officers' recommended 

3 
151 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 85131A.084

plan at an October 2008 estimated cost of $42,558,000 with such modifications as in the 

discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost 

sharing, financing, and other applicable requirements of Federal and State laws and policies, 

including Section 103 ofWRDA 1986, as amended by Section 215 ofWRDA 1999. The nonFederal sponsor would provide the non-Federal cost share and all LERRD. Further, the 

non-Federal sponsor would be responsible for all OMRR&R. This recommendation is subject to 

the non-Federal sponsors agreeing to comply with all applicable Federal laws and policies. 

9. I further recommend that construction of the proposed project be contingent on the project 

sponsor giving written assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that it will: 

a. Provide 35 percent of initial construction costs assigned to hurricane and storm damage 

reduction plus 100 percent of initial construction costs assigned to protecting privately owned shores 

where use is limited to private interests, and as further specified below: 

1. Provide 25 percent of design costs in accordance with the terms of a design agreement 

entered into prior to commencement of design work for the project; 

2. Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to pay the full 

non-Federal share of design costs; 

3. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for relocations, 

the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; perform or ensure the 

performance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required on lands, easements, and 

rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as determined by the 

Government to be required or to be necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the 

project; and 

4. Provide, during initial construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution equal to 35 percent of project costs assigned to hurricane and storm damage reduction 

plus 100 percent of costs assigned to protecting privately owned shores where use is limited to 

private interests. 

b. Provide during the periodic nourishment period, 50 percent of periodic nourishment costs and 

50 percent of monitoring costs assigned to hurricane and storm damage reduction plus 100 percent of 

periodic nourishment costs and 100 percent of monitoring assigned to protecting privately owned 

shores where usc is limited to private interests. 

c. Shall not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share therefore, to meet any of the non-Federal obligations for the project 

unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in writing that 

expenditure of such funds for such purpose is authorized; 

d. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and enforcing 

regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new developments on project 

lands, easements, and rights-of-way or thc addition of facilities which might reduce the outputs 

produced by the project, hinder operation and maintenance of the project, or interfere with the 

project's proper function; 

4 
152 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 85131A.085

e. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.c. 4601-4655), 

and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and rightsof-way required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, including those 

necessary for relocations, the borrowing of materials, or the disposal of dredged or excavated 

material; and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in 

connection with said Aet; 

f. For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project, or functional portions of the project, including any mitigation features, at no cost 

to the Federal Government, in a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in 

accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific directions 

prescribed by the Federal Government; 

g. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, 

upon property that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose 

of completing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, or replacing the project; 

h. Hold and save the United States free Trom all damages arising from the construction, periodic 

nourishment, operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the project and any 

betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors; 

i. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of three years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, document~, or other evidence are required, to the extent 

and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in accordance with the standards for 

financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Section 33.20; 

j. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not limited 

to: Section 60 I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and 

Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulation 600-7, entitled 

"Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by 

the Department of the Army"; and all applicable Federal labor standards requirements including, but 

not limited to, 40 U.S.c. 3141- 3148 and 40 U.S.c. 3701 - 3708 (revising, codifYing and enacting 

without substantial change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 276a et seq.), 

the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 327 et seq.), and the 

Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276c et seq.); 

k. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identifY the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), that may exist in, on, or under lands, 

easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required for construction, 

operation, and maintenance ofthe project. However, for lands that the Federal Government 

determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Federal Government shall perform such 

5 
153 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 85131A.086

investigations unless the Federal Government provides the non-Federal sponsor with prior specific 

written direction, in which case the non-Federal sponsor shall perform such investigations in 

accordance with such written direction; 

I. Assume, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, complete financial 

responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances regulated 

under CERCLA that are located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal 

Government determines to be required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project; 

m. Agree, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, that the non-Federal 

sponsor shall be considered the operator oflhe project for the purpose ofCERCLA liability, and to 

the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace the project in a 

manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA; 

n. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 1962d-5b), and Section 103(j) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 

99-662, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213(j)), which provides that the Secretary of the Army shall not 

commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, until each 

non-Federal interest has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the 

project or separable element; 

o. Not Jess than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded by 

the project; 

p. Agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood 

insurance programs; 

q. Comply with Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended, 

(33 U.S.c. 701b-12), which requires a non-Federal interest to prepare a floodplain management plan 

within one year from signing a project partnership agreement., and to implement such plan not later 

than one year after completion of construction of the project; 

r. Publicize floodplain information in the area concerned and provide this information to zoning 

and other regulatory agencies for their use in adopting regulations, or taking other actions, to prevent 

unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the 

project; 

s. For so long as the project remains authorized, the non-Federal Sponsor shall ensure continued 

conditions of public ownership, access, and use of the shore upon which the amount of Federal 

participation is based; 

t. Provide and maintain necessary access roads, parking areas, and other public use facilities, 

open and available to all on equal terms; and 

u. At least twice annually at no cost to the Federal Government, perform surveillance of the 

beach to determine losses of nourishment material from the project design section and provide 

the results of such surveillance to the Federal Government. 

6 
154 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 85131A.087

10. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the sponsor, the State of North Carolina, interested Federal agencies, and other parties 

will be advised of any significant modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment 

further. 

VI'J 

e~ R. L. V AN ANTWERP 

Lieutenant General, US 

Chief of Engineers 

7 
155 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 85131A.088

CECW-SAD (1I05-2-10a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000 

DEC 3 0 2010 

SUBJECT: Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction Report 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

1. I submit for transmission my report on coastal storm damage reduction along the Atlantic 

Ocean shoreline of the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina. It is 

accompanied by the report of the district and division engineers. These reports are in response to 

two resolutions by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure oftbe House of 

Representatives, adopted on February 16, 2000 and April 11,2000. The resolutions requested a 

review of the report ofthe Chief of Engineers on West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet, 

North Carolina, and other pertinent reports, to determine whether any modifications of the 

recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present time in the interest of shore 

protection and related purposes for Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina. 

Preconstruction engineering and design activities for this project will be continued under the 

authority provided by the resolutions cited above. 

2. The reporting officers recommend authorization for a plan to reduce coastal storm damages 

by construction of a berm and dune along the Surf City and North Topsail Beach shorelines. The 

recommended plan includes a 52, ISO-foot long dune and berm system to be constructed to an 

elevation of 15 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) fronted by a seven-foot NGVD 

(50-foot wide) beach berm with a main fill length of52,150 feet, extending from the boundary 

between Topsail Beach and Surf City to the southern edge of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA) Zone in North Topsail Beach. The recommended plan also includes renourishment at 

six-year intervals. Other associated features of the project are dune vegetation and construction 

of 60 dune walkover structures. Material for the dune and berm construction and renourishment 

will be dredged from borrow sites identified between one to six miles off the coast of Topsail 

Island. The recommended plan also includes post-construction monitoring over the period of 

Federal participation to ensure project performance and adjust renourishment plans as needed. 

Since the recommended plan would not have any significant adverse effects, no mitigation 

measures (beyond management practices and avoidance) or compensation measures would be 

required. The recommended plan is the National Economic Development (NED) Plan for coastal 

storm damage reduction. 

3. The Towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach are the non-Federal cost-sharing sponsors 

for all features. Based on October 2010 price levels the estimated total first cost of the plan is 
156 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 85131A.089

CECW-SAD (1105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina Coastal Stonn Damage 

Reduction Report 

$123,135,000. Renourishment is planned at six-year intervals. There will be seven 

renourishments with a total cost estimated at October 2010 price levels to be $205,539,000. The 

ultimate project cost, which includes initial construction, monitoring, and periodic renourishment 

is estimated to be $353,924,000. Cost sharing is applied in accordance with the provisions of 

Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended by Section 

215 of WRDA 1999. Additional access points and nearby public parking will be necessary to 

meet the requirements for federal cost sharing; the sponsors anticipate no obstacles to develop 

such additional access and parking. The Federal and non-Federal shares shown below reflect 

anticipated development and satisfaction of access and parking requirements, but the final costshare amounts will be based upon the conditions of public access, parking, development and use 

of the shore at the time when the Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) is signed. 

a. The Federal share of the total first cost would be about $80,038,000 (65 percent) and the 

non-Federal share would be about $43,097,000 (35 percent). 

b. The cost of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged or excavated 

material disposal areas (LERRD) is estimated at $4,814,000, all of which is eligible for LERRD 

credit. 

c. The Federal share of the total renourishment cost would be about $102,769,500 (50 

percent) and the non-Federal share would be about $102,769,500 (50 percent). 

4. Based on a 4.125 percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent 

average annual costs of the project are estimated to be $10,702,000, including monitoring and 

OMRR&R. All project costs are allocated to the authorized purpose of coastal stonn damage 

reduction. The equivalent average annual benefits, which include recreation benefits, are 

estimated to be $40,129,000 with net average annual benefits of $29,427,000. The benefit cost 

ratio is approximately 3.7 to l. 

5. The goals and objectives included in the Canlpaign Plan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

have been fully integrated into the Surf City and North Topsail Beach study process. The project 

contains adaptive management measures through an annual project monitoring program in order 

to be able to reevaluate and adjust the periodic renourishment actions. The study was conducted 

using a systems perspective that considered the effects of other Federal (West Onslow and New 

River Inlet [Topsail Beach] Coastal Storm Damage Reduction study, New River and New 

Topsail Inlet Navigation features) and non-Federal projects in the area, particularly as related to 

borrow volume availability. A statistical, risk based model was used to formulate and evaluate 

the project. The study report fully describes risks associated with residual coastal stonn damages 

and risks that will not be reduced, such as sound side flooding and wind damages. The project is 

intended to address erosion and prevent damages to structures and contents; it is not intended to 

2 
157 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 85131A.090

CECW-SAD (l105-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction Report 

nor will it reduce the risk to loss of life during major storm events. Loss of life can only be 

prevented by the existing procedure of evacuating the barrier island completely well before 

expected hurricane landfall, thus removing people from harm's way. This study recommends 

continuation of the evacuation policy both with and without the project. Additional institutional 

nonstructural measures to be implemented by the local govermnents are contained in the study 

report recommendation. The selected plan would reduce average annual coastal storm damages 

by about 88 percent and would leave average annual damages estimated at $2,241,000. These 

residual risks have been communicated to both the Towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach. 

6. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular EC 1165-2-211 on sea level change, the 

study performed a sensitivity analysis to look at the economic effects that different rates of 

accelerated sea level rise could have on the recommended plan. The plan was formulated using a 

historical or low rate of sea level rise, and the sensitivity analysis used additional accelerated 

rates, which includes what the EC defines as medium and high rates. The sensitivity analysis 

indicates that at higher rates of sea level rise, the project costs increase; the project benefits 

however, increase even more. 

7. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular EC 1165-2-209 on review of decision 

documents, all technical, engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic and 

vigorous review process to ensure technical quality. This included an independent Agency 

Technical Review (ATR) and an Independent External Peer Review (IEPR). The IEPR was 

managed by an outside eligible organization (Battelle) that assembled a panel of five experts 

with combined expertise in the fields of geotechnical and coastal engineering, plan formulation, 

environrnentlbiology, economics, and recreation analysis. Ultimately, the panel identified and 

documented sixteen comments. Eight of the panel comments were classified as having high 

significance. These comments raised questions regarding various aspects of the coastal and nonstructural analysis in the report, the availability of sufficient borrow material for the life of the 

project, and the methods used to determine property values in the economic analysis. Based on 

these comments, the report's coastal appendix was greatly expanded. To address the concern 

regarding borrow volume availability, additional analysis was conducted and the discussion in 

the report regarding risks and uncertainty in borrow availability was expanded. Also information 

regarding the economic feasibility of obtaining additional borrow material if the currently 

identified borrow sites were to be depleted in the latter years of the project was added. The panel 

did not concur with this last response and maintained that the plan formulation should still have 

been constrained by borrow availability due to uncertainty. I have considered the borrow 

availability issue and concluded it has been appropriately addressed in the project's risk 

management plan through the identification of additional sites with similar borrow cost and 

volume to mitigate the uncertainty. Even though uncertainty remains regarding utilization of 

specific borrow sites, the recommendation is viable and economically justifiable. Overall the 

reviews have resulted in the improvement of the technical quality of the report including the 

enhanced communication of risk and uncertainty. 

3 
158 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 85131A.091

CECW-SAD (1105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction Report 

8. The United States Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters review indicates that the project 

recommended by the reporting officers is technically sound, environmentally and socially 

acceptable, and economically justified. The goal to reduce loss of life is incorporated into this 

project but it is a shared responsibility that can never be completely mitigated by structural 

solutions. Discussion in the report emphasizes that residual risk will remain after this project is 

executed; it also, emphasizes the roles of all partners in addressing and communicating residual 

risk to the public, including the need for a well coordinated hurricane storm warning and 

evacuation plan. The plan complies with all essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources 

Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land Related 

Resourees implementation studies and complies with other administrative and legislative policies 

and guidelines. 

9. [concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend that the plan to reduce coastal storm damages for Surf City and North 

Topsail Beach, North Carolina be authorized in accordance with the reporting officers 

recommended plan at an October 2010 estimated initial cost of$123,135,000 with such 

modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable. My 

recommendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applicable requirements of 

Federal and State laws and policies, including Section 103 of the Water Resources Development 

Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended by Section 215 ofWRDA 1999. The non-Federal sponsors 

would provide the non-Federal cost share and all LERRO. Further, the non-Federal sponsors 

would be responsible for all Operation and Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and 

Rehabilitation (OMRR&R). This recommendation is subject to the non-Federal sponsors 

agreeing to comply with all applicable Federal laws and policies and in accordance with the 

required items of cooperation, and agreeing prior to project implementation, to perform as 

follows: 

a. Provide 35 percent of initial project costs assigned to coastal storm damage reduction, 

plus 50 percent of initial project costs assigned to reducing damages to undeveloped public 

lands, plus 50 percent of initial project costs assigned to recreation, plus 100 percent of initial 

project costs assigned to reducing damages to undeveloped private lands and other private shores 

that do not provide public benefits; and 50 percent of periodic nourishment costs assigned to 

hurricane and storm damage reduction, plus 100 percent of periodic nourishment costs assigned 

to reducing damages to undeveloped private lands and other private shores that do not provide 

public benefits and as further specified below: 

(I) Provide 25 percent of design costs in accordance with the terms of a design 

agreement entered into prior to commencement of design work for the project. 

(2) Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds needed to 

cover the non-Federal share of design costs. 

4 
159 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 85131A.092

CECW-SAD (l105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction Report 

(3) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and perform or ensure the 

performance of all relocations determined by the Federal Government to be necessary for the 

initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and maintenance of the project. 

(4) Provide, during construction, any additional amounts as are necessary to make it 

total contribution equal to 35 percent of initial project costs assigned to coastal storm damage 

reduction, plus 50 percent of initial project costs assigned to reducing damages to undeveloped 

public lands, plus 50 percent of initial project costs assigned to recreation, plus 100 percent of 

initial project costs assigned to reducing damages to undeveloped private lands and other private 

shores that do not provide public benefits; and 50 percent of periodic nourishment costs assigned 

to hurricane and storm damage reduction, plus 100 percent of periodic nourishment costs 

assigned to reducing damages to undeveloped private lands and other private shores that do not 

provide public benefits. 

b. Operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate and replace the completed project, or functional 

portion of the project, at no cost to the Federal Government, in a manner compatible with the 

project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and 

regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the Federal Government. 

c. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, on property that the non-Federal sponsors, now or hereafter, owns or controls for acccss 

to the project for the purpose of inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, 

rehabilitating, or completing the project. OMRR&R by the Federal Government will not relieve 

the non-Federal sponsors ofresponsibility to meet the non-Federal sponsors' obligations, or to 

preclude the Federal Government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to ensure 

faithful performance. 

d. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the initial 

construction, periodic nourishment, OMRR&R of the project and any project related betterments, 

except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors. 

e. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of three years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents, and other evidence is required, to the 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total costs of construction of the project, and in 

accordance with the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local 

Governments at 32 CFR 33.20. 

5 
160 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 85131A.093

CECW-SAD (l105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction Report 

f. Perform, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), P.L. 96-510, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under 

lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required for the 

initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and maintenance of the project. However, 

for lands that the Federal Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only 

the Federal Government will perform sueh investigations unless the Federal Government 

provides the non-Federal sponsors with prior specific written direction, in which case, the nonFederal sponsors will perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction. 

g. Assume, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsors, complete 

financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA-regulated 

materials in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government 

determines to be necessary for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, or 

maintenance of the project. 

h. Agree that, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsors, the nonFederal sponsor will be considered the operators of the project for the purpose of CERCLA 

liability, and to the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, and repair the project in a 

manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA. 

i. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, P.L. 91-646, as amended by (42 U.S.C. 4601-4655), 

and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and 

rights-of-way required for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and 

maintenance ofthe project, including those necessary for relocations, borrow materials, and 

dredged or excavated material disposal, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, 

policies, and procedures in connection with that Act. 

j. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including section 601 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, P.L. 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), Department of Defense 

Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Army Regulation 600-7, titled 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted 

by the Department of the Army, and all applicable Federal labor standards and requirements, 

including, 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-3708 (revising, codifying, and enacting 

without substantial change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et 

seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) and 

the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 276c et seq.). 

6 
161 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 85131A.094

CECW-SAD (1105-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction Report 

k. Comply with section 402 of the WRDA of 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 701 b-12), which 

requires the non-Federal interest to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain 

management and flood insurance programs, prepare a floodplain management plan within one 

year after the date of signing a PP A, and implement the plan no later than one year after project 

construction is complete. 

1. Provide the non-Federal share of that portion of the costs of data recovery activities 

associated with historic preservation, that are in excess of 1 percent of the total amount 

authorized to be appropriated for the project, in accordance with the cost-sharing provisions of 

the agreement. 

m. Participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood 

insurance programs. 

n. Do not use Federal funds to meet the non-Federal sponsors' share of total project costs 

unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is 

authorized. 

o. Prevent obstructions of or encroachment on the project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments), which might reduce the 

level of damage reduction it affords, hinder operation and maintenance or future periodic 

nourishment, or interfere with its proper function, such as any new developments on project 

lands or the addition of facilities that would degrade the benefits of the project. 

p. Not less than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of damage reduction 

afforded by the project. 

q. Publicize floodplain information in the area concerned and provide such information to 

zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development in 

the floodplain and in adopting such regulations as might be necessary to prevent unwise future 

development and to ensure compatibility with damage reduction levels provided by the project. 

r. For so long as the project remains authorized, the non-Federal sponsors must ensure 

continued conditions of public ownership, access, and use of the shore on which the amount of 

Federal participation is based. 

s. Provide and maintain necessary access roads, parking areas, and other public use facilities, 

open and available to all on equal terms. 

7 
162 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 85131A.095

CECW-SAD (1105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina Coastal Storm Damage 

Reduction Report 

t. At least twice annually and after storm events, perform surveillance of the beach to 

determine losses of nourishment material from the project design section and provide the results 

of such surveillance to the Federal Govermnent. 

u. Comply with section 221 ofP.L. 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 1962d-5b), and section 1030) of the WRDA of 1986, P.L. 99-662, as amended (33 U.S.C. 

2213(j», which provides that the Secretary of the Army must not commence the construction of 

any water resources project or separable element thereof, until the non-Federal interests have 

entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the project or separable 

element. 

1 O. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the sponsors, the State, interested Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised 

of any significant modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

Lieutenant General, US 

Chief of Engineers 

8 
163 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 85131A.096

CEMP-SPD (l105-2-10a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000 

SUBJECT: San Clemente Shoreline, Orange County, California 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

APR 15 2012 

1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on coastal storm damage reduction along the 

Pacific Ocean shoreline in San Clemente, California. It is accompanied by the report of the Los 

Angeles District Engineer and the South Pacific Division Engineer. These reports are in partial 

response to the authority contained in Section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (Title II of 

P.L. 89-298), which provides for studies to determine the advisability of protection work against 

storm and tidal waves along the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act of2000, P.L. 106-60, appropriated the funds for a 

reconnaissance study to investigate shoreline protection alternatives for San Clemente Shoreline, 

California. Preconstruction engineering and design activities for this project will be continued 

under the authority provided by the resolutions cited above. 

2. The reporting officers recommend authorization for a plan to reduce coastal storm damages 

by constructing a beach fill/berm along the San Clemente shoreline. The recommended plan for 

coastal storm damage reduction includes construction of a 50-foot-wide beach nourishment 

project along a 3,412-foot-Iong stretch of shoreline using 251,000 cubic yards of compatible 

sediment, with renourishment on the average of every 6 years over a 50-year period of Federal 

participation, for a total of eight additional nourishments. The design herm will be constructed 

to an elevation of 17 feet MLLW with foreshore slope of 8H:IV (at equilibrium). Material for 

the beach fill will be dredged from a borrow site identified off the coast of San Diego County. 

Physical monitoring of the performance of the project will be required annually throughout the 

50-year period of Federal participation, The recommended plan would provide coastal storm 

damage reduction throughout the project reach and would maintain the existing recreational 

beach. Monitoring of the environmental resources will be required for each construction event. 

The project is expected to have minimal impacts to environmental resources. A comprehensive 

monitoring and mitigation plan has been incorporated in the project in the event that impacts to 

habitat result. The recommended plan is the national economic development (NED) plan for 

coastal storm damage reduction. 

3. The City of San Clemente is the non-Federal cost-sharing sponsor for all features. Based on 

October 2011 price levels, the estimated total nourishment cost of the plan is $98,100,000, which 

includes the project first cost of initial construction of $11 ,300,000 and a total of 8 periodic 

renourishments at a total cost of $86,800,000. Periodic renourishments are planned at 6-year 

This report contains the proposed recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. The recommendation is 

subject to change to reflect Washington level review and comments from Federal and State agencies. 
164 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 85131A.097

CEMP-SPD 

SUBJECT: San Clemente Shoreline, Orange County, California 

intervals, In accordance with the cost share provisions in Section 103 of the Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C 2213), the Federal and non-Federal 

shares are as follows: 

a. The Federal share of the project first cost would be $7,350,000 and the non-Federal 

share would be $3,960,000, which equates to 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. 

The cost of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged or excavated material 

disposal areas (LERRD) is estimated at $11,000, all of which is eligible for LERRD credit. 

b. The Federal share of the total renourishment cost would be $43,400,000 and the nonFederal share would be $43,400,000, which equates to 50 percent Federal and 50 percent nonFederal. 

C. The total nourishment cost includes $4,460,000 for environmental monitoring, and 

$8,550,000 for physical monitoring over the life of the project. 

d. The City of San Clemente would be responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, 

rcplacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the project aftcr construction. The project is not 

currently estimated to result in a significant incremental increase over the sponsor's existing 

beach maintenance activities and costs. 

4. Based on a 4-percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent 

average annual costs of the project are estimated to be $2,180,000, including monitoring. All 

project costs are allocated to the authorized purpose of coastal storm damage reduction. The 

selected plan would reduce average annual coastal storm damages by about 97 percent and 

would leave average annual damages estimated at $36,900. The equivalent average annual 

benefits, which include recreational benefits, are estimated to be $3,160,000, with net average 

annual benefits of $978,000. The benefit-cost ratio is approximately 1.4 to 1. 

5. The goals and objectives included in the Campaign Plan of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers have been fully integrated into the San Clemente Shoreline study process. The project 

includes an annual project monitoring program to reevaluate and adjust the periodic 

renourishment actions. The study was conducted using a watershed perspective to examine 

sediment supply changes within the San Juan Creek Watershed. A statistical, risk based model 

was used to formulate and evaluatc the project. The project is intended to address erosion and 

prevent damages to structures and contents; it is not intended to, nor will it, reduce the risk to 

loss of life during major storm events. The study report fully describes risks associated with 

residual coastal storm damages and risks that will not be reduced. These residual risks have been 

communicated to the City of San Clemente. 

6. Along the shoreline of San Clemente, a lack of sediment suppJy to the shoreline has resulted 

in chronic, mild, and long-term erosion. Without a coastal storm damage reduction project 

public properties and structures will continue to be susceptible to damages caused by erosion 

(including land loss and undermining of structures), inundation (structures), and wave attack 

(structures, railroad). The project area includes the LOSSAN (Los Angeles to San Diego) 

2 
165 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 85131A.098

CEMP-SPD 

SUBJECT: San Clemente Shoreline, Orange County, California 

railroad corridor which is a vital link for passenger and freight service and has been designated 

as a Strategic Rail Corridor by the Department of Defense. As the protective beach lessens over 

time and is eventually lost, it is expected that storm waves will act directly upon the railroad 

ballast, significantly threatening the operation of the LOSSAN railroad line. The narrowing 

beaches are also expected to subject ancillary beachfront public facilities to storm wave-induced 

damages, and further reduce recreational space on an already space-limited beach. The 

recommended plan was formulated to maximize coastal storm damage reduction, address 

potential environmental affects, and minimize cost. 

7. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular (EC 1165-2-211) on sea level change, the 

study performed a sensitivity analysis to investigate the economic effects that different rates of 

accelerated sea level rise could have on the recommended plan. The plan was formulated using a 

historical or low rate of sea level rise, and the sensitivity analysis used additional accelerated 

rates, which includes what the EC defines as medium and high rates. The sensitivity analysis 

indicates that at higher rates of sea level rise, renourishment intervals increase and the reduction 

of storm damages decreases, but the plans are still justified. 

8. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular (EC 1165-2-209) on review of decision 

documents, all technical, engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic and 

vigorous review process to ensure technical quality. This included an Agency Technical Review 

(A TR), an Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) (Type I), and a Corps Headquarters policy 

and legal review. All concerns of the A TR have been addressed and incorporated into the final 

report. The !EPR was completed by Battelle Memorial Institute. A total of24 comments were 

documented. The [EPR comments identified significant concerns in areas of the plan 

formulation and engineering assumptions that are needed to support the decision-making process 

and plan selection. This resulted in expanded narratives throughout the report to support the 

decision-making process and justifY the recommended plan. A safety assurance revicw (Type II 

IEPR) will be conducted during the design phase of the project. All comments from the above 

referenced reviews have been addressed and incorporated into the final documents. Overall the 

reviews resulted in improvements to the technical quality ofthe report. 

9. Washington level review indicates that the project recommended by the reporting officers is 

technically sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and economically justified. The plan 

complies with all essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and 

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land related resources implementation 

studies and complies with other administrative and legislative policies and guidelines. Also the 

views of interested parties, including Federal, State and local agencies have been considered. 

10. I concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend that the plan to reduce coastal storm damages for the San Clemente, 

California shoreline be authorized in accordance with the reporting officers' recommended plan 

at an estimated project first cost of $11 ,300,000 with such modifications as in the discretion of 

the Chief of Engineers may be advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost sharing, 

financing, and other applicable requirements of Federal and State laws and policies, including 

Section 103 ofWRDA 1986, as amended by Section 215 ofWRDA 1999. The non-Federal 

3 
166 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 85131A.099

CEMP-SPD 

SUBJECT: San Clemente Shoreline, Orange County, California 

sponsor would provide the non-Federal cost share and all LERRD. Further the non-Federal 

sponsor would be responsible for all OMRR&R. This recommendation is subject to the nonFederal sponsor agreeing to comply with all applicable Federal laws and policies. 

a. Provide a minimum of at least 35 percent of initial project costs assigned to coastal storm 

damage reduction, plus 50 percent of initial project costs assigned to reducing damages to 

undeveloped public lands, plus 50 percent of initial project costs assigned to recreation, plus 100 

percent of initial project costs assigned to reducing damages to undeveloped private lands and 

other private shores that do not provide public benefits; and 50 percent of periodic nourishment 

costs assigned to hurricane and storm damage rcduction, plus 100 percent of periodic 

nourishment costs assigned to reducing damages to undeveloped private lands and other private 

shores that do not provide public benefits and as further specified below: 

(1) Provide 25 percent of design costs in accordance with the terms of a design 

agreement entered into prior to commencement of design work for the projcct. 

(2) Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to pay 

the full non-Fcderal share of design costs. 

(3) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and perform or ensure the 

performance of all relocations determined by the Federal Government to be necessary for the 

initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and maintenance of the project. 

(4) Provide, during construction, any additional amounts as are nccessary to make the 

total contribution equal to 35 percent of initial project costs assigned to coastal storm damage 

reduction, plus 50 percent of initial project costs assigned to reducing damages to undeveloped 

public lands, plus 50 percent of initial project costs assigned to recreation, plus 100 pcrcent of 

initial project costs assigned to reducing damages to undeveloped private lands and other private 

shores that do not provide public benefits; and 50 percent of periodic nourishment costs assigned 

to hurricane and storm damage reduction, plus 100 percent of periodic nourishment costs 

assigned to reducing damages to undeveloped private lands and other private shores that do not 

provide public benefits. 

b. For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project, or functional portion of the project, at no cost to the Federal Government, in 

a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable 

Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the Federal 

Government. 

c. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the non-Federal Sponsor, now or hereafter, owns or controls for 

access to the project for the purpose of inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, 

rehabilitating, or completing the project. No completion, operation, maintenance, repair, 

replacement, or rehabilitation by the Federal Government shall relieve the non-Federal Sponsor 

4 
167 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 85131A.100

CEMP-SPD 

SUBJECT: San Clemente Shoreline, Orange County, California 

of responsibility to meet the non-Federal Sponsor's obligations, or to preclude the Federal 

Government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to ensure faithful performance. 

d. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the initial' 

construction, periodic nourishment, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 

rehabilitation of the project and any project related betterments, except for damages due to the 

fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors. 

e. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project in accordance with the standards for financial 

management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Section 33.20. 

f. Perform, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or 

under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required 

for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and maintenance of the project. 

However, for lands that the Federal Government determines to be subject to the navigation 

servitude, only the Federal Government shall perform such investigations unless the Federal 

Government provides the non-Federal Sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which 

ca~e the non-Federal Sponsor shall perform such investigations in accordance with such written 

direction. 

g. Assume, as between thc Federal Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor, complete 

financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA regulated 

materials located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Govermnent 

determines to be necessary for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, or 

maintenance of the project. 

h. Agree, as between the Federal Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor, that the 

non-Federal Sponsor shall be considered the operator of the project for the purpose of CERCLA 

liability, and to the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, and repair the project in a 

manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA. 

i. If applicable, comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended 

by Title IV of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 

(Public Law 100-17), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring 

lands, easements, and rights-of-way, required for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, 

operation, and maintenance of the project, including those necessary for relocations, borrow 

materials, and dredged or excavated material disposal, and inform all affected persons of 

applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act. 

5 
168 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 85131A.101

CEMP-SPD 

SUBJECT: San Clemente Shoreline, Orange County, Califomia 

j. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.c. 2000d) 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulation 600- 7, 

entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department of the Army"; Section 402 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986, as amended (33 U.S.c. 701 b-12), requiring non-Federal preparation and 

implementation of floodplain management plans; and all applicable Federal labor standards 

requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.c. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-3708 

(revising, codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon 

Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

(formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 

276c».". 

k. Comply with section 402 of the WRDA of 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 701b-12), which 

requires the non-Federal interest to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain 

management and flood insurance programs, prepare a floodplain management plan within one 

year after the date of signing a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA), and implement the plan no 

later than one year after project construction is complete. 

l. Provide the non-Federal share of that portion of the costs of data recovery activities 

associated with historic preservation, that are in excess of 1 percent of the total amount 

authorized to be appropriated for the project, in accordance with the cost sharing provisions of 

the agreement. 

m. Participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood 

insurance programs. 

n. Do not use Federal funds to meet the non-Federal sponsor's share of total project costs 

unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is 

authorized. 

o. Prescribe and enforce regulations to prevent obstruction of or encroachment on the 

project that would reduce the level of protection it affords or that would hinder future periodic 

nourishment and/or the operation and maintenance of the project. 

p. Not less than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded 

by the project. 

q. Publicize floodplain information in the area concerned and provide this information to 

zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development in 

the floodplain, and in adopting such regulations as may be necessary to prevent unwise future 

development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the project. 

6 
169 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 85131A.102

CEMP-SPD 

SUBJECT: San Clemente Shoreline, Orange County, California 

r. For so long as the project remains authorized, the non-Federal Sponsor shall ensure 

continued conditions of public ownership and use of the shore upon which the amount of Federal 

participation is based; 

s. Provide and maintain necessary access roads, parking areas, and other public use 

facilities, open and available to all on equal terms; 

t. At least twice annually and after storm events, perform surveillance of the beach to 

determine losses of nourishment material from the project design section and provide the results 

of such surveillance to the Federal Government; 

u. Comply with Section 221 of Pnblic Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. I 962d-5b), and Section 1030) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 

Public Law 99-662, as amended (33 U.S.C. 22130), which provides that the Secretary of the 

Army shall not commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element 

thereof, until each non-Federal interest has entered into a written agreement to furnish its 

required cooperation for the project or separable element. 

II. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the sponsor, the State, interested Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised of 

any significant modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

MERDITH 

~7#f~ W. B. TEMPLE 

Major General, U.S. Army 

Acting Commander 

7 
170 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 85131A.103

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

CECW-SAD 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEf OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, DC 20314·1000 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastal Improvements l'rogrmn, Hancock, Harrison, and jackson 

COlillties, Mississippi, Comprehensive Plan Report 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

I, I submit for transmission to Congress my final report 011 water resources improvements 

associated with hurricane and storm damage risk reduction and ecosystem restoration inlhe 

coastal counties of Hancock. Harrison. and Jackson, Mississippi. It is accompanied by the repOft 

of the district and division engineers. These reports arc a final response to authorizing legislation 

contained in the Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 2006 (I'.!.. 109-148), dated 30 

Dccember 2005. The study authorization states, ill part, the following: 

..... Ihe Secrewry shall cOflduc/ (In analysis and design lor compre/ti'l1sive 

improvements or modifications to existing improl'emeniS ill Ihe coastal area (~f 

Mississippi in the intere.w (~f hurricane and storm damage reducfion, prcl'el11ion ()f 

saltl1'aler i11lrusiol1. preservation offish and wildlife. prevention (){erosiol1, and other 

related waleI' resource purposes alfull Federal expi'l1se: Prol'idedfUriher. that the 

Secretary shall recommend a cost-~t!ectil'e proiect. hut shall /lot per/emn an 

incremental hel1~fll-cost analysis to idemf6· Ihl! recommended pl'l!ieCI, {lnd shall not 

make projectl'ccommendations based upon marimizing net natiol1al economic 

developmem henefils: Prol'ided.fitrlh,'r. Ihat interim recmmnel1tialiollsfur near term 

improvements shall be provided within 6 months o.(enactmenl of/his £lei with/ina1 

recommendations wiThin 24 months o(lhis enactmenT. " 

Pre-construction engineering and design and additional studies will be initiated upon 

Congressional authorization. 

2. The Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program Comprehensive Plan. hereinal1er referred to 

as the MsCiP Comprehensive l'lan, is a systemwide approach linking structural and 

llonstructural hurricane and storm damage risk reduction elements with ecosystem restoration 

elements, all with the goal of providing for a coastal community that is more resilient to 

hurricanes and stanns, The MsCl1' Comprehensive Plan for hurricane and stom] damage risk 

reduction in coastal Mississippi was developed using a multiple lines-of-defense approach 

focusing all reducing hurricane and storm damages through barrier islands restoration. and 

employing beach front protection, wetland restoration, and floodplain evacuation concepts of the 

MsCIP Comprehensive Plan. The reporting officers identify 12 elements to aid recovery of 

coastal Mississippi that was severely dl!maged by the hurricanes of200S. Structural clements 

include restoring protective beaches and systems, restoring native habitats, and mising an 
171 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 85131A.104

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastallmprowments Program. Hancock. Harrison. and Jackson 

Counties. Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

existing levee. Non-structural elements include removing structures from floodplains or raising 

structures that are highly vulnerable to stonn damage. The hurricanes 01'2005 severely taxed the 

resources afloeal governments and institutions, making it unlikely that those resources could be 

cmploycd to implement these proposed recovery aClions without Federal assistance. ·l1m3, this 

package of 12 elements and the identified further feasibility studies will help the people or 

coastal Mississippi in their recovery. Implementation of the 12 elements would provide for the 

restoJ"dtion of over 3.()()O acres of coastal forest and wetlands. approximately 3() miles of beach 

and dune restoration. and floodproofing or acquisition of approximately 2.000 tracts within the 

IOO-year l1oodplain. 

3. The MsC1P Comprehensive Plan also includes recommendations for additional studies to 

address the longcr term needs over the next 30-40 years. These studies would evaluate the 

restoration of over 30.()OO acres of coastal forest. wetlands, beaches and dunes; sustainable 

rcstoration of the barrier islands; structural measures; and floodprooting or acquisition of over 

58.0()() tracls within the 1 ()O·year Hoodpiain. 

4. The reporting oflicers developed the recommended 12 elcments f(lr coastal Mississippi 

consistent with the direction provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 

(P.L. 109-148), dated 30 December 2005. In accordanct: with P.L. 109-148, the reporting 

ofticers found each of the 12 clements to be cost-effective. technically sound, and 

environmentally and socially acccptable. These 12 clements are described below and include 

two non-structural hurricane swnTI risk reduction elements, one structural hurricane and stonn 

damage risk reduction element, seven ecosystem restoration elements, and two coastal ecosystem 

restoration elemcnts. The additional studies that arc part ofthc MsCIP Comprehensive Plan 

could provide further improvements in the coastal area of Mississippi if implemented. 

Discussion of these studies is included in paragraphs 5 and 6. 

a. High Hazard Area Risk Reduction Program (HARP). This project clement consists of 

acquisition of approximately 2,O()() tracts which are at the highest risk of being damagcd by 

storm surge, demolition of existing slmctures. and retention of acquired tracts in an open space 

condition. The numbcr of tracts was based on an estimate of what could be acquired during a 

live year pcriod following the execution of the Project Partnership Agreement for 

implementation of this element. To the extent practicable, acquisition would be on a willing 

scllcr basis, but eminent domain could be utilized when determined to be W<lITanted. As 

described in the report. acquisition will be in c()mpliance with the provisions of the Unifonn 

Rdocations Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (P.L. 91-646). as amendcd, 

and the uniform regulations contained in 49 CFR, Part 24 including the provision of payment of 

relocation assistance benefits to e1igihle recipients. The tracts would include residentiaL 

commercial and unimproved traCls. In addition. buildings owned by the City of Moss Point that 

are used for municipal purposes will be replaced with buildings out of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMAJ designated Velocity Zone. Benefits ofthc IIARP include 

approximately $22.()()O,O()O $33.0()0.OOO in average annual hurricane and storm damage risk 
172 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 85131A.105

CECW~SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastal Improvements Progmm. Hancock. Harrison. and Jackson 

Counties, Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

reduction benefits, depending on the specific tracts acquired. At October 2008 price levels. the 

estimated first cost of this element is $407.860,000. The cost oflhis non-structural project 

element is allocated to hurricane and stoml damage risk reduction. In accordance with the 

provisions of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986). us amended, cost 

sharing would be 65-percenl Federal and 35-percel1l non-Federal. The Federal share of the 

estimated first cost of this element would be $265.110,000 ,md the non~Federal share would be 

$142.750.000. The estimated annual cost lor operation, maintenance, repair. replacement and 

rehabilitation nfthis project clement is $75,000 and is a I OO-pereent non-Federal responsibility. 

b. Waveland Floodproofing. This project element consists of elevating approximately 25 

residential structures in the City of Waveland. Mississippi that are detennined to be eligible fix 

Hoodprooting by elevation out of the I-percent chance slOnn event inundation leyeL Benefits of 

the Waveland Floodproofing include $224.000 in average annual hurricane and stonn damage 

risk reduction benefits. At October 2008 price levels. the estimated first cost of this element is 

$4,450.000. The cost of this element is allocated to hurricane and stonll damage risk reduction. 

In accordance with the provisions of WRDA 1986. as amended. cost sharing would be 65-

percent Federal and 35-pcreent non-Federal. The Federal share of the estimated first cost of this 

project element is $2.890.000 and the non-Federal share is S I.S60.()O(). Due to the non-structural 

nature of this element, the estimated annual costs i(Jr operation. maintenance. repair. replacement 

and rehabilitation are expected to be nominaL However any operation. maintenance. repair. 

replacement and rehabilitation that would be needed is a 100-percent non-Federal responsibility. 

c. Forrest (Forest) Heights Levee. This project element Ibr the Forrest llcights community 

in the Turkey Creek watcrshed of Gulfport. Mississippi consists of raising approximately 6.500 

linear feet of an existing l1on-Federallevee to a levee crest elevation of21 feet North Atlantic 

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD-88). An existing publicly owned park with a surface elevation 

of 12 to 14 feet NAVD-88 would be includ.:d in the plan to serve as a water detl,ntion area for 

temporary containment of rain fall during storm events. This recommended project clement wil! 

require the acquisition of two residential properlies within the existing community. Unavoidable 

adverse environmental impacts have been identified and the cost of acquisition and restoration of 

approximately 3 acres of mitigation is included in total estimated cost of this dement. Hurricane 

and storm damage risk reduction benefits arc estimated at $1 (I 1,000 to a historically significant 

minority community. In addition to these benefits. the levee would maintain cohesiveness ofthc 

historically signit1cant community. and preserve the culture and heritage of its predominantly 

minority residential population. At October 2()08 price levels. the estimated first cost of this 

element is $14.070,000. The cost oflhis element is allocated t() hurricane and storm damage risk 

reduction. In accordance with the provisions of WRDA 1986. as amended. cost sharing would 

be 65~perccnt Federal and 35-pcreent non-Federal. The Federal share oftht: estimated !irst .:ost 

of this project element is $9,150.000 and the non-Federal share is $4.920.000. The estimated 

annual cost j()f operation. maintenance, repair. replacement. and rehahilitation of this project 

clement is $114.000 and is a IO()-percent non-Federal responsibility. 
173 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 85131A.106

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Hancock. Harrison, and Jackson 

Counties, Mississippi, Comprehensive Plan Report 

d. Turkey Creek Ecosvstem Restoration. This project dement consists oCthe restoration of 689 

acres of an undeveloped site of degraded wet pine savannah habitat. Restoration of this area would 

provide an increase of 1,565 average alUlUal functional habitat units. These habitats have been 

idcntified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as habitats of high value for native species and as 

relatively scarce or becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ccoregiol1. Measures required to 

restore hydrology and natural vegetation on the site include filling drainage ditches. road removal. 

and controlled burning. Rare and threatened and endangered birds that are expected to utilize the 

areas following burning and regrowth include Henslow's sparrow. Bachman's sparrow. redcockaded woodpecker, and Mississippi Sandhill Crane. This restored ecosystem also may benefil 

the Mississippi Gopher frog and, in drier areas along ridges, the black pine snake and the gopher 

tortoise. At October 2008 price levels, the estimated lIrst cost of tbis element is $6.840,000. The 

cost of this project is allocated to ecosystem restoration. In accordance with the provisions of 

WRDA 1986, as amended, cost sharing would be 65-percent Federal and 35-percent non-Federal. 

The Federal share of the estimated f1rst cost of this project element is $4.450,000 and the nonFederal share is $2,390.000. The estimated annual cost for operation. maintenance, repair, 

replacement, and rehabilitation of this project element is $47,000 and is a 100-percent non-Federal 

n:spo!1sibility. Post-implementation monitoring of this ecosystem restoration element is projected to 

be conducted for no more than five years at a cost of less than I-percent of the total lIrst cost of the 

ecosystem restoration elements. Adaptive management of ecosystem restoration element is 

expected to cost no more than 3-pcrcent of the total first cost of the ecosystem restoration element. 

The cost of monitoring and adaptive management is included in the total estimated lIrst cost of this 

element. 

e. Dantzler Ecosystem Restoration. This project element consists of restoration of 385 acres of 

severely degraded wet pine savannah o\\l1ed by the State of Mississippi. Measures required to 

restore hydrology and natural vegetative habitat to the site include removal of existing hurricane 

debris and sedimentation, tilling drainage ditches, road removal, control of nOll-native species, and 

controlled burning. The proposed element would provide an increase of 1,244 average annual 

functional habitat units and restore the natural hydrologic character of the area. The site's location 

in proximity to the Pascagoula River delta, a Gulf Ecological Management Site. increases the value 

of this restoration element by minimizing the fracturing of biodiversity. At October 2008 price 

levels, the estimated first cost of this element is $2,210,000. The cost of this project is allocated to 

ecosystem restoration, In accordance with the provisions of WRDA 1986, as amended. cost sharing 

would be 65-percent Federal and 35-percent nOll-Federal. The Federal share of the estimated tlrst 

cost of this project element is $1 ,440.0()O and the non-Federal share is $770.()OO. The estimated 

annual cost for operation, maintenance, repair, replacement. and rehabilitation of this project 

element is $26.000 and is a lOO-percent non-Federal responsibility. Post-implementation 

monitoring of this ecosystem restoration element is projected to be conducted fbr no more than liw 

years at a cost of less than I-percent of the IOlal first cost or the ecosystem restoratioll clements. 

Adaptive management of ecosystem restoration element is expected to cosll1o more than 3-pcreenl 

ofthc total first C(lst of the ecosystem restoration element. The cost of monitoring and adaptive 

management is included in the lotal estimated lIrst cost of this clement. 

4 
174 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 85131A.107

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program. Hancock. Harrison. and Jacksoll 

Counties. Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

f Franklin Creek Ecosvstem Restoration. This project element includes restoration of hydrology 

and native habitats by removing ditches, excavating and removing existing roadbeds, installing 

culverts under U.S. Highway 90, control of non-native species. and controlled burning to restore 149 

acres located north and sonth of U.S. Highway 90 with critical wet pine savannah habitat. This area 

routinely floods with only a slight rainfall; thus, this would also provide additionaillood storage 

capacity by restoring the nalural habitat. Pine savannah wetlands provide floodwater retention. 

groundwater recharge. and water purification. This habitat is becoming fragmented and with the 

increased development. fire maintenance is increasingly harder to pcrfonn. The proposed clement 

would provide an increase of 516 average annual functional habitat units and restore the natural 

hydrology of the area. In addition, restoration of this area would provide for additional tlood 

storage capacity within the Grand Bay area reducing flooding severity within (he adjacent 

communities of Orange Grove and Pecan in Jackson County. The site'S location in proximity to the 

Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research 

Reserve (NERR) increases the value ofthi5 restoration element by minimizing the fracturing of 

biodiversity. Incidental hurricane and storm damage risk reduction beneJits would be realized from 

the removal of approximately 30 residential structures from the floodplain. At October 2008 price 

levels. the estimated first cost of this element is $1.860.000. The cost of this project is allocated to 

ecosystem restoration. In accordance with the provisions ofWRDA 1986, as amended. cost sharing 

would be 65-pcrccnt Federal and 35-percent non Federal. The Federal share of the estimated first 

cost of this project element is $1.210,000 and thl! non-Federal share is $650.000. The estimated 

annual cost lor operation, maintenance. repair. replacement. and rehabilitation of this project 

element is $11,000 and is a 100-percent non-Federal responsibility. Post-implementation 

monitoring of this ecosystem restoration element is projected to be conducted t1.1r no more than five 

years at a cost of less than I-percent of the total first cost of the ecosystem restoration clements. 

Adaptiw management of ecosystem restoration element is expected to cost no more than 3-perecllt 

of the tolal tirst cost of the ecosystem restoration clement. The cost of monitoring and adaptive 

management is included in the total estimated tirst cost of this element. 

g. Bayou Cum best Ecosystem Restoration. This project dement includes the acquisition of 

approximately 61 tracts. removal of 19 structures. excavation and removal of fiJI material (rom 

fomler home sites and adjacent lands, filling drainage ditches. control of non-native species, and 

planting with native emergent wetland species. Following acquisition of these tracts, 148 acres 

would be restored to emergent wetland (110 acres) and coastal scrub shrub habitat (38 acres). The 

estuarine wetland habitats provide nllrsery and foraging habitat that supports various species 

induding economically-important marine fishery species. sucb as black drum. spott<:d scatrout. 

snllthern Hounder, Gulf menhaden. bluctish. croaker. mullet. and blue crab. The proposed element 

would provide an increase of 637 average annual functional habitat units. The site' s proximity to 

Franklin Creek. Grand Bay NWR and Grand Bay NERR increases the value of this pfl.ljecl element 

by minimizing the fracturing of biodiversity. At Octoher 2008 price levels, the estimated tirst cost 

of this element is $25530.000. The cost ofthi5 pro.icct is allocated [0 ecosystem restoration. In 

accordance with the provisions of WRDA 1986. as amended. cost sharing would be (is-percent 

Federal and 35-pcrec11l non· Federal. The I:ederal share ofthe estimated tirst cost of this projt!ct 

5 
175 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 85131A.108

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastal Improvements Pmgram, Hancock. Harrison, and Jackson 

Counties. Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

element is $16,590.000 and (he non-Federal share is $8.940.000. The current estimated annual cost 

for operation. maintenance. repair. rcplacement. and rehabilitation of this project clement is 

$1 14.000 and is a I OO-percent non-Federal responsibility. Post-implementation monitoring of this 

ecosystem restoration element is projected to be conducted for no more than jive years at a cost of 

less than I-percent oflhe totaltirst cos\ofthc ecosystem restoration elemcnts. Adaptive 

management of ecosystem restoration element is expected to cost no more than 3-percent of the total 

first cost of the ecosystem restoldtion element. The cost of monitoring and adaptive management is 

included in the lotal estimated first cost of this clement. 

h. Admiral Island Ecosvstem Restoration. This project element consists of restoration of a 

severely degraded I 23-aere tidal wetJruld area owned by the State of Mississippi. Measures required 

to restore hydrology and native habitat to the area include excavating fill material, ftlling ditches, 

control or non-native species and planting native tidal emergent species. The proposed clement 

would provide an increase of 108 average annual functional habitat units. At October 2008 priee 

levels. the estimated jirst cost of this clement is $21.810.000. The cost of this project is allocated to 

ecosystem restoration. In accordance with the provisions of WRDA 1986. as amended. cost sharing 

would be 65-percent Federal and 35-perccnt non-FederaL The Federal share oflhe estimated first 

cost ofthi5 project element is $14,180.000 and the non-Federal share is $7,630.000. The current 

estimated annual cost for operation. maintenance. repair, replacement. and rehabilitation of this 

project element is $58.000 ruld is a 100-percent non-Federal responsibility, Post-implementation 

monitoring of this ecosystem restoration element is projected to be conducted for no 1110re than livc 

years at a cost ofles> than I-percent of the totallirst cost of the ecosystem restoration elements. 

Adaptive management of ecosystem restoration element is expected to cost no more than 3-perccnt 

of the totaljirst cost of the ecosystem restoration elemcnt The cost of 1110nitoring and adaptive 

management is included in the total estimated tirst cost of this element. 

1. Deer Island Ecosvstem Restoration. This project element includes actions that will 

complement existing Federal restoration projects by minimizing the fracturing of biodiversity. 

Measures include restoration of a portion of the northcm and southern shorelines of the island, and 

new slone training dikes to prevent future erosion. The proposed element would provide an 

additional 400 acres of highly productive estuarine wetlands. restore beach and dune habitat. create 

hard bottom habitat, reduce coastal erosion, and restore the coastal maritime torest This clement 

would produce an increase of2.125 average annual functional habitat units. In addition. the 

restoration of Deer Island provides incidental hurricane and slonn damage risk reduction benelits to 

the developed mainland Biloxi area, At Octoher 2008 price levels. the estimated lirst cost oflhis 

element is $21 ,520.000. The cost ofthis project is allocated to ecosystem restoration. In 

accordance with the provisions of WRDA 1986. as amended. cost sharing would be 65-percent 

Federal and 35-pcrccnt non-Federal. The Fed.:ral share of the estimated Ilrst cost (lflhis project 

element is $13,990,ODO and the non-Federal share is $7.530.000. All costs for operation, 

maintenance. repair. replacement and rehahilitation arc a I OO-percent non-Federal responsihility. 

Post-implementation monitoring of this ecosystem restoration clement is projected to be conducted 

for no more than live ycars at a COSl of less than I-percent of the total first cost of the ecosystem 

6 
176 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 85131A.109

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coaslallmprovcmcnts Program. Hancock. Harrison. and Jackson 

Counties. Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

restoration elements. Adaptive management of ecosystem restoration element is expected to cost no 

more than 3-perccn( of the total first cost ofthc ecosystem restoration clement. The cost of 

monitoring and adaptive management is included in the total estimated tirs! ,:ost ofthis element. 

j. Submerged Aguatic Vegetation Element. This element consists of mcasures designed to 

evaluate techniques tbr restoring submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V). an essential component 

of an estuarine ecosystem. Specifically. five acres ofSAVs in the Grand Bay National Estuarine 

Research Reserve (NERR) area that were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina will be restored using 

different techniques. The results will be used to guide and develop other SA V restoration 

projects that would be undertaken as future authorized clements of the overall Comprehcnsi ve 

Plan. At October 2008 price levels, the estimated first cos! of this element is $900,000. Cost 

sharing would be 65-percent Federal and 35-percent non-Federal. The Federal share of the 

estimated first cost of this measure is $590,000 and the non-Federal share is $310,000. 

k. Coast-wide Beach and Dune Ecosvstem Restoration. This project element consists of beach 

and dune improvements to approximately 30 miles of the 60 miles of existing beaches on the 

mainland coast. These improvements would include construction of 60-/()ol wide vegetated dune 

fields approximately 50 feet seaward of the existing seawalls. The element would provide 248 

average annual functional habitat units. These beach and dune areas are critical to nesting and 

resting shorebirds such as the State listed least tem and the threatened piping plover. [n addition to 

the ecological benefits, the dunes would provide incidental hurricane and gtoml damage risk 

reduction benefits particularly during smaller stonn events, tropical storms, and lower energy 

hurricanes. At October 2008 price levels. the estimated first cost of this element is $23.320,000. 

The cost of this project is allocated to ecosystem restoration. In aecord,mcc wilh the provisions of 

WRDA 1986. as amended. cost sharing would be 65-percent Federal and 35-percent non-Federal. 

The Federal share of the estimated first cost of this project element is $15.160,000 and the nonFederal share is $8.160,000. All costs for operation. maintenance. repair, replacement and 

rehabilitation are a I OO-pereent non-Federal responsibility. Post-implementation monitoring of this 

ecosystem restoration element is projected to be conducted for no more than five years at a cost of 

less than I-percent orthe total first cost orthe ecosystem restoration elements. Adaptive 

management of ecosystem restoration element is expected to cost IlO more than 3-perccnt of the total 

first cost oftne ecosystem restoration element. The cost of monitoring and adaptive management is 

included in the total estimated first cost of this clement. 

L Barrier Island Restoration. This project element consists of the placement of approximately 22 

million cubic yards of sand within the National Park Service '5 Gulf Islands National Seashore. 

Mississippi unit. Approximately 13 million cubic yards of s!md would be used to close a gap 

between East Ship Island and West Ship Island. originally opened by Hurricane Camille. through 

the construction of a low level dune system. The remaining 9 million cubic yards of sand would be 

placed in the littoral zones at the eastem cnds of Ship and Petit Bois Islands. This would result in 

the restoration of 1,150 acres of critical l:oaslal zone habitats. In accordance with the requests of the 

National Park Service, the closure ()f the Ship Island gap and placement of sand into the littoral 

zoncs would he undert.aken only once. and would not be nourished or otherwise maintained in the 

7 
177 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 85131A.110

CECW-SAO 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson 

Counties. Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

future. The restoration of Ship Island would provide over 400 average annual functional habitat 

units and help to ensure the sustainability of the Mississippi Sound ecosystem by maintaining 

salinity inflows from the Gulf of Mexico. The estuarine habitats provide nursery and [oraging 

habitat thm supports various species including economically-important marine fishery species, such 

as black drum. spotted seatfoUI. southern flounder, Gulf menhaden, bluefish, croaker. mullet, and 

blue crab. These estuarine-dependent organisms serve as prey for other important fisheries. such as 

mackerels. snappers. and groupers, and highly migratory species. such as billfishes and sharks. 

Incidental benefits associated with this clement include average annual hurricane and stonn damage 

risk reduction benefits 0[$20.000,000 to mainland Mississippi. $470.000 in average annual 

recreation benefits, and $43.000,000 in average annual fishery benefits to Mississippi Sound. The 

placement of sand would also provide incidental protection to two cultural sites listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. At October 2008 price levels, the estimated cost of this 

element is $479,710,000. The cost of this element is allocated to ecosystem restoration. Cost 

sharing would be 65-perccnt federal and 35-percent non-Federal. The federal share orthc 

estimated cost of this project element is $311.810.000 and the non-Federal share is $167,900.000. 

5. Further Detailed Investigations of Remaining Elements o[the Comprehensive Plan. The 

MsCIP Comprehensive Plan describes a number of additional components that could provide 

further improvements in the coastal area of Mississippi if implemented. Ilowever. these 

components are not recommended for authorization for construction at thjs time because further 

feasibility level analysis under additional study authority would be required to support a 

recommendation for construction authorization. Consequently. the reporting omcers 

recommended additional feasibility level studies as part of the MsCIP Comprehensive Plan. 

nlcse follow-on feasihility studies would evaluate the potential {or restoration of over 30,000 

acres of coastal forest. wetlands. beaches and dunes; restoration of barrier islands; structural 

measures; and !1oodpwofing of structures on. or acquisition of. over 58.000 tracts within the 100 

year floodplain. The reporting officers worked closely with other Federal agencies. the State of 

Mississippi. environmental groups. stakeholders, and interested parties to ensure that the 

program recommended for implementation best meets the goals and o~iectivcs of the MsCIP 

Comprehensive Plan consistent with the Congressional authorization. The total study cost oflhe 

recommended follow-on feasibility level studies is estimated to be $143.200.000. which would 

be cost shared on a 50·percent Federal and 50-percent non-Federal basis consistent with cost 

sharing provisions of Section 105 of WRDA 86. as amended. Follow·on analysis would include: 

• 6 additional ecosystem restoration swdies to restore the hydrology and native 

habitat on undeveloped state owned property. 

• Long-term High Hazard Area Risk Reduction Program element to evaluate the 

further acquisition of high risk properties. 

• Escatawpa River Freshwater Diversion to evaluate a variety of freshwater 

diversion scenarios to restore wet pine savannah habitat and reduce salinities in 

Grand l3ay. 

8 
178 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 85131A.111

.. 

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi CoastallmprovclIlcnts Program. Hancock. Harrison. and jackson 

Coumics. Mississippi. Comprehensive !'Ian Report 

• 30 long-term ecosystcm restoration and hurricane and gtom1 damage risk 

reduction studies to restore the hydrology and natural habitat and reduce storm 

damages in developed residential areas. 

• 7 hurricane and stOrll1 damage risk reduction studies to evaluate additional 

hurricane and storm damage risk reduction opportunities in high density land usc 

areas. 

6. At October 2008 price levels. the estimated lirst cost of the 12 clements of the MsCl!' 

Comprehensive Plan recommended for authorization is $1.0 I 0.080,000, of which $656.550.000 

would be Federal and $353,530.000 would be non-Federal. The estimated first cost of the 

individual elements recommended for authorization is summarized below in Table I. The first 

cost oflhe recommended feasibility studies is estimated at $143,200.000. The estimated first 

C(lst of the individual studies recommended are summarized below in Table 2. 

Table 1 

Mississippi Coastallmprovcmcnts Program 

Cost Sharing (Odob~r 2008 Price Le\'l.~1) 

Phase I Recommended I'lao Element ------:=-. Total first federal Cost 1 Non-Federal 

Cost i Cost 

I'hase I liiJ!h Hazard Area Risk Reduction Plan ~j07 .860,000 $265,110.000 I $142,750.000 

Waveland FloodprootinJ! $4.450.000 $2,890.000 I $1,560.000 

Forrest Hei~hts Levee $14.070,000 $9,150,000 I $4.9~0.OOO 

Turkey Creek Ecosystem Restoration $6.840.000 $4,450.000 t $2.390.000 

Dantzler Ecosystel)1 Reslora.ti.o.~ ...... _ ..... $2.210.000 I $1.440,000 $770.000 

franklin Cf(.'ek Ecos~·stem Restoration - ,---""' 

.. __ ~1.860.000 1- $1.21 O.OO() .. ~ $650"Q~ 

Bayou Cumbest Ecosystem Restoration & 

Hurricane & Slonn Dama!,e Reduction $25530.000 $16.590,000 $8.940.000 

Admiral Island Ecosystem Restoration $21.810,000 $14.180,000 .. - $7.630.000 

._~<:e .. Island Ecos~stem Restoration $21.520.000 $13.990,000 $7,530,000 ._, 

Submcr!!ed Aguatic Vegetation Pilot Program $900.000 $S90,(lOO $310.000 

Coast-wide Beach and Dune Ecosystem 

Rf'<tnrnt;n" $23,320.000 $15.160,000 $8.160.000 

L , Barrier Island Restoration $479.710.000 $311.& I 0,000 $167.900.000 

Towl MsCIP I R.cQuest $1 ,010.080,000 ,-'" $§,~~,550.000 $353.530.000 

9 

-
179 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 85131A.112

CECW,SAIJ 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coaslallmprovements Program, lIancock, Harrison, and jackson 

C(lunties, Mississippi, Comprehensive Plan Report 

Tllble2 

Mississippi Coastlllimprovemcnts I'rogram 

Cost Sharing (October 200S Price Level) -------" 

Feasibility Studies t:stiUlllted Study ,ft, 

Cost F cdel'al Cost Cost 

l.ong.tenn High I!a~!!.~rea Risk B:~lIetion, $5 $2,500,000 $2500,000 

Escatawj?a River Freshwater Diversion $3.00(), $1.500,000 $1,500,000 

Ecos\'siem Restoration Studies "·~"_._.o_" 

$1.7()(),OOO $8S(),OOO , $850,000 

Long-term Ecosystem Restoration and ! 

Hurricane and Storm Dama!;e Risk Reduction _. $48.500,000 $~4,250,OOO 1 $24.~50,OO() 

Structural Hun'ieane and Storm Damage Risk 

Reduction $85,000.000 $42,500,OO() $42,S()(),OO() 

Total First Cost ofMsCIP Recommended 

Investigations $143,200,000 $7! .600,()00 $71,600.000 

7. In concert with the Corps Campaign Plan. the MsClP Comprehensive Plan wa~ developed 

utilizing a systematic and regional approach in formulating solutions and in evaluating the 

impacts and benefits of those solutions. All potential impacts. both adverse and beneficial. have 

been considered without regard to geographic boundaries, The MsC1P and Louisiana Coastal 

Protection and Restoration (LACPR) study teams collaborated fully their eft(Jrts ()n a systems 

scale to ensure consistency. A regi()nal salinity and water quality model has been developed 

covering an area from west of Lake Pontchartrain to east of Mobile Bay and south beyond the 

Chandeleur Islands in the Gulf. Regional stonn surge modeling has been applied to examine 

regional·scale changes to storm surge levels associated with several of the proposed project 

alternatives, A multi-disciplinary risk assessment team was assembled by the Corps to 

characterize the probabilities of different hurricanes that can impacl the northern Gulf of Mexico 

region, The risk assessment team supported both the MsCIP and LACPR work and FEMA '$ 

remapping efforts. and developed a unified general coastal Jlooding methodology thai is heing 

applied by U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) and FEMA, 

8. Independent External Peer Review tIEPR) of the MsC!I' Comprehensive Plan was managed 

by Battelle Memorial Institute, a non.proHl science and technology organization with experience 

in establishing and administering peer review panels for the Corps, The IEPR panel consisted of 

seven individuals selected by Baucllc with technical expertise in engineering (civil and 

geotechnical); geology/geomorphology; hydrology; hydraulics; coastal environmental science, 

water quality/resource management; I1nodplain management meteorology/hurricanes: 

socioeconomics: real estate: ri~k assessment; and modeling, The Final Report from the IEPI{ 

panel was issued November 7, :;008 and included 14 tinal comments. Overall. the lEI'£{ pane! 

found the MsClI' Comprehensive Plan is an impressive body of work that is wide-ranging in the 

scope of research used to infonn plan selection and recommendations, J lowever. they tt:!t that 

the plan could be improved by inclusioll of a concise statement of the projecfs long-tern1 vision 

1i.1f the fmure coastal landscape and a figure illustrating lhe project in the Executive Summary. 

The panel also acknowledged that there has been extcnsive outreach and C0111111tlnily engagement 

]0 

-
180 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 85131A.113

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastallmprovcmcnts Program. Hancock. Harrison. and Jackson 

Counties. Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

in the scoping process. The panel encouraged cominued Corps collaboration with the public, 

local and Federal agencies. and the inclusion of universities and research institutions to continue 

to infonn this plan. Support of local communities and slates should bc fostered as it is also a 

critical component to project success. Of the 14 IEPR comments identified by the panel, tbur 

were classified as high significance by the panel. This tirst comment recommended including a 

relined analysis in certain areas before design and build is conducted. In response, additional 

clarification was added to the report to indicate that a refined analysis would be undertaken in the 

ensuing project phases. The second commcnt requested providing additional explanations on the 

preliminary evaluations of hurricane stonn damage risk reduction, erosion control, and 

ecosystem restoration. In response, with assistance from recommendations in the IEPR report. 

the Comprehensive Plan was revised to provide further clarification in these !\Teas. The third 

comment recommended that the redevelopment scenarios should include a range of possible 

outcomes fbr the economy. In response, the team provided further explanations on the 

preliminary unalysis and possible outcomes for the redevelopment sccnarios. The fourth 

comment recommended that adaptive management processes should be a more integral part of 

the Comprehensive Plan and must include a strong monitoring and feedback mechanism. In 

response, the adaptive management process was further integrated into the Comprehensive Plan, 

along with recognitionlhat adaptive management will be developed more extensively in 

collaboration with others in the ensuing project phases. Eight ofthc (EPR panel comments wcre 

classified 3,.<; medium significance by the panel. They included clarifying the extent of inclusion 

of public and agency engagement into plan selection; including additional inliJrmation on future 

impacts to mUllicipal and industrial waste facilities: including additional detail on human 

adaptation, as it relates to economic activities; incinding additional explanations on sea level ris\!; 

inclnding a clearer description 011 how rciative sea level rise is incorporated; providing a clearer 

explanation on the physics-based models; providing further descriptions 011 the factors in model 

selection: and providing further explanation on why oysters were used as an indicator species. 

As a resull of these comments, additional discussions were added to the report to clarify these 

areas. including why decisions were made through the study process respective to these 

comments. The report was also revised to provide further explanation on the use of oysters as 

on!! of several indicator species that assisted in the identification of feasible alternatives. The 

final two comments from the IEPR panel were classified as low significance. They included 

reevaluating the goal 10 reduce loss of life by 100% as it is unrcalistic Ji.lr the project: and to 

clarify the process for weighting metrics, both of which were addressed with modifications to the 

report. While the goal to reduce loss oflife by !()O% remained in the study, additional 

discussion was added to the report to state that residual risk will remain with any type of plan in 

place. and to emphasize the roles of all partners in addressing and communicating rcsidual risk. 

induding thc need for a well coordinated hurricane evacuation plan. 

9. Washink'lo!l level review indicatcd that the project is technically sound. environmcntally 

aceeptahle. and cost efTee!iv.:. The plan con!lmns with essential elements of the U.S. Water 

Resourecs Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and 

Related Land Rcsources Implementation studies and complies wilh other administration and 

II 
181 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 85131A.114

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastal Improvcments Program. Hancock. Harrison, and Jackson 

Counties. Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

legislative policies and guidelines. Also, the views or interested parties, including Federal. State 

and local agencies have heen considered. 

10. One or more of the 12 elements of the MsCIP Comprehensive Plan recommended in this 

report to be authorized for implementation may be implcmentablc pursuant to statutory language 

included in Tille IV of the Supplement.11 Appropriations Act. 2009 (Public Law 111-32) under 

the heading "Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies" that was enacted on June 24. 2009 (see 

123 Stat. 1875-1876). Aoalysis as to which element Of elements may be implemented pursuant 

[0 lhallanguage is ongoing. 

I L I find that the reporting ofticers have addressed the provisions ofP.L J09-148, and I 

generally concur in their findings. conclusions. and recommendations. Accordingly, I 

recommend that the 12 elements described herein be authorized for implementation in 

accordance with the reporting officers' plan, with such modifications as in the discretion of the 

Chief of Engineers may be advisable. I further recommend that the additional studies as 

described herein be authorized subject to cost sharing, tlnancing. and other applicable 

requirements of Fedcral and Slate laws and policies, including WRDA J 986, as amended. '111i5 

recommendation of authorization for implementation of the 12 elements is subject to cos! 

sharing, financing, and other applicable requirements of Federal and Slate laws and policies. 

including WRDA 1986. as amended, and with the non-Federal sponsor agreeing (0 comply with 

applicable Federal law and policies. and with the following requirements: 

a. Provide 35 percent of lola I project costs allocated to hurricane and stonn damage risk 

reduction, as further specified below: 

(l) Provide 25 percent of design costs allocated to hurricane and storm damage risk 

reduction in accordance with the temlS of a design agreement entered into prior to 

commencement of dcsign work for a project elemcnllor hurricane and storm damage risk 

reduetion; 

(2) Provide. during the tirst year of construction of a project clement fbI' hurricane and 

slonn damage risk reduction. any additional funds necessary to pay the full non-Federal share of 

design costs allocated to hurricane and storm damage reduction; 

(3) Provide all lands, easements. and rights-of·way, including those required for 

relocations, the borrowing of material. and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; 

perfonn or ensure the pcrfomlance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required on 

lands. easements. and rights-ol:way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as 

delennined by the Government to be required or to be necessary lor the con:;truction. opcnltion, 

and maintenance or a project element filr hurricane and storm damage risk reduction: 

12 
182 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 85131A.115

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mi,sissippi Coaslallmprovements Program. Ilancock. Harrison. and Jackson 

Counties. Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Rt!port 

(4) Provide:, during construction of a project element for hurricane and storm damage 

risk reduction. any additional funds necessary to make its total contribution for hurricane and 

s\OTIn damage risk reduction equal to .15 percent of total project costs allocated to hurricane and 

storm damage risk reduction; 

b. Provide 35 percent of lotal project costs allocated to ecosystem restoration, as lurther 

specified below: 

(I) Provide 25 percent of design costs allocated to ecosystem restoration in accordance 

with the tenus of a design agreement entered into prior to commencement of design work fur a 

pro.jec! elemenll()r ecosystem restoration; 

(2) Provide, during the first year of construction of a project element ti)r ecosystem 

restoration, any additional funds necessary to pay the fullnon-rederal share of design costs 

allocated to ecosystem restoration; 

(3) Provide alllHnds, easements, and rights-of-way. inclnding those required j()r 

relocations. the borrowing of material. and the disposal of dredged or excavated material: 

perfon11 or ensure the perlulmance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required on 

lands. easements, and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as 

determined by the Government to be required or to be necessary tor the construction. operation. 

and maintenance of a project element f(x ecosystem restoration; 

(4) Provide. during construction of a project element for ecosystem restoration, any 

additional funds necessary to makc its total contribution tor ecosystem restoration equal to 35 

percent oftotal project costs allocated to ecosystem restoration; 

c. Shall not use funds 1rom other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share therefore. to meet any oflhe non-Federal obligations fbr a project 

element unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in writing 

that expenditure of such funds for such purpose is authorized; 

d. Shall not usc a project element for ecosystem restoration or lands, easements. and rights-ol~ 

way required for a project element for ecosystem restoration as a wetlands bank or mitigation 

credit ftlf any other project or project clement: 

e. Notle>s than once each year. inf()nu affected intcrests of the extent ofprolection afforded 

b)' the project elements for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction; 

f: Agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal noodplain management and 

l100d insurance programs for project elements for hurricane and storm damage risk reduction: 

13 
183 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 85131A.116

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison. and Jackson 

Counties. Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

g, Comply with Section 402 o[(he Water Resources Development Act or 1986. as amended 

(33 U,S.c. 701 b-12). which requires a non-Federal interest to prepare a floodplain management 

plan within one year allcr the date of signing a project partnership agreement. and to implement 

such planllot later than one year after completion of construction of a project element lor 

hurricane and storm damage risk reduction; 

h. Publicize f100dplain infonnation in the area e\)ncerncd and provide this inf()rmation to 

zoning and other regulatory agencies fhr their use in adopting regulations. or taking other 

actions, to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels 

provided by a project element for hurricane and stonn damage risk reduction; 

i. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on a project element (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstructions or encwachments) such as any new 

devdopments on project element lands. easements, and rights-of-way or the addition of facilities 

which might reduce the level of protection a project element affords. reduce the outputs 

produced by a project element. hinder operation and maimenance of a project element, (lr 

interfere with a project element's proper function; 

l Comply with all applicable provisions of the Unifonn Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Public Law 91-646. as amended (42 U.S.c. 4601-

4655). and the Unifonn Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24. in acquiring lands. easements. 

and rights-of-way required for construction. operation. and maintenance of a project element, 

including those necessary f()[ relocations. the borrowing of materials, or the disposal of dredged 

or excavated material; and infonn all atlectcd persons of applicable bencfits, policies, and 

procedures in connection with said Act; 

k. For so long as a project element remains authorized, operate. maintain. repair. rehabilitate. 

and replace the project clement. or functional portions of the project element. including any 

mitigation features. at no cost to the Federal Government, in a manner compatible with the 

projeet element's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws 

and regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the Federal Government; 

I. Give the Federal Government a right to enter. at reasonable times and ill a reasonable 

manner. upon property that the non, Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to a project 

clement for the purpose of complcting. inspecting. operating, maintaining. repairing. 

rehabilitating. or replacing the project element; 

m. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction. 

opemtiol1. maintenance. repair, rehabilitation. and replacement of a project element and any 

bctterments. except for damagt" due to the fault or n.:gligence orthc Unitcd States or its 

con tractors; 

14 
184 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 85131A.117

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program. Hancock. Harrison. and Jackson 

Coumies_ Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

n. Keep and maintain books. records. documents. or other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to a project element. for a minimum of three years aner eomp.ietion 

of the accounting for which such books. records. documents. or other evidence are required, to 

the extent and in such detail as will properly renect total project costs. and in accordance with 

the standards for financial management systems set fi:)fth in the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 33.20: 

o. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. including, but not 

li!l1il~xI to; Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.c. 2000d) 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto: Anny Regulation 600-7. 

entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department of the Anny"; and all applicable Federal labor standards 

requirements including. but not limited to. 40 U.S.C. 3141- 3148 and 40 U.S.c. 3701 - 3708 

(revising. codifying and enacting without substantial change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon 

Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 276a CI seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

(fonneriy 4(l U.S.c. 327 el seq.) and (he Copcland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276c 

('I seq.); 

p. Perform. or ensure performance 01: any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), that may exist in, on. or 

under lands. casements, or rights-of~way that the Federal Government detemlines to be required 

for construction, operation, and maintenance of a project element However. for lands thaI the 

Federal Government deternlines to bc subject (0 the navigation servitude, oilly the Federal 

Government shall perfl)rm such investigations unless the Federal Government provides the 

non' Federal sponsor with prior spedne written direction, in which case the non-Federal sponsor 

shall pcrfonn such investigations in accordance with such written direction; 

q, Assume, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, complete 

financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances 

regulated undcr CERCLA that are located in, on, or under lands. casements, or rights-or.way that 

the Federal Government determines to be required f<)r construction, operation, and maintenance 

of a project element: 

r. Agree, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor. that the 

!lon-Federal sponsor shall be considered the operator of a project clement for the purpose of 

CERCLA liability, and to the maximum extent prdcticable. operate, maintain, repair. rehabilitate. 

and replace the project element in a manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA: 

and 

15 
185 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 85131A.118

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson 

Countics, Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan Report 

s. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U,S.C, 1962d-5b), and Section 103(j) of the Water Resources Developmcnt Act of 1986, 

Public Law 99·662, as amended (33 U .S.c. 2213(j), which provides that the Secretary of the 

Army shall not commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element 

thereof: until each non-Federal interest has entered into a written agreement to furnish its 

required cooperation for the project or separable element 

12. The recommendations contained herein rellect the information available at this time and 

current Departmental policies governing fonnulation ofindividual projects. Thcy do not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the tormulation of a national Civil Works 

construction program nor the perspective of higher review levels within the Executive Branch, 

Consequently, the recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to the 

Congress as proposals for authorization and implementation funding, However, prior to 

transmittal to the COnb'fCSS, the non-Federal sponsor, the State, interestt.'(\ Federal agencies, and 

other parties will be advised of any modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to 

eomment further. 

Lieutenant General, U 

Chief of Engineers 

16 
186 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 85131A.119

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

CEMP-NAD (1105-2-10a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

441 G STREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, DC 20314-1000 

AUG 24 2009 

SUBJECT: Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, 

Dorchester County, Maryland 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

1, I submit for transmission to Congress my report on ecosystem restoration in the Middle 

Chesapeake Bay at James and Barren Islands, It is accompanied by the report of the Baltimore 

District Engineer and the North Atlantic Division Engineer. These reports are a partial response 

to a resolution by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, adopted 5 June 

1997, The resolution requested that the Secretary review the report of the Chief of Engineers on 

the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland and Virginia, published as House Document 176, Eighty-eighth 

Congress, First Session, and other pertinent reports with a view to conducting watershed 

management studies, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, the State of Maryland and the 

State of Delaware, their political subdivisions and agencies and instrumentalities thereof, of 

water resources improvements in the interest of navigation, flood control, hurricane protection, 

erosion control, environmental restoration, wetlands protection, and other allied purposes in 

watersheds of the Eastern Shore, Maryland and Delawarc, The Eastern Shore, Maryland (MD) 

and Delaware (DE) Section 905(b) analysis concluded that a Federal interest existed to assess the 

needs and opportunities within the study area and recommcnded a variety of potential projects 

for further study. The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Study was initiated 

specifically to evaluate protecting and/or restoring island habitat loss because of erosion and 

subsidence through the beneficial use of dredged material, as recommended in the Section 905 (b) 

analysis, 

2, Land subsidence, rising sea level, and wave action arc causing valuable remote island habitats 

to be lost throughout the Chesapeake Bay, Approximately 10,500 acres of island habitat has 

been lost in middle-eastern portion of Chesapeake Bay in the last 150 years, and should present 

island loss rates continue in the future, it is estimated that most remote island habitats will 

disappear from the Mid-Chesapeake Bay region within 20 years. The Mid-Chesapeake Bay 

Island Ecosystem Restoration Project consists of constructing environmental restoration projects 

at both James and Barren Islands, The reporting officers recommend authorizing a plan that will 

restore 2,144 acres of remote island habitat (2,072 acres at James Island and 72 acres at Barren 

Island), while also protecting approximately 1,325 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V) 

habitat adjacent to Barren Island and providing approximately 90 to 95 million cubic yards, or 

approximately 28 to 30 years, of dredged material placement capacity, Through the beneficial 

use of dredged material, the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project would 

replace hundreds of acres of lost wetland and upland remote island habitat. This habitat would 

pnntedOn$ReCycleCJpaper 
187 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 85131A.120

CEMP-NAD (l105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, 

Dorchester County, Maryland 

improve productivity in the surrounding area, while providing an environmentally sound method 

for the use of dredged material from the Chesapeake Bay approach channels to the Port of 

Baltimore. Cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis teclmiques were used to evaluate 

alternative ecosystem restoration plans. Since the recommended plan would not have any 

significant adverse effects, no mitigation measures (beyond management practices and 

avoidance) or compensation measures would be required. Thc recommended plan is the most 

efficient and cost-effective of the alternatives considered and provides substantial environmental 

benefits. The recommended plan is the national ecosystem restoration plan (the NER plan). 

3. The incremental cost of the disposal of dredged material for ecosystem restoration purposes 

over the least cost, environmentally acceptable method of disposal is shared in accordance with 

Section 210 ofWRDA 1996 (PL 104-303). Project cost sharing for ecosystem restoration 

requires that the non-Federal sponsor provide 35 percent of the cost associated with construction 

of the project for the protection, restoration, and creation of aquatic and ecologically related 

habitats, including provision of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and necessary relocations. 

Cost sharing for recreation features requires that the non-Federal sponsor provide 50 percent of 

the cost associated with construction cost. Recreation facilities will be constructed on existing 

project lands required for the environmental restoration. Further, the non-Federal project 

sponsor must pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 

rehabilitation costs associated with the project. 

4. The Maryland Port Administration, under the auspices of the Maryland Department of 

Transportation is the non-Federal sponsor for the project. Thc estimated total first cost including 

contingencies for the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project is $1.612 

billion based on October 2008 price levels. The Federal share ofthe total project costs would be 

$1.045 billion for the Federal government (65 percent) and $567 million for the non-Federal 

sponsor (35% percent). Operations, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement 

(OMRR&R) costs for the completed project are projected to be less than 2 percent of the total 

project cost and would be a non-Federal responsibility. The first costs of the recornmended 

recreation facilities are estimated at $210,000. The Federal Government and the non-Federal 

sponsor would each share 50 percent of the cost or $105,000. Since the recreation features are 

not planned to be constructed until the project is largely complete, OMRR&R costs would be 

incurred beyond to period of analysis for the project and so are not included in the project cost. 

5. The cost of the recommended environmental restoration plan is justified by the restoration of 

2,144 acres of remote island habitat (2,072 acres at James Island and 72 acres at Barren Island), 

the protection of approximately 1,325 acres of SA V habitat adjacent to Barren Island, and 

achieving habitat increases in the most cost-effective manner. The habitats constructed as part of 

the Mid-Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project will restore additional remote island habitat, a scarce 

and rapidly vanishing ecosystem niche within the Chesapeake Bay region that provide a vital 

2 
188 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 85131A.121

CEMP-NAD (1I05-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, 

Dorchester County, Maryland 

connection for avian species between open-water and mainland terrestrial habitats within the 

region and provide valuable nesting habitat for a variety of colonial nesting and wading bird 

species. Protection of the extensive SA V beds east of Barren Island will provide nursery habitat 

for blue crabs and many species of commercially important finfish species, while also providing 

foraging habitat for waterfowl. The restoration projects at James and Barren Islands would 

contribute to the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program watershed partnership through its habitat 

and ecosystem recovery and preservation efforts. Both James and Barren Islands would 

contribute to the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement goals to restore tidal and non-tidal wetlands, to 

protect and restore submerged aquatic vegetation, and to develop strategies to address water 

clarity in areas of critical importance for submerged aquatic vegetation. 

6. The Corps of Engineers uses a Campaign Plan to establish priorities, focus transformation 

initiatives, measure and guide progress, and adapt to the needs of the future. The second of four 

goals of the Campaign Plan is to deliver enduring and essential water resource solutions through 

collaboration with partners and stakeholders. In developing this project, the Corps of Engineers 

has focused its talents and energy on a comprehensive, sustainable and integrated solution to the 

one of the Chesapeake Bay's greatest water resources and related challenges, and has 

accomplished this through collaboration with a diverse group of organizations and individuals, 

ranging from large government agencies to local watennen making their living on the 

Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of James and Barren Islands. They included numerous local, 

State, and Federal agencies; defined groups such as watennen's, fishennen's, and boating 

associations; and private citizens. Through trus substantial network of stakeholders and the 

beneficial use of dredged material, trus project is an integrated and holistic solution that not only 

sustains one of the Nation's most productive ports, but ensures that the invaluable remote island 

habitat that the project is restoring in the Nation's largest estuary is equally sustainable. 

7. The plan as developed is technically sound, economically efficient, and environmentally and 

socially acceptable. The plan confonns with essential elemcnts of the U.S. Water Resources 

Council's 1983 Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related 

Land Resources Implementation Studies and complies with other administration and legislative 

policics and guidelines. The development of this project benefited from an extensive review 

process that included the District Quality Control by the Baltimore District, Agency Technical 

Review by the Philadelphia District, and an Independent External Peer Review. District Quality 

Control reviewed basic science and engineering products. The Agency Technical Review was an 

in-depth review by senior Corps personnel to ensure the proper application of clearly established 

criteria, regulations, laws, codes, principles, and professional practices. In addition, the primary 

benefit model, the Island Community Units Model, was reviewed by the Corps of Engineers 

National Ecosystem Planning Center of Expertise and the Engineer Research and Development 

Center. Approval ofthe application of the Island Community Units model was recommended 

for the Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. It was also detennined that 

3 
189 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 85131A.122

CEMP-NAD (l105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, 

Dorchester County, Maryland 

use of the model for future projects would require additional documentation supporting model 

assumptions, justification of guild weightings, and a sensitivity anal ysis of individual guild 

models and guild weighting. 

8. The Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) was managed by an outside eligible 

organization that assembled a panel of four experts in the fields of engineering, estuarine 

ecology, economics and plan formulation, and hydrology. Ultimately, the panel identified and 

documented 14 comments. Four were classified as low significance and included comments 

about the influence of climate change on design, the addition of figures to the main body of the 

report, citations for restoration literature, and clarification of the location for dredged material in 

the most probable future without project condition. These comments were addressed with minor 

modifications to the feasibility report. Eight of the comments were classified as medium 

significance. They included the level of rigor/review of the preferred alternative; the use of a 

sensitivity analysis and the documentation of risk and uncertainty; the schedule for establishment 

of a fully functioning marsh; further discussion of the link between the need and scale of the 

project with the target volume of dredged material; description of the environmental monitoring; 

connectivity between the salt marsh and the estuary; inclusion of climate change, sea level rise, 

and invasive species in the Adaptive Management Plan; and potential discounting of 

environmental outcomes over the project lifetime. As a result, clarification was added to the 

report, a cost and schedule risk assessment was conducted, and a detailed monitoring plan and 

Adaptive Management Plan are being developed with the assistance of the panel's 

recommendations. The remaining two panel comments were determined to be of high 

significance. One concero was that the analysis of environmental benefits was biased by the 

failure to subtract quantitative habitat injuries, making the selection process and justification of 

the preferred alignment unreliable. In response, the team worked with fishery managers to 

quantifY adverse impacts from filling the water column and benthic habitat and provided a 

discussion to support the conclusions produced by the plan formulation selection process using 

net benefits. The second concern was that water quality impacts associated with construction and 

the potential negative impacts of resettled suspended sediment were not addressed. As suggested 

by the IEPR reviewers, the team prepared an assessment that considered sediment re-suspension, 

transport, and deposition, and oyster and submerged aquatic vegetation requirements to assess 

construction impacts for Barren and James Islands. Federal and State resource agencies were 

involved in the planning and assessment of impacts. The team concluded that there will be no 

significant turbidity or environmental impacts to the oyster bars or submerged aquatic vegetation 

from construction at Barren or James Islands. . 

9. The views of interested parties, including Federal, State and local agencies, have been 

considered. Specific requests have been made for additional coordination with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service as detailed designs proceed on the 

4 
190 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 85131A.123

CEMP-NAD (l105-2-1Oa) 

SUBJECT: Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, 

Dorchester County, Maryland 

project. USACE has agreed to continue close coordination with these agencies and other 

affected parties as the design and construction process continues. 

10. I concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend implementation of the authorized project in accordance with the 

reporting officers' plan with such modifications as in the discretion ofthe Chief of Engineers 

may be advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other 

applicable requirements ofWRDA 1986, as amended. The non-Federal sponsor would provide 

the non-Federal cost share and all LERRD. Further, the non-Federal sponsor would be 

responsible for all OMRR&R. This recommendation is subject to the non-Federal sponsor 

agreeing to comply with all applicable Federal laws and policies, including the following 

requirements: 

a. Provide a minimum of35 percent of total ecosystem restoration costs as further specified 

below: 

1) Provide 25 percent of design costs allocated by the Government to ecosystem 

restoration in accordance with the terms of a design agreement entered into prior to 

commencement of design work for the project; 

2) Provide, during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to pay the 

full non-Federal share of design costs allocated by the Government to ecosystem restoration; 

3) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including suitable borrow, and 

perform or ensure the performance of all relocations determined by the Federal Government to 

be necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project; 

4) Provide all improvements required on lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable 

the proper placement of dredged or excavated material associated with the construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the project; 

5) Provide, during construction, any additional amounts as are necessary to make its total 

contribution at least 35 percent of ecosystem restoration costs. 

b. Provide 50 percent of total recreation costs as further specified below: 

I) Provide 25 percent of design costs allocated by the Government to recreation in 

accordance with the terms of a design agreement entered into prior to commencement of design 

work for the project; 

2) Provide during the first year of construction, any additional funds necessary to pay the 

non-Federal share of design costs allocated by the Government to recreation; 

3) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for 

relocations, and borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; 

5 
191 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 85131A.124

CEMP-NAD (1 105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, 

Dorchester County, Maryland 

perform or ensure the performance of all relocations; and construct all of the improvements 

required on lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated 

materials all as determined by the Government to be required or to be necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the recreation features; 

4) Provide, during construction, any funds necessary to make its total contribution for 

recreation equal to 50 percent of the recreation costs; 

5) Provide during construction, 100 percent of the total recreation costs that exceed an 

amount equal to 10 percent of the Federal share of total ecosystem restoration costs. 

c. For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, replace, and 

rehabilitate the project, or functional portion of the project, at no cost to the Federal Government, 

in a marmer compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable 

Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific directions prescribed by the Federal 

Government. 

d. Shall not use the project or project lands, easements, and rights-of-way as a wetland bank 

or mitigation credit required for another project. 

e. Provide and maintain recreation features and public use facilities open and available to all 

on equal terms. 

f. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

marmer, upon property that the non-Federal sponsor, now or hereafter, owns or controls for 

access to the project for the purpose of inspection, and, if necessary after failure to perform by 

the non-Federal sponsor, for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, 

replacing, or rehabilitating the project. No completion, operation, maintenance, repair, 

replacement, or rehabilitation by the Federal Government shall operate to relieve the non-Federal 

sponsor of responsibility to meet the non-Federal sponsor's obligations, or to preclude the 

Federal Government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to ensure faithful 

performance. 

g. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, 

operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project and any project 

related betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its 

contractors. 

h. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of three years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents, or other evidence are required, to the 

6 
192 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 85131A.125

CEMP-NAD (1105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, 

Dorchester County, Maryland 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in accordance with the 

standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 

CFR Section 33.20. 

i. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identifY the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), PL 96-510, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, 

casements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance ofthe project. However, for lands that the Federal 

Govcrnment determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Federal Government 

shall perform such investigations unless the Federal government provides the non-Federal 

sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which case, the non-F ederal sponsor shall 

perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction. 

j. Assume, as between the Federal government and the non-Federal sponsor, complete 

financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA regulated 

substances located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal 

Government determines to be necessary for the construction, operation, or maintenance of the 

project. 

k. Agree, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, the non-Federal 

sponsor shall be considered the operator of the project for the purpose ofCERCLA liability. To 

the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the project in 

a manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA. 

1. Comply with the applicable provisions ofthe Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91 -646, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601 -

4655), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way, required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, 

including those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of materials, or the placement of 

dredged or excavated material, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, 

and procedures under said Act. 

m. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to: Section 601 of -the Civil Rights Act of 1964, PL 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d); 

Department of Defense Directive 5500.1 1 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulation 600-7, 

entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department of the Army;" and all applicable Federallabor standards including, 

7 
193 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 85131A.126

CEMP-NAD (II05-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Project, Chesapeake Bay, 

Dorchester County, Maryland 

but not limited to, 40 U.S.c. 3141 -48 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-08 (reversing, codifying, and 

enacting without substantial change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 

267a et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et 

seq.) and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 276c et seq.), 

II. The recommendation contained hercin rcflccts the information availablc at this timc and 

currcnt dcpartmental policies govcming formulation of individual projects. It docs not reflcct 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in thc formulation of a national civil works 

construction program nor the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to the 

Congress, the sponsors, the State, interested Fedcral agencies, and othcr parties will be advised 

of any modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

8 
194 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 85131A.127

REPLY TO 

A TTENTlON OF: 

CECW-SAD (J 105-2-10a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314·1000 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project, Hendry County, Florida 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on ecosystem restoration improvements for 

the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, located in Hendry 

County, Florida. It is accompanied by the report of the district and division engineers. These 

reports are in response to Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 

2000, which authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a framework 

for modifications and operational changes to the Central and Southern Florida Project that are 

needed to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other 

water-related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection. WRDA 2000 

identified specific requirements for implementing components of the CERP, including 

development of a decision document known as a Project Implementation Report (PIRl. The 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project is a component of the CERP 

that was not specifically authorized in that Act. The authority for the preparation of the 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project Implementation Report 

(PlR), one of a number of site-specific projects, is contained in Section 601(d) of WRDA 2000. 

Congress may authorize the project following review and approval of a PIR by the Secretary of 

the Army. The requirements of a PIR are addressed in this report. Preconstruction engineering 

and design activities for this Project will be continued under the existing CERP Design 

Agreement. 

2. The PIR recommends a project that significantly contributes to two of the ecologic goals and 

objectives of the CERP: improving habitat and functional quality and improving native plant 

and animal species abundance and diversity. In addition, it contributes to the socioeconomic 

objective of providing recreational and navigation opportunities. Scientists have established that 

a mosaic of uplands, freshwater marsh, deep water sloughs, and estuarine habitats supporting a 

diverse community of fish and wildlife was one of the defining characteristics of the predrainage Everglades ecosystcm. Currently in south Florida, habitat function and quality has 

significantly declined in remaining natural system areas due to water management projects and 

practices, resulting in a loss of suitable nesting, foraging, and fisheries habitat and a decline in 

native species diversity and abundance. The PIR confirms information in the CERP and 

provides project-level evaluation of costs and benefits associated 'With construction and 

operations of a reservoir. Constructing and opemting a reservoir would reduce the extreme 

salinity changes in the Caloosahatchee Estuary by providing a more consistent flow of fresh 

water discharging at S-79 into the Caloosahatchee River Estuary. The extreme fresh water 
195 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 85131A.128

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, Hendry County, 

Florida 

fluctuations are due to fresh water flows from basin runoff and releases from Lake Okeechobee. 

Due to the advanced land acquisition activities conducted jointly by the Federal Government and 

the State of Florida, the Project can be implemented relatively quickly, significantly advancing 

the realization of project benefits in an area that has been degraded by past water management 

activities. 

3. The reporting officers recommend implementing the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West 

Basin Storage Reservoir to improve the ecological function of the Caloosahatchee Estuary by 

capturing and storing the excess surface water runoff from the Caloosahatchee River 

watershed (or C-43 Basin) and excess releases from Lake Okeechobee. Stored water will 

then be discharged to the estuary during the dry season to augment existing inadequate flows. 

The project site is located on farm land adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) canal in 

Hendry County and totals approximately 10,700 acres. The reservoir will require approximately 

10,480 acres of land in fee and 20 acres of perpetual channel easement. Approximately 200 

additional acres will be required on a temporary basis during project construction for staging 

areas. Approximately 7,080 acres of project lands were acquired with a 50 percent Federal costshare using funds appropriated via the 1996 Federal Farm Bill and the Land and Water 

Conservation Funds that were specifically designated for the acquisition of lands to restore the 

South Florida ecosystem. Major features of the reservoir include external (dam) embankments 

varying in height from 32-37 feet above existing grade, Soil-Bentonite slurry walls within and 

beneath the external embankments, an internal (dam) embankment separating the two reservoir 

cells with an approximate height of 31 feet above existing grade, an inflow pump station 

consisting of diesel-powered pumps with a total pumping capacity of 1,500 cfs, a perimeter 

canal, and pump station consisting of electric-powered pumps with a total pumping capacity of 

195 cfs, and numerous spillways, culverts, perimeter canal structures, an internal cell balancing 

structure, and outlet structures. Recreational opportunities are also provided at the site within the 

project footprint. 

4. The total first cost of the recommended plan from the Final PIR and Integrated ElS, dated 

September 2007, based on October 2009 price levels, is estimated to be $570,480,000. The fully 

funded cost, based on October 2009 price levels, is estimated to be $610,736,000. Project cost 

increases since the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Restudy Study Final 

Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, April 1999, 

are primarily due to the fact that thc recommended plan is a larger reservoir than originally 

envisioned (170,000 acre-feet of storage compared to 160,000 acre-fect in the Restudy), that 

design refinements were needed to incorporate current methods and criteria for addressing dam 

safety requirements. and that real estate costs increased. Project cost increases from the final 

PIR to present are due to revisions to the land valuation crediting policy for CERP. 

5. In accordance with the cost-sharing requirements of Section 601(e) of the WRDA 2000, as 

amended, the Federal cost of the recommended plan would be $ 305,368,000 and the nonFederal cost would be $305,368,000. The estimated lands, easements, rights-of-way, and 

relocations costs for the recommended plan are $84,650,000 of which approximately 

2 
196 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 85131A.129

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, Hendry County, 

Florida 

$27,566,500 (Rounded) has been provided to the State through the Federal Department of 

Interior Grant Funds, Based on October 2009 price levels, a 40-year period of economic 

evaluation and a 4.375 percent discount rate, the equivalent annual cost of the proposed project is 

estimated at $37,600,000, which includes operation, maintenance. repair, rehabilitation and 

replacement (OMRR&R), interest and amortization. Thc estimated annual costs for restoration 

OMRR&R are $3,100,000. The annual OMRR&R costs for recreation are estimated at $25,000. 

As a component of the CERP program, the interagency/interdisciplinary scientific and technical 

team, formed to ensure that system-wide goals are met, will participate in the annual monitoring 

to assess system-wide changes. In accordance with Sections 601(e)(4) and 601(e)(5)(D) of 

WRDA 2000 as amended, OMRR&R costs and adaptive assessment and monitoring costs will 

be shared equally between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor. OMRR&R 

costs related to recreation features will be funded 100 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. 

6. To ensure that an effective ecosystem restoration plan was recommended, cost 

effectiveness/incremental cost analysis techniques were used to evaluate alternative restoration 

plans. These techniques determined the selected alternative plan to be cost effective. The plan 

recommended for implementation is an increment of the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) 

plan, it supports the adaptive management recommendations established by the National 

Research Council, and it meets the policy criteria established in U.S Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) guidance for planning in a collaborative environment. The recommended plan 

provides benefits by: I) reducing harmful discharges to the Caloosahatchee Estuary by capturing 

a portion of high flow releases from Lake Okeechobee and basin runoff from the lower West 

Caloosahatchee River Basin during the wet season, 2) storing the water until needed in a 

reservoir, and 3) discharging stored water to supplement inadequate flows over S-79 to 

Caloosahatchee Estuary during the dry season, thereby reducing stress on the natural system. 

Hydrologic output comparisons were made between the flow frequency distribution of each 

alternative plan and the target frequency distribution for the combined monthly and weekly 

average freshwater inflows at S-79 for a nine year period of record. The nine years chosen out of 

the 36 year period of record contain three wet, three dry and three normal years. Biological 

outputs used to compare plans are based on several parameters that indicate the degree to which 

natural vegetative conditions and key indicator species are restored. The parameters for both 

hydrologic outputs and biological outputs are based on established peer-reviewed hydrologic and 

conceptual ecological models developed to guide the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. 

7. The recommended plan improves functional fish and wildlife habitat in the Caloosahatchee 

River Estuary. The Everglades has been designated an International Biosphere Reserve (1976) 

and a World Heritage Site (1979) by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO) and a Wetland of International Importance (1987) in accordance with 

the Ramsar Convention. The portion of the Everglades ecosystem directly affected by the 

Caloosahatchee River (C-4J) West Basin Storage Reservoir, including the project site and the 

Caloosahatchee River and Estuary, provides habitat for 21 fcderally-listed endangered or 

threatened species, including the Florida panther, Everglades snail kite, wood stork, manatee, 

eastern indigo snake, Audubon's crested caracara and five species of sea turtles. In accordance 

3 
197 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 85131A.130

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, Hendry County, 

Florida 

with the WRDA 2000 Section 601 (f)(2), individual CERP projects shall be justified by the 

environmental benefits derived by the South Florida ecosystem. Similarly, Section 385.9(a) of 

the CERP Programmatic Regulations (33 CFR Part 385) requires that individual projects shall be 

formulated, evaluated, and justified based on their ability to contribute to the goals and purposes 

of the Plan and on their ability to provide benefits that justifY costs on a next-added increment 

basis. The Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project, operating in 

conjunction with other projects in the comprehensive plan produces an average annual increase 

of 12,809 habitat units in the Caloosahatchee River Estuary. On a next-added increment (NAI) 

basis (meaning adding the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir as the 

next project to be added to a system of projects) the Caloosahatchee River (C-4 3) West Basin 

Storage Reservoir project delivers about 15,300 average annual habitat units. Based on 

restoration first cost and the Caloosahatchee Estuary, the cost per acre benefited is about $8,034. 

On a next-added increment basis, the average annual cost per average annual habitat unit is 

approximately $2,825. Based on these parameters, the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin 

Storage Reservoir project is justified by the environmental benefits derived by the South Florida 

ecosystem and on a next-added increment basis. All NEPA compliance requirements have been 

completed. Final EIS coordination began on 21 September 2007 and concluded on 22 October 

2007. No significant environmental changes have occurred since the EIS coordination was 

finalized in 2007. 

8. Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, as amended by 

Section 6004 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, authorizes credit toward the 

non-Federal share for non-Federal design and construction work completed during the period of 

design or construction, subject to the execution of the design or project partnership agreement, 

and subject to a determination by the Secretary that the work is integral to the project. This 

project is included in the "Expedited Projects" formerly called Acceler8. The reporting officers 

recommend that the non-Federal sponsor be credited for all reasonable, allowable, necessary, 

auditable, and allocable costs applicable to The Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage 

Reservoir Project as may be authorized by law, including those incurred in advance of executing 

a project partnership agreement for this project, subject to authorization of the Project by law, a 

determination by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) or hislher designee that the 

In-kind work is integral to the Authorized CERP Project, that the costs are reasonable, allowable, 

necessary, auditable, and allocable, and that the In-kind work has been implemented in 

accordance with Government standards and applicable Federal and State laws. 

9. Credits for non-Federal design and construction will be evaluated in accordance with the 

terms of the Master Agreement Between the Department of the Army and South Florida Water 

Management District for Cooperation in Constructing and Operating, Maintaining, Repairing, 

Replacing, and Rehabilitating Projects Authorized to be Undertaken Pursuant to the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, executed on l3 August 2009 (hereinafter "Master 

Agreement"). All documentation provided by the non-Federal sponsor will be thoroughly 

reviewed by USACE to determine reasonable, allowable, necessary, auditable, and allocable 

costs. Upon completion of this review, a financial audit will be conducted prior to granting final 

4 
198 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 85131A.131

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, Hendry County, 

Florida 

credit. Coordination between USACE and the Sponsor will occur throughout design and 

construction via the US ACE Regulatory process. The credit afforded to the non-Federal sponsor 

will be limited to the lesser of the following: (I) actual costs that are reasonable, allowable, 

necessary, auditable, and allocable to the Project; or (2) the USACE estimate of the cost of the 

work allocable to the Project had lJSACE performed the work. Thc non-Federal sponsor intends 

to implement this work using its own funds and would not use ftmds originating from other 

Federal sources unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of 

such funds is expressly authorized by statute and in accordance with Section 601 (e)(3) of 

WRDA 2000 as amended and the Master Agreement. 

10. The plan recommended by the reporting officers is environmentally justified, technically 

sound, CDst effective, and socially acceptable. The plan conforn1s to essential elements of the 

U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for 

Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies and complies with other 

administration and legislative policies and guidelines. Also, the views of interested parties, 

including Federal, State and local agencies, have been considered. 

State and Agency comments received during review of the Final PIRJEIS included concerns 

raised by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) related to 

savings clause requirement, and water reservations within the Caloosahatchee Basin. These 

concerns were addressed through several multi-agency meetings and ultimately resolved in a 

Headquarters, US Am1Y Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE) response dated August II, 2009. This 

letter stated that "all water to be protected for the natural system is a result of being able to 

capture and store excess Lake Okeechobee discharges to tide, and then delivering that water at 

the right time to meet estuary salinity targets. This project as simulated in the modeling, and as it 

will be operated, will not reduce the amount of water available from existing sources in the C-43 

Basin or the amount available to existing legal users." 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Southwest Florida Regional Plam1ing Council 

(SWFRPC), Lee County, and the City of Sanibel provided comments expressing water quality 

concerns associated with the construction and operations of the reservoir. In response, USACE 

and the non-Federal sponsor explained that the intent of this project is to focus on meeting 

salinity targets in the estuary. Future CERP planning efforts will focus on other problems, 

including water quality, identified in the Caloosahatchee River Basin. This project is permitted 

through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and compliant with State 

water quality standards. The FDEP finds that there are reasonable assurances that "State water 

quality standards, including water quality criteria and moderating provisions. will be met." 

(FDEP letter to the Mayor of Sanibel dated April 30, 2007). lJSACE will require the permit 

holder to conduct limited algal monitoring. The primary purpose of monitoring for algae in the 

reservoir will be for the prevention of harmful algal bloom exposure to recreationists and users 

of the downstream potable water supply systems. This initial monitoring program will be 

assessed after two years to determine if modifications are needed. USACE also intends to 

require that the permit holder develop an Algal Monitoring and Management Plan for the 

5 
199 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 85131A.132

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, Hendry County, 

Florida 

reservoir. This plan should include a long-term monitoring program as well as management 

plans should an algal bloom develop. Additionally, the non-Federal sponsor in conjunction with 

Lee County has acquired the Boma Property immediately east of S-78 along the Caloosahatchee 

River for the construction of a water quality treatment facility targeting nitrogen removal. Plans 

for this facility are being developed as part of the Northern Everglades Program, Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed Protection Plan, a cooperative State effort between the non-Federal sponsor, 

FDEP, and FDACS. 

The SWFRPC additionally expressed concerns with the intended use of the Picayune Strand 

Restoration Project lands as mitigation for Florida panther habitat impacted by the construction 

and operation of the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir. In response, 

USACE stated that the USFWS has lead responsibility for programmatic tracking of Florida 

panther habitat losses and gains associated with CERP projects. Although individual projects 

may cause some panthcr habitat loss, this loss is being evaluated in the context of the 

conservation of the species range-wide. Acquisition of lands for this project and other CERP 

projects has resulted in preservation of important lands that may have otherwise been used for 

development. A majority of Florida panther habitat to be preserved is associated with the nearby 

Picayune Strand Restoration Project (pSRP), which is adjacent to other large tracts of natural and 

preserved lands including Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park and Big Cypress National 

Preserve. Acquisition and preservation of lands in the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin 

Storage Reservoir study area are consistent with the USFWS' goal to locate, preserve, and 

restore tracts of lands containing sufficient area and appropriate land cover types to ensure the 

long-term survival of the Florida panther. 

11. The Project complies with the following requirements of WRDA 2000 as amended: 

a. Project Implementation Report (PIR). The requirements of a PIR as defined by Section 

60 1 (h)(4)(A). 

b. Water Reservations. Sections 601(h)(4)(A)(iii)(IV) and (V) require identification of the 

appropriate quantity, timing, and distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural 

system and the amount of water to be reserved or allocated for the natural system. Additional 

water delivered to and retained in natural areas was identified and will be reserved or allocated 

by the State of Florida. 

c. Elimination or Transfer of Existing Legal Sources of Water. Section 601(h)(5)(A) states 

that existing legal sources of water shall not be eliminated or transferred until a new source of 

water supply of comparable quantity and quality is available to replace the water to be lost as a 

result of the Plan. Implementation of the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage 

Reservoir project will not result in a transfer or elimination of sources of water to meet 

agricultural and urban demand in the Caloosahatchee River (C-43 Canal) Basin (remaining the 

same as before the project). Sources of water for the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes and 

Everglades National Park are influenced by the regional water management system (C&SF 

6 
200 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 85131A.133

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, Hendry County, 

Florida 

Project, including Lake Okeechobee), and will not be affected by this project. Therefore, there 

will be no elimination or transfer as a result of this project on existing legal sources of supply 

for: agricultural or urban water supply, allocation or entitlement to the Seminole Indian Tribe of 

Florida under Section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987 (25 U.S.c. 

1772e), the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida, water supply for Everglades National Park, or water 

supply for fish and wildlife. 

d. Maintenance of Flood Protection. Section 601 (h)(5)(B) states that CERP shall not reduce 

levels of service for flood protection that are in existence on the date of enactment of this Act 

and in accordance with applicable law. Potential effects of the storage reservoir on water levels 

on adjacent lands were evaluated. In response to these evaluations, the Project includes a 

seepage management system, consisting of a seepage cut-off wall, seepage canal, and pump to 

ensure that adjacent lands in the immediate vicinity of the project are not adversely affected. 

The operations of this project will not change the operations of the Caloosahatchee River (C-43 

Canal); therefore, there will be no system-wide effects on flood protection that will impact the 

regional basin as a result of the Project. 

12. Agency technical reviews (ATR) of the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage 

Reservoir document were carried out through collaboration with the National Ecosystem 

Restoration Planning Center of Expertise (PCX) in compliance with guidance at the time of Final 

PIR completion (2007). Extensive external scientific peer review through the National Academy 

of Science (NAS) has been conducted at the CERP programmatic level and will continue 

throughout the planning and implementation of the CERP program through the NAS biennial 

reports to Congress. In particular, the NAS promoted the use of traditional water storage 

technologies and the use of adaptive management principles within the formulation process. 

Both of these comments have been integrated into the formulation and design of the C-43 

project. No further IEPR was deemed necessary or recommended for the study. In addition, no 

further !EPR is needed in response to WRDA 2007, since C-43 studies had been initiated and 

alternatives identified more than two years prior to its enactment and the final report had been 

submitted for approval prior to its passage. 

13. I generally concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting 

officers. The Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project requires 

specific authorization by Congress in accordance with Section 601(d) of the WRDA 2000. 

Accordingly, I recommend that the plan described herein for ecosystem restoration be authorized 

for implementation as a Federal Project, with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief 

of Engineers may be advisable, and subject to cost-sharing, financing, and other applicable 

requirements of Section 601 of WRDA 2000 as amended. In addition, I recommend that the 

non-Federal sponsor be authorized to receive credit for work accomplished prior to the execution 

of a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) for this Project, in accordance with Section 601 of 

WRDA 2000, as amended, and the terms of the Master Agreement. 

7 
201 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 85131A.134

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatehee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, Hendry County, 

Florida 

Further, this recommendation is subject to the non-Federal sponsor agreeing to comply with all 

applicable Federal laws and agreeing to perform the following items of local cooperation: 

a. Provide 50 percent of total project costs consistent with the provisions of Section 601(e) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 as amended including authority to perform 

design and construction of project features consistent with Federal law and regulation; 

b. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including suitable borrow and dredged or 

excavated material disposal areas, and perform or assure the performance of all relocations that 

the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor jointly determine to be necessary for the 

construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation of the Project and 

valuation will be in accordance with the Master Agreement; 

c. Shall not use the ecosystem restoration features or lands, easements, and rights-of-way 

required for such features as a wetlands bank or mitigation credit for any other projects. 

d. Give the Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, 

upon land that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the Projcct for the purpose 

of inspection, and, if necessary, for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, 

replacing, or rehabilitating the Project; 

e. Assume responsibility for operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and rehabilitating 

(OMRR&R) the Project or completed functional portions of the Project, including mitigation 

features, in a manner compatible with the Project's authorized purposes and in accordance with 

applicable Federal and State laws and specific directions prescribed in the OMRR&R manuals 

and any subsequent amendments thereto. Cost sharing for OMRR&R will be in accordance with 

Section 601 of WRDA 2000 as amended; 

f. The non-Federal Sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace and rehabilitate the 

recreation features of the Project with responsibility for 100 percent of the cost; 

g. Keep the recreation features, and access roads, parking arcas, and other associated public 

use facilities, open and available to all on equal terms; 

h. Unless otherwise provided for in the statutory authorization for this Project, comply with 

Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, and Section 103 of 

the WRDA of 1986, Public Law 99-662, as amended, which provides that the Secretary of the 

Army shall not commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element 

thereof, until the non-Federal sponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required 

cooperation for the Project or separable element; 

i. Hold and save the Government free from ail damages arising from construction, operation, 

maintenanee, repair, replacement and rehabilitation of the Project and any projeet-related 

8 
202 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 85131A.135

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, [Jendry County, 

Florida 

bettennents, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the Government or the 

Government's contractors; 

j. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the Project to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect 

total project costs and comply ... 1th the provisions of the Master Agreemcnt: 

k. Perfonn, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

detennined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), 42 USC 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, easements or rights-ofway necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project; except that the 

non-Federal sponsor shall not perfonn such investigations on lands, easements, or rights-of-way 

that the Government detennines to be subject to the navigation servitude vvithout prior specific 

written direction by the Government; 

1. Assume complete financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of 

any CERCLA-regulated materials located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-ways 

that the Government detennines necessary for construction, operation, maintenance, repair, 

replacement and rehabilitation; 

m. As between the Government and the non-Federal Sponsor, the non-Federal Sponsor shall 

be considered the operator of the Project for purposes of CERCLA liability. To the maximum 

extent practicable, the non-Federal Sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace, and 

rehabilitate the Project in a manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA; 

n. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the pr~ject (including prescribing and enforcing 

regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new developments on 

project lands, easements, and rights-of-way or the addition of facilities which might reduce the 

outputs produced by the ecosystem restoration features, hinder operation and maintenance of the 

project, or interfere with the project's proper function; 

o. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public law 91-646, as amended by title IV of the 

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17), 

and the Unifonn Regulations contained in 49 CFR part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and 

rights-of-way, and perfonning relocations for construction, operation, and maintenance of the 

Project, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in 

connection with said act; 

p. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S,C. 2000d) 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto: Anny Regulation 600-7, 

9 
203 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 85131A.136

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, Hendry County, 

Florida 

entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department of the Army;" and all applicable Federal labor standards 

requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 and 40 O.S.c. 3701-

3708[revising, codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the DavisBacon Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 276a et scq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

(formerly 40 O.s.C. 327 et seq.) and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 

276c)]; 

q. Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in completion of all 

consultation with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, and as necessary, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, prior to construction as part of the preconstruction engineering 

and design phase of the project; 

r. Provide 50 percent of that portion of total cultural resource preservation mitigation and 

data recovery costs attributable to the Project that are in excess of one percent of the total amount 

authorized to be appropriated for the Project; 

s. Do not use Federal funds to meet the non-Fedcral sponsor's share of total project costs 

unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is 

expressly authorized and in accordance with Section 601 (e)(3) of the WRDA of 2000, as 

amended, and in accordance with the Master Agreement; 

t. The Non-Federal Sponsor agrees to participate in and comply with applicable Federal 

floodplain management and flood insurance programs consistent with its statutory authority. 

(I) Not less than once each year the Non-Federal Sponsor shall inform affected interests of 

the extent of protection afforded by the Project. 

(2) The Non-Federal Sponsor shall publicize flood plain information in the area concerned 

and shall provide this information to zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in 

preventing unwise future development in the flood plain and in adopting such regulations as may 

be necessary to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection 

levels provided by the Project. 

(3) The Non-Federal Sponsor shall comply with Section 402 of WRDA 1986, as amended 

(33 O.S,c. 701b-12), which requires a non-Federal interest to have prepared, within one year 

after the date of signing a PPA for the Project, a floodplain management plan. The plan shall be 

designed to reduce the impacts of future flood events in the project area, including but not 

limited to, addressing those measures to be undertaken by non-Federal interests to preserve the 

level of flood protection provided by the Project. As required by Section 402, as amended, the 

non-Federal interest shall implement such plan not latcr than one year after completion of 

construction of the Project. The Non-Federal Sponsor shall provide an information copy of the 

plan to the Government upon its preparation. 

10 
204 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 85131A.137

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, Hendry County, 

Florida 

(4) The Non-Federal Sponsor shall prescribe and enforce regulations to prevent 

obstruction of or encroachment on the Project or on the lands, easements, and rights-of-way 

determined by the Government to be required for the construction, operation, maintenance, 

repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the Project, that could reduce the level of protection the 

Project affords, hinder operation or maintenance of the Project, or interfere with the Project's 

proper function. 

u. The overarching objective of the Plan is the restoration, preservation, and protection of the 

South Florida ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region, including 

water supply and flood protection. The Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor are 

committed to the protection of the appropriate quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water 

to ensure the restoration, preservation, and protection of the natural system as defined in Section 

601 of WRDA 2000, for so long as the project remains authorized. This quantity, quality, 

timing, and distribution of water shall meet applicable water quality standards and be consistent 

with the natural system restoration goals and objectives of the CERP, as the Plan is defined in the 

Programmatic Regulations. The non-Federal sponsor will protect the water for the natural 

system by taking the following actions to achieve the overarching natural system objectives of 

the Plan: 

(1) Ensure, through appropriate and legally enforceable means under Florida law, that thc 

quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of existing water that the Federal Government and the 

non-Federal sponsor have determined in this Project Implementation Report is available and 

beneficial to the natural system, will be available at the time the Project Partnership Agreement 

for the project is executed and will remain available for so long as the Project remains 

authorized. 

(a) Prior to the execution of the Project Partnership Agreement, reserve or allocate for the 

natural system the necessary amount of water that will be made available by the project that the 

Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor have determined in this Project 

Implementation Report. 

(b) After the Project Partnership Agreement is signed and the project becomes operational, 

make such revisions under Florida law to this reservation or allocation of water that the nonFederal sponsor determines, as a result of changed circumstances or new information, is 

necessary for the natural system. 

(2) For so long as the Project remains authorized, notifY and consult with the Secretary of 

the Army should any revision in the reservation of water or other legally enforceable means of 

protecting water be proposed by the non-Federal sponsor, so that the Federal Government can 

assure itself that the changed reservation or legally enforceable means of protecting water 

conform with the non-Federal sponsor's commitments under paragraphs 1 and 2. Any change to 

11 
205 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 85131A.138

CECW-SAD 

SUBJECT: Comprebensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Soutbern Florida, 

Caloosabatcbee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, Hendry County, 

Florida 

a reservation of water made available by the project shall require an amendment to the Project 

Partnership Agreement. 

14. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current Departmental policies goveming formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities in the formulation of a national Civil Works construction 

program or tbe perspective of higher review levels within the executive brancb. Consequently, 

the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a proposal for 

authorization and implementation funding. 

Lieutenant General, US 

Chief of Engineers 

12 

y 
206 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 85131A.139

CECW-SAD (l105-2-1Oa) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314·1000 

JAN 0. ~£O...!1 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project, Hendry County, Florida -

Supplemental 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

I. I submit for transmission to Congress this supplement to my report on ecosystem restoration 

and recreation for the Caloosahatchee River (C 43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project, 

located in Hendry County, Florida, dated March I J, 2010. The purpose of this supplement is to 

clarify the authority for cost sharing of the recreational features recommended for the project. 

2. In accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, full consideration was 

given to opportunities the project affords for recreation. The recommended C-43 West Basin 

Storage Reservoir project contains approximately $3,000,000 of recreation features, including a 

12-mile multi-purpose trail and associated parking and toilet facilities, information kiosk, 

canoe/kayak launch facility, a shade structure, traffic control fencing, and a pedestrian footbridge 

to provide public access to the reservoir. These recreation features have been justified in 

accordance with policy. 

3. Although cost sharing of the ecosystem restoration features for this project is governed by 

Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000, as amended, cost 

sharing of the recreation features is governed by Section J 03 of the WRDA 1986, as amended. 

In particular, in accordance with Section 103G) ofWRDA 1986, 100 percent of the cost of 

operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the recreation features is the 

non-Federal sponsor's responsibility. In addition, Section 60J{e)(5)(B) ofWRDA 2000, as 

amended, governs credit for non-Federal sponsor design and construction work on the ecosystem 

restoration features of the project, whereas Section 221(a){4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, 

as amended (42 U.S.c. 1962d-5b(a)( 4») governs credit for non-Federal sponsor design and 

construction work on the recreation features of the project. 

4. As part of this supplement, the costs of the project have been escalated and updated to 

October 20 I 0 price levels and the reporting format has been changed from fully funded costs to 

initial investment. The lotal first cost of the recommended plan from the Final Project 

Implementation Report and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement, dated September 2007, 

based on October 2010 price levels, is estimated to be $579,599,000, including $576,643,000 for 

ecosystem restoration and $2,956,000 for recreation. In accordance with Section 601 of the 
207 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 85131A.140

CECW-SAD (I105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project, Hendry County, FloridaSupplemental 

VlRDA 2000, as amended, for the ecosystem restoration features of the recommended plan, the 

estimated Federal cost is $288,321,500 and the estimated non-Federal cost is $288,321,500. In 

accordance with Section 103(c) of the WRDA 1986, as amended, for the recreational features of 

the recommended plan, the estimated Federal cost of $1 ,478,000; and the non-Federal cost is 

$1,478,000. The estimated lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations costs for the 

recommended plan are $84,650,000 of which approximately $27,567,000 has been provided to 

the State through the Federal Department ofInterior Grant Funds. Based on October 20 I 0 price 

levels, a 40-year period of economic evaluation and a 4.12 percent discount rate, the equivalent 

annual cost of the proposed project is estimated at $35,500,000, which includes operation, 

maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement (OMRR&R), interest and amortization. The 

estimated annual OMRR&R costs for ecosystem restoration are $3,160,000. The annual 

OMRR&R costs for recreation are estimated at $25,000. In accordance with Section 601 of 

WRDA 2000 as amended, OMRR&R costs and adaptive assessment and monitoring costs for 

ecosystem restoration will be shared equally between the Federal Government and the nonFederal sponsor. In accordance with Section 103(j) of the WRDA 1986, as amended, OMRR&R 

costs related to recreation features will be funded 100 rcent by the non-Federal sponsor. 

fe.6f1t.c:..H.A.~ 

8~~ 

2 
208 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 85131A.141

REPLY TO 

ATTENTtONOF 

CECW·MVD 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

OFfiCE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, DC 20314·1000 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area. Louisiana. Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

by Section 7006( e)(3) of Water Resources Development Act of 2007 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

I. I submit for transmission to Congress my favorable report on ecosystem restoration lor six 

projects in multiple locations in coastal Louisiana. It is accompanied by the report of the New 

Orleans District Engineer and Mississippi Valley Division Engineer. These reports are in 

response to the authorization contained in Section 7006(e)(3) of the Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDi\) of2007. Section 7006(c)(3) identifies six projects referred to in the 

Report of the Chicf of Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana Coastal Area dated 

January 31. 2005. and Slates. in part as follows: 

"lhe ,\'ccrelary may curry olilihe projects under sUhpurugraph (.4) subs/umiully in 

accordance with /he pluns and suhject to the condilion.\", recommended in afillal reporl 

of the (·hie/cd"Engineer.I' ilaful'oruble reporl 0/ [he Chief is completed hy not later than 

Decemher 31.20]0."" 

Preconstruction engineering and design of all six projects will be undertaken under the authority 

provided in Section 7006(e)(3), Construction of these projects will be undertaken under the 

Section 7006(e}(3) authority as welL except for construction of the Medium Diversion at White 

Ditch and the elements of the Terrebonne Basin Ban-ier Shoreline Restoration beyond the 

Whiskey Island component. 

2. The Report of the Chief of Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana Coastal 

Area. dated January 3 L 2005. (hereinafter referred to as the "restoration plan"). describes a 

program to address the most critical restoration needs to reduce the severe wetland losses 

occurring in Louisiana. The restoration plan includes 15 near· term ecosystem restoration 

features. a demonstration project progranl. beneficial use of dredged material program. project 

modifications program. and a science and technology program. These features and programs 

were all aimed at addressing the critical restoration needs of coastal Louisiana. with Congress 

authorizing the features for construction. in WRDA 2007. subject to the conditions 

recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, if a favorahle Chiefs Report is 

completed no later than December 31. 2010. This report addresses six of the 15 near·term 

ecosystem restoration leatures described in the restoration plan. 
209 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 85131A.142

CfCW-MVD 

SllBJECT: Louisiana Cnasta! Area. Louisiana, Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

by Section 7006(e)(3) of Water Resources Development Act of2007 

3. In accordance with Section 7006(e)(3). the reporting ot1icers recommend that the Secretary 

carry out under the existing authorization the following five projects: Amite River Diversion 

Canal Modification: Convey AlcbafaJaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes; 

MUltipurpose Operation oftbe Houma Navigation Canal Lock; Small Diversion at Convent / 

Blind River; and the Whiskey Island component of the Terrehonne Basin Barrier Shoreline 

Restoration. The recommended plans for each project contain post-construction monitoring and 

adaptive management for a period of no more than ten years to ensure project performance. 

Because the recommended plans are ecosystem restoration plans, they do not have any 

significant adverse effects and no mitigation measures would be required. While the reporting 

officers recommend that the Secrelary carry out the Multipurpose Operation of the Houma 

Navigation Canal Lock Project. implementation of this project would be contingent onlhe 

construction ora lock at Houma under separate authority. 

4. The reporting ot11ccrs also recommend that the Congress [""dise the total project cost for the 

Medium Diversion at White Ditch Project and the recommended plan for the Terrebonne Basin 

Barrier Shoreline Restoration Project. These projects are consistent with the authori7.ation in 

Section 7006(e)(3) ofWRDA 2007, but modification of that authorization is required. because 

the total costs for these projects exceed the authorized costs as defined in Section 902 of WRDA 

1986. as amended. 

5. The reporting officers developed the recommended six projects for Louisiana Coastal Area 

consistent witb the direction provided in WRDA 2007. The reporting officers found each of the 

six projects to be cost elTective. technically sound. and environmentally and socially acceptable. 

Further refinement and additional analysis of these projects will be performed during 

preconstnlction engineering and design and modifications made. as appropriate. prior to project 

implementation. Such analysis or modifications will continue to be coordinated with Federdl. 

State. and local agencies and other parties. The following paragraphs describe each of the 

projects in greater detail. 

a. Amite River Diversion Canal Modification. l11e LCA Amitc Rivcr Diversion Canal 

Modilication (ARDC) study area is located approximately 30 miles southea~t of the City of 

Baton Rouge and west of Lake Maurepas within one of the largest remaining cypress swamps in 

coastal Louisiana. This ecosystem providcs habitat to thrcatened and endangered species Hnd 

buffers the highly developed Interstate 10 corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge and 

Lake Maurepas. The 2004 LCA report recommended several projects to address the restoration 

and stability of the Maurepas Swamp ecosystem including the Small Diversion at Covent I Blind 

River also included in this report. The ARDC study area includes portions of the Maurepas 

Swamp adjacent to the Amite River Diversion Canal which connects. and diverts flows from. the 

Amite River to the lower Blind River near Lake Maurepas. The ARDC recommended plan 

(Alternative 33) will restore the most degraded portion of the Maurepas Swamp within tbe study 

area by restoring the natural hydrology modi !led by the construction of the Amite River 

2 
210 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 223 85131A.143

CFCW-MVD 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area. Louisiana, Ecosyst<:m Restoration. Six Projc<:ts Authorized 

by Section 7006(c)(3) of Water Resources Development Act of2007 . 

Diversion Canal and from the resulting impoundment of water, lack of freshwater, sediment and 

nutrients. and surge-related saltwater intrusion. The recommended plan ineludes the creation of 

three gaps and delivery channels through the north bank of the Amite River Diversion CanaL 

The hank gaps are 70-foo! wide cuts with 25-foot benehes through the dredged material beml. 

The channel eross section is 70. 50 and 30 foot wide as it moves into the swamp, Freshwater 

swamp tree species will be planted on 438 acres in the swamp. One eut will also be ereated in 

the railroad grade approximately 0.9 miles north of the ARDC to improve sheetflow, The 

recommended plan is an implementable increment of the national ccosystem restoration (NER) 

plan, meets the LC A Program and project objectives. and is within the cost and scope of the 

authorization contained in Sectioll 7006(e)(3) ofWRDA 2007. The NER plan would create gaps 

on both the north and south bank of the ARDC along with delieTY channels, gaps in the railroad 

grade and vcgetative plantings benefiting 3,881 acres of swamp, The NER plan also inclndcs all 

the areas addressed by the recommended plan and an additional area that is expected to need 

restoration in the next 20 years. The NER plan wonld provide 1.602 average annual habitat units 

(AAHUs) with a total estimated cost for construction 01'$15,200.000. which exceeds the current 

authorization, The State of Louisiana, acting as the non-Federal sponsor, supports the 

recommended plan. The recommended plan will improve habitat function by 679 AAHUs over 

the SO-year period of analysis and benefit approximately 1.602 acres of existing freshwater 

swanlp, The estimated first cost of the recommended plan is $8,136,000 and in accordance with 

the cost sharing provisions of WRDA of 1986, as amended by Section 210 of WRDA 1996, the 

project will be COSt shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. The Federal share of 

the estimated first cost of this project is estimated at $5.288,000 and the non-Federal share is 

estimated at $2,848,000. The operation, maintenance, repair_ replacement, and rehabilitation 

costs for the project are estimated at $10.000 per ycar and are 100-percent non-Federal 

responsibility, Based on a 4.37S-percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis. the total 

egui\'alent average annual costs of the project arc estimated at $489.000, including opcration, 

maintenance, repair, replacement_ and rehabilitation. Post-construction monitoring and adaptive 

management of this ecosystem restoration project is projected to be conducted for no more than 

10 years at an estimated cost 01'$2,971,000, 

b, Convey Ateha!illaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes! Multipurpose 

Operation of the Houma Navigation Canal Lock. The LCA Convcy Atchafalaya River Water 10 

Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation 

Lock (MOH~L) study area is located in coastal Louisiana south of Houma. between the 

Atchafillaya River and Bayou Lafourche, -D1ese two projects are hydrologically linked and 

subsequently have been analyzed and are presented as a combined feature, The ARTMfMOHNL 

recommended plan (Allernative 2), which is also the national ecosystem restoration plan. will 

reduce the current trend of marsh degradation in the project area resulting from subsidence. sea level 

rise, erosion. saltwater int!1Jsion, and lack of sediment and nutrient deposition. The project proposes 

to accomplish this by utilizing fresh water and nutrients from the Alchafalaya River and the Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). The recommended plan features consist of elimination of Gulf 

Intracoastal Watcrway (GIWW) now constrictions and construction of now management 
211 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 224 85131A.144

CECW·MVD 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area. Louisiana, Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

by Section 7006{e)(3) of Water Resources Development Act of2007 

features in the interior portions of the Study Area. The recommended plan consists of 

construction of 56 strllctures and other water management features. The Carencro Bayou channel 

would be dredged to restore historic freshwater How to southeast Penchant basin marshes. A 

weir would be constructed in Grand Pass to restrict saltwater intrusion into Lake Mechant and 

sun-ounding marshes. Several connections would be created between the Houma Navigation 

Canal and the Lake Boudreaux basin. St. Louis Canal and Grand l1ayou would be enlarged to 

allow for increased fresh water flows into the eastern Terrebonnc marshes. Thesc new and 

enlarged channels would be controlled with water management features such as culverts ,\~(h 

stop logs. gates or flap gales. Additionally. marsh benns and terracing would be constructed at 

strategic locations within the project area to prevent salt water intrusion and slow fresh water 

outflow. The recommended plan also includes the mUltipurpose operation of the proposed 

Houma Navigation Canal (HNC) Lock, ifand when constructed. The lock complex would be 

closed and operated more frequently in order to maximize distribution of Jreshwater into 

wetlands downstream of the lock and minimizing saltwater intrusion upstreanl of the lock. For 

vessels exceeding the lock size. a traffic management system will be developed to open the 

sector gates to let these vessels pass. The recommended plan would improve habitat function by 

approximately 3,220 AAHUs. with the ARTM project providing approximately 2.977 AAHUs 

and the MOHNL operation providing 243 AAHUs, The project would improve hahitat for fish 

and wildlife species including migratory birds, estuarine lish and shellfish. Benelits include the 

reduction of projected wetland loss by approximately 9.655 acres of existing wetlands over the 

50-year period of analysis. The ARTMiMOHNL recommended plan meets the LCA Program 

and project objectives. is the NER Plan. and is within the cost and scope of the authorization. 

The State of Louisiana. acting as the non·Federal sponsor, supports the recommended plan. 

Thc estimated total lirst cost orlhe ARTM recommended plan is $283.534.000. In 

accordance with the cost sharing provisions of WRDA of 1986. as amended by Section 210 of 

WRDA 1996. the project will bc cost shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. The 

Federal share of the estimated first cost of the ARTM project is $184.298.000 and the nonFederal share is estimated at $99.236.000. Post-construction monitoring and adaptive 

management of the ARTM ecosystem restoration project is projected to be conducted for no 

more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $21.204,000, TIle operation. maintenance, repair. 

replacement, and rehabilitation of the ARTM project is estimated at $73.000 per year and is a 

I OO-percent non-Federal responsibility. Based on a 4.375-perccnt discount rate and a 50-year 

period of analysis. the total equivalent average annual costs of the ARTM project are estimated 

at $15.907.000. including operation. maintenance. repair. replacement. and rehabilitation. 

The estimated first cost ofMOHNL project which is the incremental cost of operations of 

the proposed constructed lock, tor ecosystem restoration is $1 A96.000 and in accordance with 

the cost sharing provisions of WRDA of 1986. as amended by Section 210 of WRDA 1996. the 

project ,viii be cost shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. Federal share orthe 

estimated first cost of the MOHNL project is $972.000 and the non· Federal share is estimated at 

SS24.000. Post-construction monitoring and adaptiye management of this ecosystem restoration 
212 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 225 85131A.145

CLeW-MVD 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area. Louisiana. Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

by Section 7006(c),3) of Water Resources Development Act 01'2007 

project is pr()iecled to be conducted lor no morc than ten years at an estimated cost of $98.000. 

There is no additional operation. maintenance. repair. replacement. and rehabilitation cost 

forecast for the modification of the lock project. However should any additional OMRR&R cost 

be idcntified in subsequent project design and operation investigations they would be a 100-

percent non-Federal responsibility. Based on a 4.375-percent discount rate and a 50-year period 

of analysis. thc total cquivalent average annual costs of the project are estimated at $83.000, 

including operation. maintenance. repair, replacement. and rehabilitation. While the reporting 

officers recommend that the Secretary carry out the Multipurpose Operation oCthe Houma 

Navigation Canal Lock Project this project cannot be implemented until a lock at Houma is 

construeted under separate authority. 

c. Small Diversion at Convent / Blind River. The LCA Small Diversion at Convent/Blind 

River study area is located approximately equidistant between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. 

Louisiana within the Maurepa~ Swamp. one of the largest remaining cypress swamps in coastal 

Louisiana. The recommended plan (Alternative 2). which is also the national ecosystem 

restoration plan. will reintroduce the natural periodic. nearly annual flooding by the Mississippi 

River to the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River. that was cut off by construction of the 

Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) flood control system. The recommended plan 

consists of a 3.000 cubic feet per second (efs) capacity gated box culvert diversion on the 

Mississippi Rh'er with a delivery channel to be constructed in the vicinity of Romeville. 

Louisiana. The recommended plan has six major components: a diversion structure. a 

transmission canal. control structures. approximately 30 berm gaps. cross culverts at four 

locations along U.S. higbway 61. and instrumentation to monitor and control the diversion flow 

rate and the water surface elevations in the diversion. transmission. and distribution system in the 

swamp. The recommended plan will restore freshwater. nutrients. and sediment input from the 

Mississippi River. It will promote water distribution in the swamp. lacilitate swamp building. 

and establish hydrologic period fluctuation in the swamp, improving tish and wildlife habitat. 

The recommended plan will improve habitat function by 6,421 AAHUs over a total of 2 1.369 

acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp. The recommended plan would improve habitat for many 

fish and wildlife species including migratory birds. bald eagles, alligators. gulf sturgeon. and the 

manatee. The recommended plan meets the LCA program and project objectives and is within 

the seope of the authorization. The State of Louisiana, acting as the non-Federal sponsor. 

supports the recommended plan. The estimated total first cost of the recommended plan is 

$116.791.000 and in accordance with the cost sharing provisions of WRDA of 1986. as amended 

by Section 210 of WRDA 1996. the project will be cost shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent 

non-Federal. The Federal share oflhe estimated first cost of this project is $75.914,000 and the 

non-Federal share is estimated at $40.877.000. Post-construction monitoring and adaptive 

managemcnt of this project is projected to he conducted for no more than 1 (J years al a cost of 

$6.620.000. The operation. maintenance. repair. replacement. and rehabilitation costs of the 

project arc estimated at $2.754.000 per year and arc a 100-percent non-Federal responsibility. If 

further analysis dete1111ines that the project increases maintenance dredging requirements for the 

Mississippi Riwr. Balon Rouge to the Gulf or Mexico project by inducing shoaling. the 

5 
213 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 226 85131A.146

CECW-MVD 

SLBJECT: Louisiana Coa~tal Area. Louisiana, Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

by Section 7006(e)(3) of Water Resources Development Act 01'2007 

incremental costs of any additional maintenance dredging would also be a 1 OO-percent nOIlFederal responsibility. Based on a 4.3 75-percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis. 

the total equivalent average annual costs of the project arc estimated at $8.859.000. including 

operation. maintenance. repair. replacement. and rehabilitation. -

d. Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration. The LeA Terrebonne Basin Barrier 

Shorcline Restoration (TBBSR) study area is located in Terrebonne Parish 30 miles south of the 

city of Houma, Louisiana and includes the Isles Dernieres and the Timbalier Islands. The Isles 

Dernieres reach includes Raccoon. Whiskey. Trinity. East, and Wine Islands. The Timbalier 

Island reaeh includes Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands. These barrier islands have 

undergone significant reduetions in size due to II number of natural processes and human actions 

including lack of sediment. storm-induced erosion and breaching, subsidence, sea level rise and 

hydrologic modifications such as navigation and oil and gas canals. These habitat losses have 

had a direct adverse impact on wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and 

endangered species. Loss of the barrier island habitat also lea\'es the saline. hrackish. and fresh 

marshes in the upper reaches of the Terrebonne Basin more vulnerahle to the high energy marine 

coastal processes which have exacerbated wetland loss in these areas. The balTier islands also 

protect oil and gas infrastructure investments including hundreds of wells and pipelines which 

are of regional and national importance. Furthermore. numcrical modeling indicates that the 

barrier islands reduce storm surges which can mitigate the damage associated with tropical 

storms on human populations and infrastructurc in Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes. The 

national ecosystem restoration (NER) plan (Alternative 5). will reintroduce sediment 10 the 

coastal sediment transport system. The NER plan includes the restoration of Raccoon Island 

with 25 years of advanced fill and construction of a terminal groin. lbe NER plan also includes 

restoration of \Vhiskey and Trinity Islands with five years of advanced fill and restoration of 

Timbalier Island with 25 years of advanced jill. The NER plan includes beach. dune. and marsh 

restoration and proposes dune heights ranging from +6.4 feet NA VD 88 lor 'W11iskey Island to 

+7.7 feet NAVD 88 for Raccoon Island with a crest width of 100 feet to marsh heights ranging 

from +2.4 feet NAVD 88 on Whiskey Island to +3.2 NAVD 88 on Raccoon Island. The NER 

plan includes renourishment at staggered intervals to maintain the islands. Raccoon Island will 

he renourished at Target Year (TY) 30. Whiskey Island will require two renourishment 

intervals. The first will occur at TY20 and the second rcnourishmcnt intcrval will occur at TY 40 

Trinity Island will be renourished at TY25. Timbalier Island will be renourished at TY30. The 

NER plan will restore geomorphic and hydrologic form provided by barrier island systems and 

restore and improve essential habitats for fish. migratory birds. and terrestrial and aquatic 

species. This barrier shoreline system is also a key component in regulating the hydrology. and 

ultimately the rale of wetland erosion. throughout the estuary. The NER plan consists of 

restoration of four islands (Whiskey. Raccoon. Trinity. and Timbalier) improving habitat 

function by 2.R33 AAHUs by adding 3.283 acres to the islands for a total size of 5,840 acres. 

The restored acreage would include 472 acres of dune. 4.320 acres of supratidal habitat. and 

1.048 acrcs of intertidal habitat and ensure the geomorphic and hydrologic limn and ecological 

function of the majority of the estuary over the period of analysis. The recommended plan meets 

6 
214 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 227 85131A.147

CEC\\'-MVD 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana. Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

by Section 7006(c)(3) of Water Resources Development Act of2007 . 

the LCA program and project objectives and is within the scope of the authorization. Howevcr. 

it exceeds the authorized cost. TI1e State of Louisiana, acting as the non-federal sponsor. 

concurs with the reporting officers' recommcndation that additional Congressional authorization 

be requested to allow implementation of the :NER plan. The estimated total first cost of the NER 

plan is $646.93 J .000 and in accordance with the cost sharing provisions of WRDA of 1986. as 

amended by Section 210 ofWRDA 1996. the project will be cost shared 65 percent Federal and 

35 percent non-federal. The Federal share of the estimated !irst cost of this project is 

$420,505,000 and the non-Federal share is estimated al $226.426,000. Post-construction 

monitoring and adaptive management of this ecosystem restoration project is projected to be 

conducted for no more than tcn years at a cost estimated to be $5,280.000. The operation. 

maintenance. rcpair, rcplacemcnt, and rehabilitation costs of the project, including pcriodic 

nourishment. are cstimated at $9.960.000 per year and are a 1 OO-percent nOll-federal 

responsibility. Based on a 4.3 75-percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis. the total 

equivalent average annual costs of the project are estimated at $26.400.000. including operation. 

maintenance. repair. replacement. and rehabilitation. 

While additional authority is needed to raise the total project cost to allow implementation 

of the entire NER plan. the reporting officers recommend that the Whiskey Island component 

(Alternative I J) of the NER plan be implemented under the existing authority provided in 

Section 7006(e)(3) ofWRDA 2007. The Whiskey Island component includes renourishment 

every 20 years to maintain the constructed features. Restoration oflhe one island will increase 

habitat function by 678 AAHUs by restoring a total of 1.272 acres on the island, including 65 

acres of dune. 830 acres of supratidal habitat. and 377 acres of intertidal habitat. The Whiskey 

Island component is an implementable increment of the NER plan. meets the LCA Program 

objectives. and is within the cost and scope of the current WRDA authorization. The State of 

Louisiana. acting as the non-federal sponsor. supports immediate implementation ofthc 

Whiskey Island component. The estimated total tirst cost of the Whiskey Island component is 

$113.434,000 and in accordance with the cost sharing provisions of WRDA of 1986. as amendcd 

by Section 210 ofWRDA 1996, the project will be cost shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent 

non-Federal. The Federal share of the estimated lirs! cost of this project is $73,732.000 and the 

non-Federal share is $39.702.000. Post·construction monitoring and adaptive management of 

this ecosystem restoration project is projected to be conducted for no more than ten years at an 

estimated cost of $5.820.000. The operation. maintenance. repair. replacement. and 

rehabilitation cost of the project. including periodic nourishment. are estimated at $6.900.000 per 

year and is a lOO-percent non-Federal responsibility. Based on a 4.375-percent discount rate and 

a 50-year period of analysis. the total equivalent average annual costs of the project are estimated 

at $9.508.000. including operation. maintenance, repair. replacement. and rehabilitation. 

e. Medium Diversion at White Ditch. The LeA Medium Diversion at White Ditch 

(MDWD) project area is located on the east bank of the Mississippi Rivcr south of New Orlcans 

in Plaquemines Parish ncar thc town of Phoenix. Louisiana. The area includes a portion of the 

Breton Sound basin framed by the Mississippi River and the River aux Chencs ridge as well as 

7 
215 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 228 85131A.148

CECW-MVD 

SUBJECT; Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana. Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

hy Section 7006(e)(3) of\Vatcr Resources Development Act of2007 . 

the gulfward extent of the Breton Sound. The reeommended plan, (Alternative 4), which is also 

the national ecosystem restoration plan. will restore the supply and distribution of freshwater and 

sedimenl disrupted by the construction of the Mississippi River and Tributaries flood control. 

The recommended plan includes a 35.000 cubic feet per second (cfs) capacity gated box culvert 

diversion on the Mississippi River with a delivery channel to be constructed in the vicinity of 

Phoenix. Louisiana. The structure will consist often IS-foot by 15-1001 box culverts and an 

approximately 9.500 foot convcyance channel 10 move the diverted water into surrounding 

marshes. Additionally, notched weirs will be constructed at existing channel intersections to 

help control and direct the flow of water into the study area. Dredged material li'om the 

conveyance channel will be used beneficially 10 create approximately 416 acres of marsh and 

ridge habitat. The recommended operational plan consists of pulsing diversion flows up (0 

35.000 efs through the structure during Mareh and April and maintaining maintenance flows lip 

(0 J,OOO efs the rest of the year. The recommended plan will improve habitat function by 13.353 

AAHUs by creating and Ilourishing approximately 20.315 acres of fresh, intermediate. brackish. 

and saline wetlands. This project is one of the key componcnts to demonstrating both the ability 

to stem or reverse the coastal land loss trend and provide a mechanism to combat relative sea 

level rise in coa~tal Louisiana. The recommended plan meets the LCA Program objectives and is 

within the scope of the WRDA authorization, however. it exceeds the authorized project cost. 

The State of Louisiana. acting as the non-Federal sponsor. supports the reporting officers' 

ret:ommendation that Congress increase the total project cost to allow implementation of the 

recommended plan to fully address the restoration needs of the study area identified in this 

report. Supplemental environmental analysis will be performed prior to construction of the 

recommended plan to address potential impacts on water quality and fIsheries. including 

coordination with Federal. State. and local agencies and other interested parties a~ appropriate. 

The estimated total first cost of the recommended plan is $365.201.000 and in accordance with 

the cost sharing provisions of WRDA of 1986. as amended by Section 210 of WRDA 1996. the 

project will be cost shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-FederaL The Federal share of 

the estimated Ilrst cost of this project is $237.381.000 and the non-Federal share is estimated at 

$127.820,000. Post.constructionlJ1onitoring and adaptive management ofthis ecosystem 

rcstoration project is projected to be conducted for no more than ten years at an estimated cost of 

$11.143.000. The operation, maintenance. repair, replacement. and rehabilitation costs of the 

project are estimated at $1,468.000 per year and are a I DO-percent non-Federal responsibility. If 

further analysis detcrmines that the project increases maintenance dredging requirements for the 

Mississippi Ri\'Cr. Baton Rouge to the GulfofMcxico project by inducing fiver shoaling. the 

incremental costs of any additional channel maintenance dredging ~v()uld also be a 100-percent 

non-Federal responsibility. Based on a 4.375-pcrcent discount rale and a 50-year period of 

analysis. the total equivalent average annual costs of the project are estimated at $21.237.000. 

including operation. maintenance. repair, replacement. and rehahilitation. 

6. The State of Louisiana supports the recommended plans for the six projects described herein. 

At October 2010 price levels, the estimated total first cost tor the recommended plans for the six 

8 
216 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 229 85131A.149

CECW-MVD 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area. Louisiana. Ecosystem Restoration, Six Projects Authorized 

by Section 7006(e)(3) of Water Resources Development Act of 2007 

projects is $1,422,089,000. The estimated total first costs for each of the six projects are 

summarized below in Table I. 

Table 1 

LCA Section 7006(e)(3) Projects 

Recommended Plan Cost and Benefit Summary 

(October 2010 Price Level) 

Project Alternative Total First Co.t Impacted Acr .. Avera~ Annual Habitat 

Units 

Amite River Diversion Alt. 33 $8.136.000 L602 679 Canal Modification 

Convey Atchafalaya 

River Water to Northern AILl $283.534.000 9.655 3.220 

T errebonoe Marshes 

Houma Navigation AIL 2 S1.4%.000 0**" 243 Control Lock 

Small Diversion at All. 2 5116.791.000 21.369 = 6,421 ConventIBlind River 

Terrebonne Basin Alt. ll* $646.931.000 5.840 2.063 

Barrier Shoreline 

Restoration (All 5)" ($113.434.000) (1.272) (379) 

Medium Diversion at AIL 4* 5365.201.000 35.146 13.353 White Ditch 

Total SI,422,089,000 73.612 25,979 

.. lmplemcntation of thr recommended plan to funy address the reslorauOrt m:eds of the study area «!ennfled In mJ5 report: reqwres addlt100al 

authori_ by CODgteSS by rai,i'8 the tOOl! ~ cost. 

.. Alremative S (Whiskey Island) is an increment of Alternative 11 (the recommended plan) . 

... impacted acres overlap with Con .. ey Atchafalaya River Water to Nonhern Terrebonne Marshes 

7. In accordance with the cost sharing provisions ofWRDA of 1986, as anlended by Section 

2 J ° of WRDA 1996, the Federal share of the first cost of the six projects is estimated at 

$924,358,000 (65 percent) and the non-Federal share is estimated al $497,731,000 (35 percent). 

The cost oflands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and drcdged or excavated material 

disposal areas is estimated at $13.454,000. The total cost includes an estimated $47,856,000 for 

environmental monitoring, and adaptive management, The State of Louisiana. the non-Federal 

sponsor, would be responsible for the OMRR&R of the projects after construction, a cost 

currently estimated at about $15,605,000 per year. 

Table 2 shows the Federal and non Federal cost of the projects, 

9 
217 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 230 85131A.150

CEC\v-MVD 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area. Louisiana Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

by Section 7006(c)(3) ofWatcr Resources Development Act of1007 

8. In concert with the Corps Campaign Plan. the plans recommended in this report were 

developed utilizing a systematic and regional approach in formulating solutions and in evaluating 

the impacts and benefits of those solutions. Specifically the projects individually amI 

collectively provide enduring and essential water resources management solutions. The plans 

were developed through a broad based collaborative process that resulted in wetland restoration 

that enhances the sustainability ol~ and is integrated with, the multiple socio-economic purposes 

supported by tbe coastal ecosystem. The development of these projects also demonstrates the 

Corps goal to cultivate competent. disciplined teams to deliver quality plans. 

9. Independent Extemal Peer Review (lEPR) of the six conditionally authorized LeA projects 

was coordinated through the Planning Center of Expertise for Ecosystem Restoration and 

performed by Battelle Corporation. Independent technical review teams were assembled for 

each project. The technical review considered all aspects of the project evaluations and the 

resulting output. The IEPR comments identified eoncems in areas of the evaluations that would 

benefit trom additional refinement. The JEPR reviews concurred with the project 

recommendations and all C(lmments were satisfactorily resolved. Severa! significant 

recommendations will be further evaluated during project implementation_ In concurrence with 

10 
218 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 231 85131A.151

CECW-MVD 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area. Louisiana, Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

by Section 7006(e)(3) of Water Resources Development Act of2007 . 

IEPR comments. additional documentation of hydrodynamic model and land change evaluations 

were provided for the Amite River Diversion Canal Modification. Convey Atchafalaya River 

Water to Northem Terrehonne Marshes, MUltipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Canal 

Lock, and Small Diversion at Convent I Blind River projects. Additional documentation to 

support the altemative comparison and plan selection process was provided for all the presented 

projects to address the comments. Other actions will be taken in response to IEPR comments 

during project preconstruction engineering and design (PED). for the Amite River Diversion 

Canal Modification project. additional model refinement~ will be used to improve the forecast of 

relative sea level rise (RSLR) effects and revise the adaptive management (AM) plan. For the 

Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes I MUltipurpose Operation of 

the Houma Navigation Canal Lock Canal Lock project. additional refinements of land changc. 

RSLR. and wctland benefit fbrecast tools to better correlate them to the high complexity of the 

project area will be undertaken. For the Convent I Blind river project. additional data collection 

and refinement of the hydrodynamic model will be undertaken to minimize potentialloca! 

drainage effects and identify specific management actions for swamp enhancement. as well as 

refine the AM plan. for the Terrebonne Barrier Shoreline project, refined a<;sessmenl of estuarywide curren! and wave conditions and physical process modeling will be undertaken to better 

capture the systcmic beneHt;; and allow beller coordination of project implementation and O&M. 

Specific construction effects will also be assessed and eonstruction modifications applied to 

minimize critical habitat disruption. for the White Ditch project. a refinement of the land 

change evaluation, and an assessment ofthe effect of RSLR will be undertaken to allow a clearer 

understanding ofpotcntial adaptive management needs and revision of the AM plan. Finally, for 

the Small Diversion at Convent I Blind River and the Medium Diversion a1 White's Diteh 

projects a comprehensive assessment of cumulative diversion impacts on the Mississippi River 

will be undertaken prior to the initiation of construction to improve the assessments of 

cumulative project elTeets and help set operational criteria. 

10. The LCA plans recommcnded by the reporting officers are environmentally justified. 

technically sound. cost-effective. and socially acceptable. The recommended plans conform to 

essential clements oftbe U.S. Water Resources Council"s Economie and Environmental Studies 

and comply with other administration and legislative policies and guidelines. Also. the views of 

interested parties. including federal. State. and local agencies have been considered. 

I L I concur in thc findings. conclusions. and rccommendation of the reporting ot1iccrs. 

Accordingly. 1 recommend implementation of these projects. in accordance with the reporting 

officers' recommendations with such modilications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers 

may be advisable. I further recommend. in accordance with the reporting officers 

rec;mmendations. that the authorizations for Terrebonne Basin Barner Shoreline Restoration 

and Medium Diversion at White Ditch be modified to raise the total project cost to allow for 

construction of the national ecosystem restoration plans for those projects. My 

recommendations are subject to cost sharing. financing. and other applicable requirements of 

Federal and State laws and policies. including WRDA 1986. as amended by Section 210 of 

11 
219 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 232 85131A.152

("I('\\-\IVD 

Sl !BJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area. Louisiana, h:osysll:m Restoration. Six Proi~Cls Authorized 

by S~clil1n 7006(e)(3) or Wa(~r Rl:soufces De\'elopm~nl Act of2()07 . 

WRDA 1996. The Slate of L.ouisiana. acting as the non-Federal sponsor. would provide the nonFederal cost share and all lands. casements. relocations. right·or-ways and disp<Jsals. Further. the 

non-Federal sponsor would bl' responsible for all OMRR&R, This rec(ltntnendalion is subject to 

the non-Feder a! sponsor agreeing to comply with all applicable F<.-dl'raJ laws and policies. 

including but not Iimik'd to it" agreeing to: 

a. Proyide a minimulll of35 percent oflOlai project costs as f1.n1her specifil'd below: 

U) Enter into an agreement which provides, prior to execution of the projcct 

partnership agreement. 25 percent of design costs; 

(2) Pruvide. during the first year of construetioll. any additional funds nceded to cowr 

thc non-federal sharc of design costs: 

(3) Provide all lands. easements. and rights-or-way. including those required for 

relocations. the borrowing of material. and thl' disposal of dredged or excavated material; 

perlc>nl1 or ensure the performance of all relocations: and construcl impwvcments rcquired on 

lands. l'asements. and righls-ol:way to enable the disposal of dredged PI' excavated material that 

the: Govc!'11ml'nt ddermines to be necessary lor the construction. operatiol1. maIntenance. repair. 

replacement. and rehabilitation of the project: 

(4) Provide. during construction. any additional funds necessary to make it~ total 

contribution equal to 35 percent of the total project costs allocated to thc project: 

h. Provide the !lon-Federal share of thaI portion of the costs of mitigation and data rccovcry 

activities associated with historic preservation. that arc in excess of I percent of the total amount 

<lllthorizcd to be appropriated l()f tbe project: 

c. Not use funds provided by a federal agency under any other Federal program. to satisfy. 

in whole or in part. the non-Federal share ,,[the cost of the prqiecl unless the federal agency lhat 

provides the f111lds determines that the funds are authorized to be used to carry out the study or 

project: 

d. Not usc project or lands. eaSl'mcnts. and rights-of-way required for the project as a 

wetlands bank or mitigation credit for an) otl1"r project: 

e. For as long as the project remains authorized. operate. maintain. repair. replace. and 

rehabilitate the pr(ljcci. or functional portion nfthe project. including mitigation. at no cost to the 

Federal Gon:mment. in a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in 

accordance with applicable Federal and slate laws and regulations and any specific directions 

prcSl'ribed by the Federal (imemment: 

1::: 
220 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 233 85131A.153

CECW-MVD 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area. Louisiana. Eeos) stem Restoration. Six Projects Authoriz<:d 

by Section 7006(c)(3) of Water Resourccs Development Act of2007 . 

f. Give thc Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner. upon propel1y that the non-Federal sponsor. now or hereafter. owns or controls for 

access to the project for the purpose of inspecting. operating. maintaining, repairing. replacing. 

rehabilitating, or completing the project. No complction. operation, maintenance, repair. 

replacement. or rehabilitation by the Federal Government shall relievc the non-Federal sponsor 

of responsibility to meet the non-Federal sponsor's obligations, or to preclude the Federal 

Government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to ensure faithful performance: 

g. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, 

operation. maintenance. repair. replacemcnt, and rehabilitation of the project and any projectrelated betterments. exccpt for damages duc to the fault or negligence of the United States or its 

contractors: 

h. PcrfiJrnl. or cause to be perfonned, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation. and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). Public l.aw 96-510. as amended (42 U.S.c. 9601·9675), that may exist in. on, or 

under lands, easements. or rights-of-way that the Federal Government deternlines to be required 

for the initial construction, pcriodic nourishmcnt. operation, and maintenance ofthc project. 

Ilowcver. for lands that the Federal Government determines to be subject to thc navigation 

servitude, only the Federal Government shall perfornl such investigations unless the Federal 

Government provides the non-Federal sponsor with prior speciik written direction. in which 

case the non-Federal sponsor shall perfornl such investigations in accordance with such wTitten 

direction; 

i. Assumc, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, complete 

financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA regulated 

materials located in. on. or under lands, easements. or rights-or-way that the Federal Government 

determines to be nccessary for the initial construction, periodic nourishmenL operation. or 

maintenance of the project: 

j. Agree that. as between the Federal Government and the non·Federal sponsor. the non· 

Federal sponsor shall bc considered the operator of the project for the purpose of CERCLA 

liability, and to the maximum extent practicable. operate, maintain, and repair the project in a 

manner that would not cause liability to arise under CERCLA: 

k. Prevent obstructions of or cncroachments on the project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevcnt such obstruction or encroachments) which might reduce 

ecosystem restoration benefits. hinder operation and maintenance. or interfere with the project's 

proper function. such as any new developments on project lands or the addition of facilities 

which would degrade the beneiits of the project; 

13 
221 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 234 85131A.154

Cl:C\,'·"1VD 

Sl i !lJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana. Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

hy Section 7006(e)(3) of \Vater Resources Development Act of 2007 

I. Keep and maintain books. records. documents. and other evidence pertaining 10 costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project. for a minimum of three years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books. records. documents. and other evidenee is required. to the 

extent and in such detail as would properly rellee! total costs or construction of the project. and 

in accordance with the standards for financial management systems SCI forth in the t ini foml 

Administrative Requirements for Grants and Ctl()perative Agreements to Slate and Local 

(iovernmenls al 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 33.20: 

Tn. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law <))·61 L Flood Control Act of 1970. as 

(llllcnded (42 U.S,C. 1 962d-5). and Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986. Public Law 99-662. as amended (33 U.S.c. 2213). which proyides that the Secretary of the 

AmlY shall not commence the construction orany water resources project or separable element 

thereof. until the non-Fedeml sponsor has entered into a \Hilten agreement to fumish its required 

cooperation for the project OT separable element: 

n. Comply with all applicable Federal and Slate laws and regulations. including. but not 

limited to. Section 601 of the Ciyil Rights Act of 1964. Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.c. 2000d). 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto. as well as Army 

R,'gulation 600·7. entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and 

Activities :\ssisted or Conducted by thc Department of Ihe Army." and all applicable Federal 

lubor standards and requirements. including but not limited to 40 U.S.C. 3141· 3148 and 40 

U.s.c. 3701 - }y08 (revising. codifying. and enacting without substantial change the provisions 

orthe Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 U.S.C 2763 et seq.). the Conlrdct Work Hours and Safety 

Standards Act (formerly 40 U.S.C 327 el seq.) and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (fonnerly 

4() U .S.c. 276c et seq.); and 

o. Comply with all applicable provisions (lethe Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.c. 4601-

4(55). and the Unilorm Regulations contained in 49 eFR Part 24. in acquiring lands. easements. 

and rights-oj~way necessary for the initial construction. periodic nourishment. operdtion. and 

maintenance of the project. including those necessary for relocations. bOffOW materials. and 

dredged or excavated material disposaL and inlbml all affected persons of applicable benefits. 

policies. and procedures in connection with said Act. 

14 
222 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 235 85131A.155

CLC\V-lv1VD 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area. Louisiana. Ecosystem Restoration. Six Projects Authorized 

by Section 7006( e )(3) of Water Resources Development Act of 2007 

12. The recommendations contained herein relleet the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing the lom1Ulation of individual projects. They do not 

renee! program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of the national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently. the recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to Congress 

for authorization and/of implementation funding. However. prior to transmittal to Congress. the 

State of Louisianu. interested Federal agencies, and other parties '\ill he advised of any 

significant modilications inlhe recommendations and will be alTordcd an opportunity to 

comment further. 

Lieutenant General. US t 

Chief of Engineers 

15 
223 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 236 85131A.156

CECW-MVD (I105-2-lOa) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314--1000 

DEC 30 2011 

SUBJECT: Minnesota River, Marsh Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project, Minnesota 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on ecosystem restoration along the 

Minnesota River at Marsh Lake, a part of the Lac qui Parle Reservoir, west of Appleton, 

Minnesota. It is accompanied by the report of the district and division engineers. These reports 

were completed under authorities granted by a May 10, 1962, resolution of the Committee on 

Public Works of the U.S. House of Representatives. TIlls resolution requested the review of "the 

report of the Chief of Engineers on the Minnesota River, Minnesota, published as House 

Document 230, 74th Congress, First Session and other pertinent reports, with a view to 

determining the advisability of further improvements in the Minnesota River Basin for 

navigation, flood control, recreation, low flow augmentation, and other related water and land 

resources." Preconstruction engineering and design activities for the Marsh Lake Ecosystem 

Restoration Project will continue under the authority provided by the resolution above. 

2. The Marsh Lake ecosystem function and connectivity has degraded over time primarily as a 

result of artificial changes to the hydrologic conditions at the site. The ecosystem significance of 

the area is demonstrated on the national, regional and local level. Marsh Lake provides critical 

stop-over refuge for migratory waterfowl moving through the Mississippi River flyway as well 

as breeding grounds for the largest white pelican population in North America. Many other fish 

and bird species are also dependent on the resource for life requisites including both migrating 

and nesting bald eagles. Ecosystem values provided by Marsh Lake have increased in 

importance over time as 90 percent of the wetland areas within the watershed have been drained. 

3. The reporting officers recommend authorization of a plan to restore aquatic ecosystem 

structure and function as well as implementation of ancillary recreation features to Marsh Lake 

and surrounding resources in the upper portion of the Lac qui Parle reservoir. The recommended 

plan consists of ecosystem restoration features including returning the Pomme de Terre River to 

its historic channel, modifYing the Marsh Lake Dam for fish passage, construction of a 

drawdown water control structure at the Marsh Lake Dam, installation of gated culverts at 

Louisburg Grade Road, and the breaching of a dike at an abandoned fish pond adjacent to the 

Marsh Lake Dam. The plan also contains recreation features including shoreline fishing access 

structures, interpretive signage, a canoe landing, benches, picnic tables, trash receptacles, toilets, 

and parking lot improvements. The project requires mitigation to offset adverse impacts to 

Marsh Lake Dam through photographic documentation of the existing site conditions prior to 

construction since Marsh Lake Dam was determined individually eligible to the National 

Register of Historic Places. The recommended plan is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan. 

Implementation of the recommended plan will have a substantial beneficial impact on fish and 
224 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 237 85131A.157

CECW-MVD (1105-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Minnesota River, Marsh Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project, Minnesota 

wildlife species in the area. While the project will not directly affect federally-listed endangered 

or threatened species, the reduction of the suspended sediments in the waters of Marsh Lake and 

improved water clarity will benefit a wide-range offish and wildlife species including species of 

concern such as the bald eagle, that are known to use the Marsh Lake site. 

4. Based on an October 2011 price level, the estimated project first cost is $9,967,000. The 

project first cost includes approximately $9,463,000 for ecosystem restoration and approximately 

$504,000 for recreation. In accordance with the cost sharing provisions of Section 103(c) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986), as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213(c», 

ecosystem restoration features are cost-shared at a rate of 65 percent Federal and 35 percent nonFederal; and recreation features are cost-shared at a rate of 50 percent Federal and 50 percent 

non-Federal. Thus, the Federal share of the project first costs is estimated to be $6,403,000 and 

the non-Federal share is estimated at $3,564,000, which equate to 64 percent Federal and 36 

percent non-Federal. The costs oflands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and excavated 

material disposal areas is estimated to have no cost, given the existing Federal ownership over 

the project area. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources is the non-Federal 

cost share sponsor for the recommended plan. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural 

Resources would be responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 

rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the project after construction, a cost currently estimated at $35,000 

per year. 

5. Based on a 4.0-percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent 

annual costs of the project, including OMRR&R, are estimated to be $490,000. 

a. The equivalent average annual costs of ecosystem restoration features are estimated to be 

$464,000, including OMRR&R. The cost of the recommended aquatic ecosystem restoration 

features is justified by the restoration of about 8,400 average annual habitat units which includes 

restoration of approximately two linear miles of historic riverine habitat. 

b. The equivalent average annual costs of recreation features are estimated to be $26,000, 

including OMRR&R. The annual benefits of the proposed recreation features are estimated at 

$230,000. The benefit-to-cost ratio for recreation is 8.9 to I. 

6. The recommended plan was developed in coordination and consultation with various Federal, 

State, and local agencies using a systems approach in formulating ecosystem restoration 

solutions and in evaluating the impacts and benefits of those solutions. Plan formulation 

evaluated a wide range of non-structural and structural alternatives under Corps policy and 

guidelines as well as consideration of a variety of economic, social and environmental goals. 

The recommended plan delivers a holistic, comprehensive approach to solve water resources 

challenges in a sustainable manner. The resulting recommended plan has received broad public 

support. 

2 
225 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 238 85131A.158

CECW-MVD (1105-2-1Oa) 

SUBJECT: Minnesota River, Marsh Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project, Minnesota 

7. In accordance with EC 1165-2-209, all technical, engineering and scientific work underwent 

an open, dynamic and vigorous review process to ensure technical quality. This included 

Agency Technical Review (ATR) and a Corps Headquarters policy and legal review. All 

concerns of the ATR have been addressed and incorporated into the fina! report. An exclusion 

from the Independent ExtemaI Peer Review (IEPR) was granted by the Director of Civil Works. 

8. I concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend that the plan to restore the ecosystem of Marsh Lake be authorized in 

accordance with the reporting officers' recommended plan at an estimated project first cost of 

$9,967,000 with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be 

advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applicable 

requirements of Federal and State laws and policies, including Section 103 ofWRDA 1986, as 

amended by Section 202 ofWRDA 1996, and WRDA 1986, as amended by Section 210 of 

WRDA 1996. Accordingly, the non-Federal sponsor must agree with the following requirements 

prior to project implementation. 

a Provide 35 percent of total ecosystem restoration costs as further specified below: 

1. Provide the non-Federal share of design costs allocated by the Govemment to 

ecosystem restoration in accordance with the terms of a design agreement entered into prior to 

commencement of design work for the ecosystem restoration features; 

2. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for 

relocations, the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; 

perform or ensure the performance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required on 

lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as 

determined by the Govemment to be required or to be necessary for the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of the project; 

3. Provide, during the design and implementation phase, any funds necessary to make its 

total contribution equal to 35 percent of total project costs; 

b. Provide 50 percent of total recreation costs as further specified below: 

1. Provide the non-Federal share of design costs allocated by the Government to 

recreation in accordance with the terms of a design agreement cntered into prior to 

commencement of design work for the recreation features; 

2. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for 

relocations, the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; 

perform or ensure the performance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required 

on lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material 

3 
226 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 239 85131A.159

CECW -MVD (1105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Minnesota River, Marsh Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project, Minnesota 

all as determined by the Government to be required or to be necessary for the construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the recreation features; 

3. Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution for recreation equal to 50 percent of total recreation costs; 

4. Provide, during construction, 100 percent of the total recreation costs that exceed an 

amount equal to 10 percent ofthe Federal share of total ecosystem restoration costs; 

c. Provide, during the design and implementation phase, 100 percent of all costs of 

planning, design, and construction for the project that exceed the Federal share of the total 

project costs; 

d. Shall not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share therefore, to meet any of the non-Federal obligations for the project 

unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in writing that 

expenditure of such funds for such purpose is authorized by Federal law; 

e. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new 

developments on project lands, easements, and rights-of-way or the addition of facilities which 

might reduce the outputs produced by the project, hinder operation and maintenance of the 

project, or interfere with the project's proper function; 

f. Shall not use the project or lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for the project as 

a wetlands bank or mitigation credit for any other project; 

g. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601-

4655), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24, 

in acquiring lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the project, including those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of materials, 

or the disposal of dredged or excavated material; and inform all affected persons of applicable 

benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said Act; 

h. For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project, or functional portions of the project, including any mitigation features, at no 

cost to the Federal Government, in a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes 

and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific 

directions prescribed by the Federal Government; 

i. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for 

4 
227 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 240 85131A.160

CECW-MVD (1105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Minnesota River, Marsh Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project, Minnesota 

the purpose of completing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, or 

replacing the project; 

j. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the design, 

construction, operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the project and 

any betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its 

contractors; 

k. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, or other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of 3 years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents, or other evidence are required, to the 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in accordance with the 

standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 

CFR Section 33.20; 

l. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulation 600-7, 

entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department of the Army"; and all applicable Federal labor standards 

requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 3141- 3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701 - 3708 

(revising, codifYing and enacting without substantial change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon 

Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 276a et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 

(formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.), and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 

276c et seq.); 

m. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identifY the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), that may exist in, on, or 

under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required 

for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project. However, for lands that the Federal 

Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Fcderal Government 

shall perform such investigations unless the Federal Government provides the non-Federal 

sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which case the non-Federal sponsor shall 

perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction; 

n. Assume, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, complete 

financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances 

regulated under CERCLA that are located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that 

the Federal Government determines to be required for construction, operation, and maintenance 

of the project; 

5 
228 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 241 85131A.161

CECW -MVD (1105-2-1 Oa) 

SUBJECT: Minnesota River, Marsh Lake Ecosystem Restoration Project, Minnesota 

o. Agree, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, that the 

non-Federal sponsor shall be considered the operator of the project for the purpose of CERCLA 

liability, and to the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project in a manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA; 

p. Provide, during the design and implementation phase, 35 percent of all costs that exceed 

$50,000 for data recovery activities associated with historic preservation for the project; and 

q. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), and Section 1030) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 

Public Law 99-662, as amended (33 U.S.C. 22130», which provides that the Secretary of the 

Army shall not cornmence the construction of any water resources project or separable element 

thereof, until each non-Federal interest has entered into a written agreement to furnish its 

required cooperation for the project or separable element. 

9. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a 

proposal for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the sponsor, the State, interested Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised of 

any significant modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

6 

~~!5~ MERDITH W. B. TEMPLE 

Major General, U.S. Army 

Acting Chief of Engineers 
229 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 242 85131A.162

CECW-SAD (1 I05-2-IOa) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000 

J/lN 3 0 2Q'~ 

SUBJECT: C-III Spreader Canal Western Project, Comprebensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 

Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on ecosystem restoration improvements for the 

C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. It is accompanied 

by the reports of the Jacksonville District Engineer and South Atlantic Division Engineer. These 

reports are in response to Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of2000, 

VI11ich authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a framework for 

modifications and operational changes to the Central and Southern Florida Project that are needed to 

restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other water-related 

needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection. WRDA 2000 identified specific 

requirements for implementing components of the CERP, including the development of a decision 

document known as a Project Implementation Report (PIR). The requirements of a PIR are 

addressed in this report and are subject to review and approval by the Secretary of the Army. 

Preconstruction engineering and design activities for this project will be continued under the CERP 

Design Agreement. 

2. The proposed C-III Spreader Canal project was conditionally authorized by Section 

60I(b)(2)(C)(x) of WRDA 2000, but is not being recommended for implementation under that 

authority. The proposed C-III Spreader Canal project was split into Western and Eastern Projects. 

Due to changes in scope and intended restoration area, the C-I II Spreader Canal Western project 

will be recommended for new specific Congressional authorization consistent with WRDA 2000, 

Section 601 (d), Authorization of Future Projects. The Western Project focuses on the restoration of 

flows to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough as well as the restoration of the Southern Glades and Model 

Lands. Due to nUmerous uncertainties associated witb the actual spreader canal feature, a spreader 

canal design test will be implemented to gain information that will guide planning efforts for the 

Eastern Project. The Eastern Project will address the restoration of the remainder of the project area 

through such features as a spreader canal, backfilling of the C- III Canal, etc. It is expected that the 

Eastern Project will also seek authorization under 60 I (d). The reporting officers determined that the 

original authority for the C-Ill Spreader Canal Project contained 60 1 (b)(2)(C)(x) ofWRDA 2000 is 

no longer needed. As such, the reporting officers recommend that C-1 I I Spreader Canal authorized 

in 60 I (b)(2)(C)(x) of WRDA 2000 be deauthorized. 

3. Although cost sharing of the ecosystem restoration features for this project is governed by 

Section 601 ofWRDA 2000, as amended, cost sharing of the recreation features is governed by 

Section 103 of the WRDA 1986, as amended. In particular, in accordance with Section 103(j) of 

WRDA 1986, 100 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and 

rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the recreation features is the non-Federal sponsor's responsibility. In 
230 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 243 85131A.163

SUBJECT: C-III Spreader Canal Western Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and 

Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

addition, section 60 I (e)(5)(B) of WRDA 2000, as amended, governs credit for non-Federal sponsor 

design and construction work on the ecosystem restoration features of the project, whereas section 

221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. I 962d-5b(a)(4», governs credit 

for non-Federal sponsor design and construction work on the recreation features of the project. 

4. The final PIR with integrated Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) recommends a project that 

contributes significantly to all of the ecological goals and objectives of the CERP: (I) increasing the 

spatial extent of natural areas; (2) improving habitat function and quality; and (3) improving native 

plant and animal abundance and diversity. In addition, it contributes to the economic values and 

social well being of the project area by providing recreational opportunities. Scientists have 

established that a mosaic of uplands, freshwater marsh, deep water sloughs, and estuarine habitats 

supporting a diverse community of fish and wildlife was one of the defining characteristics of the 

pre-drainage Everglades ecosystem. Currently in south Florida, habitat function and quality has 

significantly declined in remaining natural system areas due to water management projects and 

practices, resulting in a loss of suitable nesting, foraging, and fisheries habitat and a decline in native 

species diversity and abundance. The PIR confirms information in the CERP and provides projectlevel evaluation of costs and benefits associated with construction and operations of this ecosystem 

restoration project which will reverse the damaging trends and increase freshwater retention in 

Everglades National Park, restoring a natural deepwater slough and the surrounding freshwater marsh 

habitat. Water levels across the project area will be increased, boosting species abundance and 

diversity while providing suitable nesting and foraging areas for wading birds. Florida Bay and its 

estuaries will benefit from decreased salinity levels and improved health of the fisheries habitat. 

Overall, approximately 252,000 acres of wetlands and coastal habitat will benefit from the project. 

The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the non-Federal sponsor, has begun land 

acquisition and construction of the project through its expedited construction program. As such, the 

C-III Spreader Canal Western project can be implemented quickly, substantially advancing the 

realization of project benefits in an area that has been degraded by past water management practices. 

5. The reporting officers recommend a plan for ecosystem restoration and recreation. The 

recommended C-Ill Spreader Canal Western project would improve the ecological function of 

Everglades National Park by creating a hydraulic ridge that will reduce drainage of the area by the CIII Canal. The Reeommended Plan, Alternative 2DS, will consist of two above-ground detention 

areas, the approximately 590-acre Frog Pond Detention Area and an approximately 50-acre Aerojet 

Canal, which will serve to create a continuous and protective hydraulic ridge along the eastern 

boundary of Everglades National Park. Five additional features will be included that are intended to 

raise water levels in the eastern portion of the proj ect area and restore wetlands in the Southern 

Glades and Model Lands. Major features of the detention areas include the construction of external 

levees and one approximately 225-cubic feet per second pump station for each detention area. The 

five additional features will include the following: incremental operational changes at existing 

structure S-ISC; one new operable structure in the lower C-Ill Canal; ten plugs in the C-IIO Canal; 

operational changes at existing structure S-20; and, one plug in the existing L-31 E Canal (near 

inoperable structure S-20A). Recreation components consist of a trailhead with parking, traffic 

controls, a shade shelter with interpretive board, and approximately 6.S miles of multi-use levee trails 

atop impoundment levees. Restoration-compatible recreation includes hiking, biking, fishing, nature 

study, bird watching, state-managed hunts and equestrian use. 

6. The cost orthe initially authorized C-III Spreader Canal component orthe CERP, escalated to 

October 2011 (FY 12) price levels, is $143,540,000. The total first cost of the Recommended Plan 

2 
231 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 244 85131A.164

SUBJECT: C-lll Spreader Canal Western Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and 

Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida, 

from the final PIRJEIS, based upon October 2011 price levels, is estimated at $165,098,000. Total 

first cost for the ecosystem restoration features is estimated to be $164,832,000 and for recreation is 

estimated to be $266,000. The proposed project costs have increased primarily duc to the fact that 

the project has increased in scope to address ecological problems in Everglades National Park and 

Florida Bay as identified by the public and stakeholders. 

7. In accordance with the cost-sharing requirements of Section 601(e) of the WRDA 2000, as 

amended, the Federal cost of the Recommended Plan is $82,549,000 and the non-Federal cost is 

$82,549,000. The estimated lands, easements, right-of-way, and relocation (LERRs) costs for the 

recommended plan are $68,451,000. LERRs valued at approximately $18,610,000 are already 

owned by the State of Florida. Based on October 2011 price levels, a 40-year period of economic 

evaluation and a 4.0 percent discount rate, the equivalent annual cost of the proposed project is 

estimated at $10,268,000, which includes OMRR&R, interest and amortization. The estimated 

annual costs for ecosystem restoration OMRR&R, including project monitoring costs, vegetation 

management, and endangered species monitoring, are $1,468,000. The estimated annual OMRR&R 

costs for recreation are $25,000. The project monitoring period is five years except for endangered 

species monitoring, which is 10 years. Any costs associated with project monitoring beyond 10 years 

after completion of construction of the Project (or a component of the Project) shall be a non-Federal 

responsibi lity. 

8. As a component of the CERP program, the interagency/interdisciplinary scientific and technical 

team, formed to ensure that system-wide goals are met, will participate in the annual monitoring to 

assess system-wide changes. In accordance with Sections 601 (e)(4) and 601 (e)(5)(D) ofWRDA 

2000, as amended, OMRR&R costs and adaptive assessment and monitoring costs for ecosystem 

restoration will be shared equally between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor. 

The Project Monitoring Plan was developed assuming that major, ongoing monitoring programs that 

are not funded by the Project would continue to supply data relevant to the Project. The Project 

Monitoring Plan shall not include items that are already required to be monitored by another Federal 

agency or other entity as part of their regular responsibilities or required by law. Should any of these 

monitoring programs (e.g. coastal water quality and seagrass monitoring) be discontinued or 

significantly curtailed, then monitoring priorities and funding options may be re-evaluated to ensure 

proper Project evaluation. In accordance with Section J 030) of the WRDA 1986, as amended, 

OMRR&R costs related to recreation features will be funded 100 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. 

9. To ensure that an effective ecosystem restoration plan was recommended, cost effectiveness/ 

incremental cost analysis techniques were used to evaluate alternative restoration plans. These 

techniques determined the selected alternative plan to be cost effective and incrementally justified. 

The hydraulic model and ecological model utilized to estimate the ecological outputs that were used 

in the economic analysis were both peer-reviewed and certified for use in the project. The plan 

recommended for implementation is the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan, supports the 

Incremental Adaptive Restoration principles established by the National Research Council, and was 

prepared in a collaborative environment. The recommended plan provides benefits by: (I) restoring 

the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough; (2) 

improving hydroperiods and hydropattems in the Southern Glades and Model Lands; and, (3) 

restoring coastal zone salinities in Florida Bay and its tributaries. 

10. In accordance with the WRDA 2000 Section 601 (f)(2), individual CERP projects may be 

justified by the environmental benefits derived by the South Florida ecosystem. Similarly, Section 

3 
232 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 245 85131A.165

SUBJECT: C-]] I Spreader Canal Western Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and 

Southern florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

385.9(a) of the CERP Programmatic Regulations (33 CFR Part 385) requires that individual projects 

shall be formulated, evaluated, and justified based on their ability to contribute to the goals and 

purposes of the CERP and on their ability to provide benefits that justify costs on a next-added 

increment basis. Due to the project location at the terminus of the Everglades system, the C-III 

Spreader Canal Western project does not depend on any other CERP or non-CERP projects to 

achieve the estimated ecological benefits. As such, the Next-Added Increment (NAI) is equivalent to 

the total, System-Wide benefits that were calculated for the proposed project. The Recommended 

Plan will produce an average annual increase of 8,271 habitat units per year at an annual cost of 

$10,268,000. In coordination with Fish and Wildlife Service, this project could benefit threatened' 

and endangered species and migratory birds. The average annual cost per average annual habitat unit 

is $1,240. Based on restoration first cost, the cost per acre benefited is approximately $654 per acre. 

Based on these parameters, the C-l11 Spreader Canal Western project is justified by the 

environmental benefits derived by the South Florida ecosystem. The recreation first cost of the 

recommended plan is $266,000. The average annual cost for recreation is $39,000 and the average 

annual recreation benefits are $122,000, providing a benefit cost ratio of3.1 to I. 

11. Of the 12,176 acres ofland identified for the Project, approximately 611 acres were provided as 

items of local cooperation for existing Federal projects and will be used for construction of C-Ill 

Spreader Canal Western Project. Approximately 11,565 acres of land are predicted to be impacted 

by the Recommended Plan: Approximately 9,688 acres will be provided in fee and have already 

been purchased by the non-Federal sponsor. Approximately 146 acres of impacted lands will be 

provided under a supplemental agreement with the State of Florida and Miami-Dade County. 

Approximately 955 acres will be provided by perpetual flowage/conservation easements by the 

Florida Power and Light Company. The planning level model predicted that the remaining 776 acres 

of privately-owned land identified for the Project may be affected by operation of the Project, as 

indicated in the PIR. WRDA 2000 requires that implementation of the CERP shall not reduce 

existing levels of service for flood protection. The SFWMD is constructing the majority of the 

project under its State expedited construction program and as part of its independent effort to 

implement the Project, the SFWMD will monitor the impacts of the current construction and 

continually adjust operations to ensure the protection of privately-owned lands. If SFWMD is able to 

provide new information that these operations provide anticipated ecological benefits without 

reducing existing levels of service for flood protection for the 776 acres, the Corps will consider this 

information and accordingly document any changes to its takings analysis and the continued 

compliance with the statutory requirements regarding maintenance of level of service for flood 

protection. The reassessment of effects on existing levels of service for flood protection will utilize a 

method similar to the original method of determination. Like the analysis in the PIR, the 

reassessment will be conducted in a manner consistent with the CERP Programmatic Regulations and 

guidance. In addition, the takings analysis will be similarly reassessed. Any reassessment done will 

be completed prior to the execution of a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA). The new information 

must document that operational adjustments implemented to avoid a reduction of the level of service 

for flood protection on a particular property or properties can also provide the anticipated ecological 

benefits. After the documentation is complete, then those operations may be made permanent and 

incorporated into the Final Project Operating Manual of the Federally-authorized project. Otherwise, 

the non-Federal sponsor will acquire the necessary interests in the lands, and will provide real estate 

certification of those lands to the Corps. 

12. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular on review of decision documents, all 

technical, engineering, and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic, and vigorous review 

4 
233 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 246 85131A.166

SUBJECT: C-III Spreader Canal Western Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and 

Southern Florida Projec~ Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

process to ensure teclmical quality. This included Agency Technical Review (A TR), and 

Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), and a Corps Headquarters policy and legal review. All 

concerns of the A TR have been addressed and incorporated into the final report. The IEPR was 

completed by Battelle Memorial Institute, a non-profit science and technology organization with 

experience in establishing and administering peer review panels for the Corps. A total of 23 

comments were documented. The comments of high significance were related to current and futurc 

conditions, assessment of secondary effects and climatic cycles, and technical sections of the 

document such as Real Estate and Modeling. In response, sections in the PIRIEIS and appendices 

were expanded to include additional information. The finaliEPR Report was completed in October 

2009, and certification from the IEPR Panel was issued 25 November 2009. 

13. The Final PIRIEIS was published for State and Agency Review on 4 February 2011. The 

majority of the comments received were favorable and in support of the project. A letter from the 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), dated 10 March 2011, stated a 

concern that the proposed project would result in negative impacts to privately-owned agricultural 

lands in the vicinity of the project. Specifically, the concern was that a rise in groundwater 

elevations would result in root zone flooding that would be detrimental to crops. The FDACS also 

expressed concern that any adverse impacts identified after project implementation would be based 

upon criteria not specified in the Final PIR. In a 29 July 2011 reply letter, the Corps responded to 

these concerns by describing the monitoring being conducted by the SFWMD as part of its expedited 

construction program and the Corps' consideration of additional information to reassess the takings 

analysis and whether the project will reduce the existing levels of service for flood protection on the 

776 acres, or a portion thereof, as described previously in Paragraph II. The final PIR was revised to 

clarifY this position. 

14. Section 601 (e)(5)(B) ofWRDA 2000, as amended by Section 6004 of the WRDA 2007, 

authorizes credit toward the non-Federal share for non-Federal design and construction work 

completed during the period of design or construction, subject to execution of the design or project 

partnership agreement and subject to a determination by the Secretary that the work is integral to the 

project. As part of its initiative for early implementation of certain CERP projects, the non-Federal 

sponsor has stated that it is constructing the C-lll Spreader Canal Western project consistent with 

the PIR, in advance of Congressional authorization and the signing of a project partnership 

agreement. As such, a separate EIS has been completed and a Department of the Army permit has 

been issued to the non-Federal sponsor for expedited construction of this project, and construction of 

the project has already begun by the State of Florida. As required by the February 2008 

Implementation Guidance for Section 6004 ofWRDA 2007 - CERP Work In-Kind Credits, the nonFederal sponsor entered into a Pre-Partnership Credit Agreement for the C-lil Spreader Canal 

Western Project on 13 August 2009. The reporting officers believe that it is in the public interest for 

this Project to be implemented expeditiously due to the early restoration of Federal lands in 

Everglades National Park and ecological benefits to the wetlands and estuaries in other portions of 

the South Florida ecosystem. Therefore, the reporting officers recommend that the non-Federal 

sponsor be credited for all reasonable, allowable, necessary, auditable, and allocable costs applicable 

to the C-J II Spreader Canal Western project as may be authorized by law including those incurred 

prior to the execution of a PPA, subject to authorization of the Project by law, a determination by the 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) or hislherdesignee that the In-kind work is integral to 

the authorized CERP Project, that the costs are reasonable, allowable, necessary, auditable, and 

allocable, and that the In-kind work has been implemented in accordance with government standards 

and applicable Federal and state laws. 

5 
234 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 247 85131A.167

SUBJECT; C-III Spreader Canal Western Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and 

Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

15. The non-Federal Sponsor and the U.S. Department of the Army entered into an agreement 

known as the Master Agreement Between the Department of the Army and South Florida Water 

Management District for Cooperation in Constructing and Operating, Maintaining, Repairing, 

Replacing and Rehabilitating Projects Authorized to be Undertaken Pursuant to the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan dated 13 August 2009 (hereinafter "Master Agreement"). The Master 

Agreement sets forth the terms of participation in the construction and OMRR&R of projects under 

CERP that will apply to any future project for which the non-Federal sponsor and the Government 

have entered into a PPA. The uniform terms of the Master Agreement will be incorporated by 

reference into the C-Ill Spreader Canal Western Project PPA. 

16. Credits for non-Federal design and construction will be evaluated in accordance with the terms 

of the Master Agreement. All documentation provided by the non-Federal sponsor will be 

thoroughly reviewed by the Corps to determine reasonable, allowable, necessary, auditable, and 

allocable costs. Upon completion of this review, a financial audit will be conducted prior to granting 

final credit. Coordination between the Corps and the Sponsor will occur throughout design and 

construction via the Corps' Regulatory process. The credit afforded to the non-Federal sponsor will 

be limited to the lesser of the following: (I) actual costs that are reasonable, allowable, necessary, 

auditable, and allocable to the Project; or (2) the Corps estimate of the cost of the work allocable to 

the Project had the Corps performed the work. The non-Federal sponsor intends to implement this 

work using its own funds and would not use funds originating from other Federal sources unless the 

Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized 

by statute and in accordance with Section 601 (e)(3) ofWRDA 2000 as amended and the Master 

Agreement. 

17. Washington level review indicates that the plan recommended by the reporting officers is 

environmentally justified, technically sound, cost effective, and socially acceptable. The plan 

conforms to essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and Environmental 

Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies and 

complies with other administration and legislative policies and guidelines. The views of interested 

parties, including Federal, state and local agencies have been considered. 

18. The Project complies with the following requirements of the WRDA 2000, as amended: 

a. Project Implementation Report (PIR). The requirements of a PIR as defined by Section 

601 (h)(4)(A). 

b. Reservation or Allocation of Water for the Natural System. Sections 

601 (h)(4)(A)(iii)(IV) and (V) require identification of the appropriate quantity, timing, and 

distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural system and the amount of water 

to be reserved or allocated for the natural system. [n accordance with the regulations, an 

analysis was conducted to identifY water dedicated and managed for the natural system. 

Accordingly, the non-Federal sponsor will protect the water that was identified as necessary 

to achieve the benefits of the Project, using water reservation or allocation authority under 

Florida law_ 

c. Elimination or Transfer of Existing Legal Sources of Water. Section 601 (h)(5)(A) states 

that existing legal sources of water shall not be eliminated or transferred until a new source 

6 
235 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 248 85131A.168

SUBJECT: C-III Spreader Canal Western Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and 

Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

of water supply of comparable quantity and quality is available to replace the water to be 

lost as a result of the CERP. An analysis of project effects on existing legal sources of 

water was conducted and it was determined that implementation of the C-Ill Spreader 

Canal Western project will not result in a transfer or elimination of existing legal sources of 

water. 

d. Maintenance of Flood Protection. Section 601 (h)(5)(8) states that the Plan shall not 

reduce levels of service for flood protection that are in existence on the date of enactment of 

WRDA 2000 (December 2000) and in accordance with applicable law. Potential flooding 

effects as a result of the proposed project were analyzed and the results indicated that the 

proposed project would have an adverse impact on the level of service for flood protection 

in the project area. The analysis identified 776 acres of privately-owned lands that may be 

impacted as a result of the opemtion ofthe proposed project. Total impacted lands, 

including the 776 acres identified above, were approximately 11,565 acres. As such, the 

non-Federal sponsor will provide the 11,565 acres of lands either in fee, perpetual flowage 

easements, or by supplemental agreements, and will be responsible for those real estate 

interests as a project cost. Under the specific circumstances detailed in pamgraph II, the 

non-Federal sponsor may not be required to provide an interest in all or part of the 776 

acres of privately-owned lands identified. 

19. I generally concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend that the plan described herein for ecosystem restoration and recreation be 

authorized for implementation as a Federal Project, with such modifications as in the discretion of 

the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, and subject to cost-sharing, financing, and other applicable 

requirements of Section 60 I of WRDA 2000, as amended. In addition, I recommend that the nonFederal sponsor be authorized to receive credit for work accomplished prior to execution of a PP A 

for this Project, in accordance with the terms described in paragraphs 14 and 16 of this report. 

Further, this recommendation is subject to the non-Federal sponsor agreeing to comply with all 

applicable Federal laws and the following items of local cooperation: 

a. Provide 50 percent of total project costs consistent with the provisions of Section 60 I (e) 

of the WRDA 2000, as amended, including authority to perform design and construction of 

project features consistent with Federal law and regulation. 

b. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including suitable borrow and dredged 

or excavated material disposal areas, and perform or assure the performance of all 

relocations that the Government and the non-Federal sponsor jointly determine to be 

necessary for the construction and OMRR&R of the Project and valuation will be in 

accordance with the Master Agreement . 

. c. Shall not use the ecosystem restoration features or lands, easements, and rights-of-way 

required for such features as a wetlands bank or mitigation credit for any other non-CERP 

projects. 

d. Give the Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, 

upon land that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project for the 

7 
236 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 249 85131A.169

SUBJECT: C-lll Spreader Canal Western Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and 

Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

purpose of inspection, and, if necessary, for the purpose of completing, operating, 

maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the Project. 

e. Assume responsibility for operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and rehabilitating 

the Project or completed functional portions of the Project in a manner compatible with the 

Project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and 

specific directions prescribed in the OMRR&R manuals and any subsequent amendments 

thereto. Notwithstanding Section 528(e)(3) ofWRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 3770), the nonFederal sponsor shall be responsible for 50 percent of the cost of OMRR&R activities 

authorized under this section. 

f. The non-Federal sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace and rehabilitate the 

recreational features of the Project and is responsible for 100 percent of the costs. 

g. Keep the recreation features, and access roads, parking areas, and other associated public 

use facilities, open and available to all on equal tel111s. 

h. Unless otherwise provided for in the statutory authorization for this Project, comply with 

Section 221 ofPL 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, and Section 103 of the 

WRDA of 1986, PL 99-662, as amended which provides that the Secretary of the Army 

shall not commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element 

thereof, until the non-Federal sponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its 

required cooperation for the Project or separable element. 

i. Hold and save the Government free from all damages arising from the construction, 

OMRR&R of the Project, and any project-related bettel111ents, except for damages due to 

the fault or negligence of the Government or the Government's contractors. 

j. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the Project to the extent and in such detail as will properly 

reflect total project costs and comply with the provisions of the CERP Master Agreement 

between the Department of AI111Y and the South Florida Water Management District for 

Cooperation in Constructing and Operating, Maintaining, Repairing, Replacing, and 

Rehabilitating Projects Authorized to be Undertaken Pursuant to the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan, executed on 13 August 2009, including Article XI 

Maintenance of Records and Audit. 

k. Perf 01111, or cause to be perfOl111ed, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

detel111ined necessary to identifY the existence and extent of any hazardous substances 

regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), 42 USC 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, easements or 

rights-of-way necessary for the construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the 

Project; except that the non-Federal sponsor shall not perf 01111 such investigations on lands, 

easements, or rights-of-way that the Government determines to be subject to the navigation 

servitude without prior specific written direction by the Government. 

I. Assume complete financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of 

any CERCLA regulated materials located in, on or under lands, easements, or right-of-ways 

8 
237 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 250 85131A.170

SUBJECT: Colli Spreader Caruti Western Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and 

Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

necessary for the construction and OMRR&R. 

m. As between the Government and the non-Federal sponsor, the non-Federal sponsor shall 

be considered the operator of the Project for the purposes ofCERCLA liability. To the 

maximum extent practicable, the non-Federal sponsor shall OMRR&R the Project in a 

manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA. 

n. Prevent obstructions of and encroachments on the Project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstruction or encroachments) which might reduce 

ecosystem restoration benefits, hinder O&M, or interfere with the Project's proper function, 

such as any new developments on Project lands or the addition of facilities which would 

degrade the benefits of the Project. 

o. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, PL 91-646, as amended by the title IV of the 

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (PL 100-17), and 

Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and 

rights-of-way, and performing relocations for construction, O&M of the Project, and inform 

all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said 

act. 

p. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regUlations, including, but not 

limited to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, PL 88-352, and Department of 

Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Army Regulation 600-7, 

entitled, "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted 

or Conducted by the Department of the Army," and all applicable Federal labor standards 

and requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.c. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.c. 3701-

3708 (revising, codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the 

Davis-Bacon Act [formerly 40 U.s.c. 276a et seq.], the Contract Work Hours and Safety 

Standards Act [formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.] and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act 

[formerly 40 U.S.C. 276c]). 

q. Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in completion of all 

consultation with Florida's State Historic Preservation Office and, as necessary, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation prior to construction as part of the Preconstruction Engineering and Design phase of the Project. 

r. Provide 50 percent of that portion of total cultural resource preservation mitigation and 

data recovery costs attributable to the Project that are in excess of one percent of the total 

amount authorized to be appropriated for the Project. 

s. Do not use Federal funds to meet the non-Federal sponsor's share of total project costs 

unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is 

expressly authorized and in accordance with Section 60 I (e )(3) of WRDA 2000. 

1. The non-Federal sponsor agrees to participate in and comply with applicable Federal 

floodplain management and flood insurance programs consistent with its statutory 

authority. 

9 
238 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 251 85131A.171

SUBJECT: C-III Spreader Canal Western Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and 

Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

(I) Not less than once each year the non-Federal sponsor shall inform affected 

interests of the extent of protection afforded by the Project. 

(2) The non-Federal sponsor shall publicize flood plain information in the area 

concerned and shall provide this information to zoning and other regulatory 

agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development in the flood 

plain and in adopting such regulations as may be necessary to prevent unwise 

future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided 

by the Project. 

(3) The non-Federal sponsor shall comply with Section 402 ofWRDA 1986, 

as amended (33 U.S.c. 70Ib-12), which requires a non-Federal interest to have 

prepared, within one year after the date of signing a project partnership 

agreement for the Project, a floodplain management plan. The plan shall be 

designed to reduce the impacts of future flood events in the project area, 

including but not limited to, addressing those measures to be undertaken by 

non-Federal interests to preserve the level of flood protection provided by the 

Project. As required by Section 402, as amended, the non-Federal interest shall 

implement such plan not later than one year after completion of construction of 

the Project. The non-Federal sponsor shall provide an information copy of the 

plan to the Government upon its preparation. 

(4) The non-Federal sponsor shall prescribe and enforce regulations to prevent 

obstruction of or encroachment on the Project or on the lands, easements, and 

rights-of-way determined by the Government to be required for the 

construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of 

the Project, that could reduce the level of protection the Project affords, hinder 

operation or maintenance of the Project, or interfere with the Project's proper 

function. 

u. The non-Federal Sponsor shall execute under State law the reservation or allocation of 

water for the natural system as identified in the PIR for this authorized CERP Project as 

required by Sections 601 (h)(4)(B)(ii) of WRDA 2000 and the non-Federal Sponsor shall 

provide infonnation to the Government regarding such execution. In compliance with 33 

CFR 385, the District Engineer will verify such reservation or allocation in writing. Any 

change to such reservation or allocation of water shall require an amendment to the PPA 

after the District Engineer verifies in writing in compliance with 33 CFR 385 that the 

revised reservation or allocation continues to provide for an appropriate quantity, timing, 

and distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural system after considering 

any changed circumstances or new information since completion of the PIR for the 

authorized CERP Project. 

20. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and current 

Departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect program and 

budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil works construction program or the 

perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. Consequently, the recommendation 

10 
239 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 252 85131A.172

SUBJECT: C-III Spreader Canal Western Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and 

Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a proposal for authorization and 

implementation funding. 

MERDITH 

~tI5~ W.B. TEMPLE 

Major General, USA 

Acting Chief of Engineers 

11 
240 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 253 85131A.173

CECW-SAD (l105-2-10a) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314·1000 

MAY 2 2012 

SUBJECT: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project, Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade Cmmty, Florida. 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

1. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on ecosystem restoration improvements for 

Phase I of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) Project, located in Miami-Dade County, 

Florida It is accompanied by the reports of the Jacksonville District Engineer and the South 

Atlantic Division Engineer. These reports are in response to Section 601 of the Water Resources 

Development Act (WRDA) of2000, which authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan (CERP) as a framework for modifications and operational changes to the Central and Southern 

Florida project that are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem while 

providing for other water-related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection. 

WRDA 2000 identified specific requirements for implementing components of the CERP, 

including the development of a decision document known as a Projcct Implementation Report 

(PIR). The requirements of a PIR are addressed in this report and are subject to review and 

approval by the Secretary of the Army. Preconstruction engineering and design activities for this 

project will be continued under the CERP Design Agreement. 

2. The proposed Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project was previously identified in CERP and 

requires specific authorization under Section 601(d) ofWRDA 2000. The original scope of the 

project has been altered in order to better address restoration goals in the study area and the BBCW 

project was split into two phases. Phase I is the first step toward meeting restoration goals in the 

study area. By rehydrating coastal wetlands and reducing damaging point source freshwater 

discharge to Biscayne Bay, the Phase I Recommended Plan is integral to the health of the south 

Florida ecosystem. Due to changes in scope and intended restoration area, Phase I of the proposed 

BBCW project is recommended for specific Congressional authorization consistent with WRDA 

2000, Section 60I(d). The second phase of the project would consider restoration of freshwater 

wetlands in the Model LandsIBames Sound area, the southernmost portion of the study area. It is 

expected that the second phase will also seek authorization under Section 601ed). 

3. Although cost sharing of the ecosystem restoration features for this project is governed by 

Section 601 ofWRDA 2000, as amended, cost sharing of the recreation features is governed by 

Section 103 of the WRDA 1986, as amended. In particular, in accordance with Section 103(j) of 

WRDA 1986, 100 percent of the cost of Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and 

Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the recreation features is the non-Federal sponsor's responsibility. 

In addition, section 601(e)(5)(8) of WRDA 2000, as amended, governs credit for non-Federal 

sponsor design and construction work on the ecosystem restoration features of the project, whereas 
241 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 254 85131A.174

SUBJECT: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

section 221(a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.c. 1962d-5b(a)(4)), 

governs credit for non-Federal sponsor design and construction work on the recreation features of 

the project. 

4. The final PIR and integrated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) recommends a project that 

contributes significantly to all of the ecological goals and objectives of the CERP: (I) Increasing 

the spatial extent of natural areas; (2) improving habitat function and quality; and (3) improving 

native plant and animal abundance and diversity. In addition, it contributes to the economic values 

and social well being of the project area by providing recreational opportunities. The historical 

Everglades ecosystem was previously defined by a mosaic of uplands, freshwater marsh, deepwater 

sloughs, and estuarine habitats that supported a diverse community of fish and "'ildlife. Today 

nearly all aspects of south Florida's flora and fauna have been affected by development, altered 

hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species that have resulted directly or indirectly 

from a century of water management for human needs. Significant areas within the project study 

boundary are characterized by a low-productivity dwarf mangrove forest, known as the "white 

zone" - due to its appearance on aerial photos - which are caused by salt deposits on the soil surface 

that are primarily a result of wide seasonal fluctuations in salinity and the absence of freshwater 

input from upstream sources. The PIR confirms information in the CERP and provides a 

project-level evaluation of costs and benefits associated with construction and operation of this 

ecosystem restoration project. The Recommended Plan will improve functional fish and wildlife 

habitat in Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay. The portion of the Everglades ecosystem directly 

affected by the BBCW project provides habitat for 21 Federally-listed endangered or threatened 

species, including the West Indian Manatee, Florida Panther, Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, and the 

American Crocodile. Overall, approximately 11,000 acres will benefit from restored overland 

sheetflow. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the non-Federal sponsor, 

has begun land acquisition and construction of the project through its expedited construction 

program. As such, the BBCW Phase I project can be implemented quickly, substantially 

advancing the realization of project benefits in an area that has been degraded by past water 

management practices. 

5. The reporting officers recommend a plan for ecosystem restoration and recreation. The 

Recommended Plan would improve the ecological function of coastal wetlands in Biscayne Bay by 

redirecting freshwater - currently discharged through man-made canals directly to the Bay - to 

coastal wetlands adjacent to the Bay. This will provide a more natural and historic flow and 

restore healthier salinity patterns in Biscayne Bay. Biscayne Bay is located in Miami-Dade 

County south of the city of Miami on the Atlantic coast and east of the city of Homestead, Florida. 

The Recommended Plan, Alternative 0 Phase I, encompasses a footprint of approximately 3,761 

acres and includes features in three of the project's four sub-components (hydrologically distinct 

regions of the study area): Deering Estate, Cutler Wetlands, and L-31 East Flow Way. There are 

no features in tbe fourth region, Model Land Basin. A description of the features recommended 

for the sub-component areas is as follows: 

Deering 1!..State: This region is in the northern part of the project area and includes an 

approximately 500-foot extension of the C-IOOA Spur Canal through the Power's Addition Parcel 

(Power's Parcel), construction ofa freshwater wetland on the Power's Parcel and delivery of fresh 

water to Cutler Creek and ultimately to coastal wetlands along Biscayne Bay. 

2 
242 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 255 85131A.175

SUBJECT: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Cutler Wetlands: Features in this region, which is in the central portion ofthe project area, include 

a pump station, a conveyance canal, a spreader canal, culverts and mosquito control ditch plugs. 

The pump station, located on Col, will deliver water to a 6,900-foot lined conveyance canal that 

will run under SW 97th Avenue, SW 87th Avenue (L-3lE Levee), and across the L·3lE Borrow 

Canal via concrete box culverts and deliver water to the spreader canal located in the saltwater 

wetlands. The spreader canal is divided into four segments. 

L-31 East Flow Way: Features in this region, which is in the southern portion of the project area, 

will isolate the L·31E Borrow Canal from the major discharge canals (C-I02, Military Canal and 

C-I03) and allow freshwater flow through the L-31E Levee to the saltwater wetlands. Gated 

culverts and inverted siphon structures will isolate the L-3IE Borrow Canal from these canals, 

allowing L-3J E Borrow Canal to maintain higher water levels. Two pump stations and a series of 

culverts will move fresh water directly to the saltwater wetlands east ofL-31E. Two more pump 

stations and a spreader canal will deliver water to the freshwater wetlands south of Col 03. 

Recreational opportunities are also provided at the site within the project footprint. 

Recreation Features: 'file recreation activities proposed include biking/walking trails, 

environmental interpretation, canoeing/kayaking, bank fishing, tent camping and nature study. 

Proposed facilities include interpretive signage, shade shelter, handicapped accessible waterless 

restrooms, handicapped parking, tent platforms, pedestrian bridge, benches, bike rack, trash 

receptacles, park security gate, trail signage, potable water source and a bird watching platform. 

6. The total first cost of the Recommend Plan from the final PIRlEIS, based upon October 2011 

(FYI2) price levels, is estimated to be $164,070,000. The total first cost for the ecosystem 

restoration features is estimated to be $162,229,000 and the recreation first cost is estimated to be 

$1,841,000. The total project cost being sought for authorization is $192,418,000, which includes 

all costs for construction; lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations; recreation facilities; 

pre-construction, engineering and design (PED) and construction management costs; and sunk PIR 

costs ($28,348,700). 

7. In accordance with the cost-sharing requirements of Section 60l(e) of the WRDA 2000, as 

amended, the Federal cost of the Recommended Plan is $96,209,000 and the non-Federal cost is 

$96,209,000. The cstimated lands, easements, right-of-way, and relocation (LERRs) costs for the 

Recommended Plan are $80,985,000. Based on FYl2 price levels, a 40-year period of economic 

evaluation and a 4.00% discount rate, the equivalent annual cost of the proposed project is 

estimated to be $11,126,000, which includes OMRR&R, monitoring, interest during construction 

and amortization, but not sunk costs. The estimated annual costs for ecosystem restoration 

OMRR&R, including vegetation management, is $1,873,000. The total project monitoring cost is 

estimated to be $1,917,000 with an average annual cost of $193,000. The project monitoring 

period is five years except for endangered species monitoring, which is 10 years. Any costs 

associated with project monitoring beyond 10 years after completion of construction of the Project 

(or a component of the Project) shall be a non-Federal responsibility. The annual OMRR&R costs 

for recreation are estimated at $25,000. 
243 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 256 85131A.176

SUBJECT: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase r Project Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

8. As a component of the CERP program, the interagency/interdisciplinary scientific and 

technical team, formed to ensw-e that system-wide goals are met, will participate in the annual 

monitoring to assess system-wide changes. In accordance with Sections 601(e)(4) and 

601(eXS)(D) of WRDA 2000, OMRR&R costs and adaptive assessment and monitoring costs for 

ecosystem restoration will be shared equally between the Federal Government and the non-Federal 

sponsor. 111e Project Monitoring Plan was developed assuming that major, ongoing monitoring 

programs that are not funded by the Project would continue to supply data relevant to the Project. 

The Project Monitoring Plan shall not include items that are already required to be monitored by 

another Federal agency or other entity as part of their regular responsibilities or required by law. 

Should any of these monitoring programs be discontinued or significantly curtailed, then 

monitoring priorities and funding options may be re-evaluated to ensure proper Project evaluation. 

In accordance with Section 1030) of the WRDA 1986, as amended, OMRR&R costs related to 

recreation features will be funded 100 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. 

9. To ensure that an effective ecosystem restoration plan was recommended, cost 

effectiveness/incremental cost analysis techniques were used to evaluate alternative restoration 

plans. These techniques determined the selected alternative plan to be cost-effective and 

incrementally justified. The hydraulic model and ecological model utilized to estimate the 

ecological outputs that were used in the economic analysis were both peer-reviewed and certified 

for use in the project. The plan recommended for implementation is the National Ecosystem 

Restoration (NER) plan, supports the Incremental Adaptive Restoration principles established by 

the National Research Council, and was prepared in a collal1orative enviroml1ent. The 

Recommended Plan provides benefits by: (1) restoring the quantity, timing, and distribution of 

water delivered to Biscayne Bay; (2) improving hydroperiods and hydropattems in the project area; 

and, (3) restoring coastal zone salinities in Biscayne Bay and its tributaries. The project will 

restore the overland sheetflow in an approximately 11,000-acre area and improve the ecology of 

Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine 

nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community. 

10. In accordance with the WRDA 2000 Section 601(f)(2), individual CERP projects may be 

justified" by the environmental benefits derived by the South Florida ecosystem. Similarly, Section 

385.9(a) of the CERP Programmatic Regulations (33 CPR Part 385) requires that individual 

projects shall be formulated, evaluated, and justified based on their ability to contribute to the goals 

and purposes of the Plan and on tl1eir ability to provide benefits that justify costs on a next-added 

increment (NAI) basis. Due to the project location at the terminus of the Everglades system, the 

BBCW Phase I project does not depend on any other CERP or non-CERP projects to achieve the 

estimated ecological benefits. The NAI analysis evaluates the effects, or outputs, of the 

Recommended Plan as the next project to be added to the group of already approved CERP 

projects. The results of the NAI analysis showed that as a stand-alone project, the BBCW 

Recommended Plan nearly doubles the spatial extent of the functional habitat expected to exist in 

the future without-project condition. The Recommended Plan will produce an average annual 

increase of9,276 habitat units at an armual cost of$11,003,000 for a cost of$I,186 per habitat unit. 

Based on these parameters, the BBCW Phase I project is justified by the environmental benefits 

derived by the South Florida ecosystem. The average annual cost for recreation is $123,000 and 

average annual net benefits are $58,000. The benefit to cost ratio for the proposed recreation 

features is approximately 2.1 to 1. 

4 
244 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 257 85131A.177

SUBJECT: Biscayoe Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

1 L Of the total 3,761 acres identified for the Project, approximately 1,421 acres would be required 

in fee and approximately 149 acres would require perpetual easement interest Additionally, 

approximately 1,254 acres would be provided through the execution of Supplemental Agreements 

between the SFWMD, the State of Florida and local Miami-Dade County government entities. 

Approximately 937 acres are currently owned by the United States; National Park Service for 

Biscayne National Park (BNP) which will provide a Memorandum of Agreement to the SFWMD 

for the use of these lands. 

12. In accordance with the Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Engineering Circular on review of 

decision documents, all technical, engineering, and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic, 

and vigorous review process to ensure technical quality. This included Agency Technical Review 

(A TR), Independent External Peer Review (!EPR), and a Corps Headquarters policy and legal 

review. All concerns of the ATR have been addressed and incorporated into the final report. The 

IEPR was managed by Battelle Memorial Institute, a non-profit science and technology 

organization with experience in establishing and administering peer review panels for the Corps. 

A total of 19 comments were documented. Overall, the Panel found the BBCW PIRIEIS a 

well-written document that contained adequate information to interpret plan selection and 

recommendations. The panel also acknowledged the public involvement and collaborative efforts 

in the development of the report, and encouraged the Corps to document the usage of recent 

scientific data in the expansion of the project to include additional restoration opportunities. The 

comments of high significance included requests to expand the discussion and analysis of the future 

conditions relating to sea level rise and water avallability. In response to these comments, the PIR 

was modified to include an expanded and more quantitative and graphical discussion of the 

potential impacts of sea level rise and clarification of the relationship between the water available 

for diversion and the hydrologic regimes needed to achieve the target level of wetlands area and 

function. The Final Report and Certification from the IEPR Panel was issued 1 December 2009. 

13. The Final PIRIEIS was published for State and Agency Rcview on 7 January 2012. The 

majority of the comments received were favorable and in support of the project. In response to 

comments received from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Corps 

sent a letter in April 2012 that clarified the roles and responsibilities of the Corps and the 

non-Federal sponsor in addressing residual agricultural chemicals on project lands. The Corps 

also sent a letter in response to comments from Homestead Air Reserve Base (HARB). HARB 

requested additional information on the potential for bird strikes to aircraft operating from the 

airbase and expressed concerns regarding increases in bird popUlations, and specifically whether 

predatory birds, most implicated in aircraft strikes, would increase due to the ecological 

improvements. HARB requested that the Corps further research predator/prey avian relationships. 

The Corps has done this by soliciting information from avian experts at Everglades National Park, 

Biscayne Bay National Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Audubon Florida, Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission and the University of Florida, all of whom are familiar with the BBCW 

Phase I project area, the project objectives and the hydrological modeling predictions. There was 

agreement amongst resource agencies that there will not be an increase in predatory birds such as 

raptors and vulrures as a result of the restoration. Specifically, wetland rehydration achieved by 

the BBCW Phase I project and resulting wading bird increase are not likely to serve as an additional 

attractant to predatory birds beyond the geographic features already serving to guide raptors and 

other migratory birds along Florida coasts. The Corps Jacksonville District staff met with HARB 

5 
245 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 258 85131A.178

SUBJECT: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

representatives to discuss their concerns and the Recommended Plan. The Corps sent a response 

letter to HARB in April 2012 that provided the Corps' analysis and indicated the Corps' willingness 

to continue to work through the concerns of the airbase. The letter also requested that HARB 

continue to share information with the Corps in order to realize opporttmities to minimize wildlife 

risks to aviation and human safety, as necessary, while protecting valuable environmental 

resources. 

14. Section 601(e)(5)(B) of WRDA 2000, as amended by Section 6004 of the WRDA 2007, 

authorizes credit toward the non-Federal share for non-Federal design and construction work 

completed during the period of design or construction, subject to execution of the design or project 

partnership agreement and subject to a determination by the Secretary that the work is integral to 

the project As part of its initiative for early implementation of certain CERP projects, the 

non-Federal sponsor has stated that it is constructing several features of Phase I of the BBCW 

project consistent with the PIR, in advance of Congressional authorization and the signing of a 

project partnership agreement As such, a separate EIS has been completed and a Department of 

the Army permit has been issued to the non-Federal sponsor for expedited construction of this 

project; construction of the project has already begwt by the State of Florida in the Deering Estates 

and L-31E Flow Way areas of the project As required by the February 2008 Implementation 

Guidance for Section 6004 of WRDA 2007 CERP Work In-Kind Credits, the non-Federal 

sponsor entered into a Pre-Partnership Credit Agreement for the BBCW project on 13 August 2009. 

The reporting officers believe that it is in the public interest for this Proj ect to be implemented 

expeditiously due to the early restoration of Federal lands in Everglades National Park and 

ecological benefits to the wetlands and estuaries in other portions of the South Florida ecosystem. 

Therefore, the reporting officers recommend that the non-Federal sponsor be credited for all 

reasonable, allowable, necessary, auditable, and allocable costs applicable to the Biscayne Bay 

Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project, as may be authorized by law including those incurred prior to the 

execution of a project partnership agreement, subject to authorization of the Project by law, a 

determination by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) or hislher designee that the 

In-kind work is integral to the authorized CERP Project, that the costs are reasonable, allowable, 

necessary, auditable, and allocable, and that the In-kind work has been implemented in accordance 

with government standards and applicable Fedeml and state laws. 

15. The Non-Fedeml Sponsor and the U.S. Department of the Army entered into an agreement 

known as the Master Agreement Between the Department of the Army and South Florida Water 

Management District for Cooperation in Constructing and Operating, Maintaining, Repairing, 

Replacing and Rehabilitating Projects Authorized to be Undertaken Pursuant to the Comprchensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan dated 13 August 2009 (hereinafter "Master Agreement"). The 

Master Agreement scts forth the terms of participation in the construction and OMRR&R of 

projects wtder CERP that will apply to any future project for which the non-Federal sponsor and the 

Government have entered into a PP A. The uniform terms of the Master Agreement will be 

incorporated by reference into the BBCW Project, Phase I, PP A. 

16. Credits for non-Federal design and construction will be evaluated in accordance with the 

terms of the Master Agreement. All documentation provided by the non-Federal sponsor will be 

thoroughly reviewed by the Corps to determine reasonable, allowable, necessary, auditable, and 

allocable costs. Upon completion of this review, a financial audit will be conducted prior to 

6 
246 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 259 85131A.179

SUBJECT: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

granting final credit. Coordination between Corps and the non-Federal sponsor will occur 

throughout design and construction via the Corps' Regulatory process. The credit afforded to the 

non-Federal sponsor will be limited to the lesser of the following: (1) actual costs that are 

reasonable, allowable, necessary, auditable, and allocable to the Project; or (2) the Corps' estimate 

of the cost of the work allocable to the Project had the Corps performed the work. The non-Federal 

sponsor intends to implement this work using its own funds and would not use funds originating 

from other Federal sources unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the 

expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized by statute and in accordance with Section 601 

(e)(3) of WRDA 2000 as amended and the Master Agreement. 

17. Washington level review indicates that the plan recommended by the reporting officers is 

environmentally justified, technically sound, cost effective, and socially acceptable. The plan 

conforms to essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and 

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation 

Studies and complies with other administration and legislative policies and guidelines. Also, the 

views of interested parties, including Federal, State and local agencies, have been considered. 

18. The Project complies with the following requirements of the WRDA 2000, as amended: 

a. Project Implementation Report (PIR). The requirements of a PIR as defined by Section 

601 (h)(4)(A). 

b. Reservation or Allocation of Water for the Natural System. Sections 

601(h)(4)(A)(iii)(IV) and (V) require identification of the appropriate quantity, timing, !md 

distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural system and the amount of water to 

be reserved or allocated for the natural system. In accordance with the regulations, an analysis 

was conducted to identifY water dedicated and managed for the natural system. Accordingly, 

the non-Federal sponsor will protect the water that was identified as necessary to achieve the 

benefits of the Project, using water reservation or allocation authority under Florida law. 

c. Elimination or Transfer of Existing Legal Sources of Water. Section 601(h)(5)(A) states 

that existing legal sources of water shall not be eliminated or transferred until a new source of 

water supply of comparable quantity and quality is available to replace the water to be lost as a 

result of the CERP. An analysis of project effects on existing legal sources of water was 

conducted and it was determined that implementation of the BBCW Phase I project will not 

result in a transfer or elimination of existing legal sources of water. 

d. Maintenance of Flood Protection. Section 601 (h)(5)(B) states that the Plan shall not 

reduce levels of service for flood protection that are in existence on the date of enactment of 

this Act and in accordance with applicable law. Potential flooding effects as a result of the 

proposed project were analyzed and the results indicated that the proposed project would not 

have an adverse impact on the level of service for flood protection in the project area. 

19. I generally concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting 

officers. Accordingly, I recommend that the plan described herein for ecosystem restoration and 

recreation be authorized for implementation as a Federal Project, with such modifications as in the 

7 
247 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 260 85131A.180

SUBJECT: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, and subject to cost-sharing, financing, and 

other applicable requirements of Section 601 of WRDA 2000, as amended. In addition, I 

recommend that the non-Federal sponsor be authorized to receive credit for work accomplished 

prior to execution of a PP A for this Project, in accordance with the tenus described in paragraphs 14 

and 16 of this report. 

Further, this recommendation is subject to the non-Federal sponsor agreeing to comply with all 

applicable Federal laws and the following items of local cooperation: 

a. Provide 50 percent of total project costs consistent with the provisions of Section 601(e) of 

the WRDA 2000, as amended, including authority to perfonu design and construction of 

project features consistent with Federal law and regulation. 

b. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including suitable borrow and dredged or 

excavated material disposal areas, and perform or assure the performance of all relocations that 

the Goverrunent and the non-Federal sponsor jointly determine to be necessary for the 

construction and OMRR&R of the Project and valuation will be in accordance with the Master 

Agreement. 

c. Shall not use the ecosystem restoration features or lands, easements, and rights-of-way 

required for such features as a wetlands bank or mitigation credit for any other non-CERP 

projects. 

d. Give the Goverrunent a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon 

land that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project for the purpose of 

inspection, and, if necessary, for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, 

replacing, or rehabilitating the Project. 

e. Assume responsibility for operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and rehabilitating 

the Project or completed functional portions of the Project in a manner compatible with the 

Project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and 

specific directions prescribed in the OMRR&R manuals and any subsequent amendments 

thereto. Notwithstanding Section 528(e)(3) ofWRDA 1996 (liO Stat. 3770), the non-Federal 

sponsor shall be responsible for 50 percent of thc cost of OMRR&R activities authorized under 

this section. 

f. The non-Federal sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace and rehabilitate the 

recreational features of the Project and is responsible for 100 percent of the costs. 

g. Keep the recreation features, and access roads, parking areas, and other associated public 

use facilities, open and available to all on equal terms. 

h. Unless otherwise provided for in the statutory authorization for this Project, comply with 

Section 221 of PL 91-611, Flood Control Act of1970, as amended, and Section 103 of the 

WRDA of 1986, PL 99-662, as amended which provides that the Secretary of the Army shall 

not commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, 

8 
248 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 261 85131A.181

SUBJECT: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

until the non-Federal sponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required 

cooperation for the Project or separable element. 

i. Hold and save the Government free from all damages arising from the construction, 

OMRR&R of the Project, and any project-related betterments, except for damages due to the 

fault or negligence of the Government or the Government's contractors. 

j. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the Project to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect 

total project costs and comply with the provisions of the CERP Master Agreement between the 

Department of Anny and the South Florida Water Management District for Cooperation in 

Constructing and Operating, Maintaining, Repairing, Replacing, and Rehabilitating Projects 

Authorized to be Undertaken Pursuant to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 

executed on 13 August 2009, including Article XI Maintenance of Records and Audit. 

k. Perform, or cause to be perfonned, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

detennined necessary to identifY the existence and extent of any hazardous substances 

regulated lUlder the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), 42 USC 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, easements or 

rights-of-way necessary for the construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the 

Project; except that the non-Federal sponsor shall not perform such investigations on lands, 

easements, or rights-of-way that the Government detennines to be subject to the navigation 

servitude without prior specific written direction by the Government. 

I. Assume complete fiuancial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of 

any CERCLA regulated materials located in, on or lUlder lands, easements, or right-of-ways 

necessary for the construction and OMRR&R. 

m. As between the Government and the non-Federal sponsor, the non-Federal sponsor shall 

be considered the operator of the Project for the purposes of CERCLA liability. To the 

maximum extent practicable, the non-Federal sponsor shall OMRR&R the Project in a manner 

that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA. 

n. Prevent obstructions of and encroachments on the Project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstruction or encroachments) which might reduce 

ecosystem restoration benefits, hinder O&M, or interfere with the Project's proper function, 

such as any new developments on Project lands or the addition of facilities which would 

degrade the benefits of the Project. 

o. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, PL 91-646, as amended by the title IV of the 

Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (PL 100-17), and 

Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and 

rights-of-way, and perfonning relocations for construction, O&M of the Project, and infonn all 

affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said act. 

9 
249 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 262 85131A.182

SUBJECT: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

p. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, PL 88-352, and Department of Defense 

Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Army Regulation 600-7, entitled, 

"Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or 

Conducted by the Department of the Army," and all applicable Federal labor standards and 

requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.c. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-3708 

(revising, codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the 

Davis-Bacon Act [formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.], the Contract Work Hours and Safety 

Standards Act [fonnedy 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.] and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act [formerly 

40 U.S.C. 276c]). 

q. Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in completion of all 

consultation with Florida's State Historic Preservation Office and, as necessary, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation prior to construction as part of the Pre-construction 

Engineering and Design phase of the Project. 

r. Provide 50 percent of that portion of total cultural resource preservation mitigation and data 

recovery costs attributable to the Project that are in excess of one percent of the total amount 

authorized to be appropriated for the Project. 

s. Do not use Federal funds to meet the non-Federal sponsor's share of total project costs 

unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is 

expressly authorized and in accordance with Section 601 (e X3) of WRDA 2000. 

1. The non-Federal sponsor agrees to participate in and comply with applicable Federal 

floodplain management and flood insuraoce programs consistent with its statutory authority. 

(1) Not less than once each year the non-Federal sponsor shall inform affected 

interests of the extent of protection afforded by the Project. 

(2) The non-Federal sponsor shall publicize flood plain information in the area 

concerned and shall provide this information to zoning and other regulatory 

agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development in the flood plain and 

in adopting such regulations as may be necessary to prevent unwise future 

development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the 

Project. 

(3) The non-Federal sponsor shall comply with Section 402 of WRDA 1986, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 70Ib-12), which requires a non-Federal interest to have 

prepared, within one year after the date of signing a project partnership agreement 

for the Project, a floodplain management plan. The plan shall be designed to 

reduce the impacts of future flood events in the project area, including but not 

limited to, addressing those measures to be undertaken by non-Federal interests to 

preserve the level of flood protection provided by the Project. As required by 

Section 402, as amended, the non-Federal interest shall implement such plan not 

later than one year after completion of construction of the Project. The non-Federal 

10 
250 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 263 85131A.183

SUBJECT: Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase I Project. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Miami-Dade County, Florida 

sponsor shall provide an information copy of the plan to the Government upon its 

preparation. 

(4) The non-Federal sponsor shall prescribe and enforce regulations to prevent 

obstruction of or encroachment on the Project or on the lands, easements, and 

rights-of-way determined by the Govemment to be required for the construction, 

operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the Project, that 

could reduce the level of protection the Project affords, hinder operation or 

maintenance of the Project, or interfere with the Project's proper function. 

u. The non-Federal sponsor shall execute under State law the reservation or allocation of 

water for the natural system as identified in the PIR for this authorized CERP Project as 

required by Sections 601(h)(4)(B)(ii) of WRDA 2000 and the non-Federal Sponsor shall 

provide information to the Govemment regarding such execution. In compliance with 33 CFR 

385, the District Engineer will verifY such reservation or allocation in writing. Any change to 

such reservation or allocation of water shall require an amendment to the PP A after the District 

Engineer verifies in writing in compliance with 33 CFR 385 that the revised reservation or 

allocation continues to provide for an appropriate quantity, timing, and distribution of water 

dedicated and managed for the natural system after considering any changed circumstances or 

new information since completion of the PIR for the authorized CERP Project. 

20. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current Departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities in the formulation of a national Civil Works construction program 

or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. Consequently, the 

recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a proposal for 

authorization and implementation funding. 

ffi4I!?#:J~~ MERDITH W.B. TEMPLE 

Major General, USA 

Acting Commander 

11 
251 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 264 85131A.184

CECW-SAD (l105-2-lOa) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20314-1000 

\J.!I.'( ? 1 2012 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project, Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

I. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on ecosystem restoration improvements for 

the Broward County Water Preserve Areas (BCWPA) Project, located in Broward and MiamiDade Counties, Florida. It is accompanied by the report of the Jacksonville District Engineer and 

South Atlantic Division Engineer. These reports are in response to Section 601 of the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000, which authorized the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan (CERP) as a framework for modifications and operational changes to the Central 

and Southern Florida Project that are needed to restore, preserve and protect the south Florida 

ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region, including water supply and 

flood protection. WRDA 2000 identified specific requirements for implementing components of 

the CERP, including the development of a decision document known as a Project Implementation 

Report (PIR). The requirements of a PIR are addressed in this report and are subject to the review 

and approval by the Secretary of the Army. Preconstruction engineering and design activities for 

this project will be continued under the CERP Design Agreement. 

2. The three components comprising the proposed BCWP A Project were conditionally authorized 

by Sections 60 I (b)(2)(C)(iv), 601(b)(2)(C)(v), and 601 (b)(2)(C)(vi) ofWRDA 2000, but are not 

being recommended for implementation under those authorities. The PIR recommends a project 

that combines implementation of three projects identified in the CERP. Due to changes in scope 

and combining of CERP components, the BCWP A Project is recommended for new specific 

Congressional authorization consistent with WRDA 2000, Section 601(d). The reporting officers 

detennined that the original authorities for the individual components of the BCWPA Project 

contained in Sections 601 (b)(2)(C)(iv), (v) and (vi) ofWRDA 2000, are no longer needed. As 

such, the reporting officers recommend that the projects authorized in Section 601(b)(2)(C)(iv), 

(v) and (vi) ofWRDA 2000 be deauthorized. 

3. Although cost sharing of the ecosystem restoration features for the BCWP A Project is 

governed by Section 601 ofWRDA 2000, as amended, cost sharing of recreation features is 

governed by Section 103 ofWRDA 1986, as amended. In particular, in accordance with Section 

1030) ofWRDA 1986, 100 percent of the cost of Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement 

and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the recreation features is the non-federal sponsor's 

responsibility. In addition, section 60 1 (e)(5)(B) ofWRDA 2000, as amended, governs credit for 

non-federal sponsor design and construction work on the ecosystem restoration features of the 

project, whereas section 22 I (a)(4) of the Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.c. 
252 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 85131A.185

CECW-SAD (I I05-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

I 962d-5b(a)(4)), governs credit for non-federal sponsor design and construction work on the 

recreation features of the project. 

4. The final PIR and integrated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) recommends a project that 

contributes significantly to all the ecological goals and objectives of the CERP: (I) increasing 

spatial extent of natural areas; (2) improving habitat function and quality; and (3) improving 

native plant and animal abundance and diversity. In addition, it contributes to the economic 

values and social well being of the project area by providing recreational opportunities. The 

historical Everglades ecosystem was previously defined by a mosaic of uplands, freshwater 

marsh, deepwater sloughs, and estuarine habitats that supported a diverse community of fish and 

wildlife. Today nearly all aspects of south Florida's flora and fauna have been affected by 

development, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species that have resulted 

directly or indirectly from a century of water management for human needs. Significant areas 

within the project study boundary are characterized by undesirable dense cattail (Typha spp.) 

stands, drydowns and degraded ridge and slough habitat. The BCWP A Project addresses loss of 

ecosystem function within the Everglades as a result of (I) damaging discharges of runoff from 

developed areas in western Broward County into the Everglades (Water Conservation Area 3A); 

(2) excessive nutrient loading to the Everglades, and; (3) excessive seepage of water out of the 

Everglades to developed areas in western Broward County. The project also addresses 

insufficient quantities of water available in the regional water management system during dry 

periods to meet municipal, agricultural, and environmental water supply demands. The PIR 

confirms information in the CERP and provides a project-level evaluation of costs and benefits 

associated with construction and operation of this ecosystem restoration project. The 

Recommended Plan will improve functional fish and wildlife habitat in Water Conservation 

Areas (WCA) 3A/3B, and in Everglades National Park. The portion of the Everglades ecosystem 

directly affected by the project provides habitat for five federally-listed species: West Indian 

manatee, Florida panther, wood stork, snail kite and Eastern indigo snake. Overall, an ecological 

lift of approximately 166,211 average annual habitat units will occur due to improved 

hydroperiods and hydropatterns in the project area. Overall, approximately 563,000 acres in 

Water Conservation Area 3 and 200,000 acres in the greater Everglades will benefit from project 

implementation. 

5. The reporting officers recommend a plan for ecosystem restoration and recreation. The 

Recommended Plan would improve the ecological function of the Everglades ecosystem by 

capturing and storing the excess surface water runoff from the C-II watershed and reducing 

excess releases to the WCA 3A/3B, and will minimize seepage losses during dry periods. The 

Recommended Plan, Alternative A4, would include a footprint of approximately 7,990 acres 

based on the three components: C-l1 Impoundment, WCA 3A/3B Seepage Management Area 

(SMA), and C-9 Impoundment, as well as recreation features. A description of the individual 

components follows: 

2 
253 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 266 85131A.186

CECW -SAD (1105-2-1 Oa) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

C-J1 Impoundment: The C-II Impoundment is located in the northern part of the project area 

and requires 1,830 acres to construct an above-ground impoundment (interior storage of 1,068 

acres). Major elements include canals, levees, water control structures and buffer marsh. Water 

control structures consist of pump stations, a gated spillway, gated and non-gated culverts and a 

non-gated fixed weir. The purpose of the C-ll Impoundment is to capture and store surface 

runoff from the C-II Basin, reduce pumping of surface water into the WCA 3AJ3B, and provide 

releases for regional benefits. 

WCA 3AI3B Seepage Management Area: The WCA 3AJ3B SMA makes up the western project 

border and requires 4,353 acres. Elements include levees, canals, pumps, bridges and water 

control structures. The C-502A and C-502B conveyance canals are major components that will 

transfer water between the C-II and C-9 impoundments, assist with creating a hydraulic ridge, 

and transfer water to the southern project region for future CERP Projects. The purpose of this 

rain-driven component is to establish a buffer, reduce seepage to and from the WCA 3AJ3B by 

creating a hydraulic head, and maintain the level of service flood protection. 

C-9 Impoundment: The C-9lmpoundment is located north and adjacent to the Snake Creek Canal 

(C-9) and requires approximately 1,807 acres to construct an above-ground impoundment 

(storage of 1,641 acres). Elements include levees, canals, pumps, bridges and water control 

structures. The purpose of the C-9 Impoundment is to capture and store surface runoff from the 

C-9 Basin, store C-II Impoundment overflow, assist with WCA 3AJ3B seepage management, and 

provide releases for regional benefits. 

Recreation Features: The recreation amenities proposed are ancillary, work harmoniously with 

the Project and are on fee owned lands. The amenities include 14 miles of improved trail surface, 

parking areas with ADA accessible waterless toilets, walkway to canoe launch facilities, an 

infonnation kiosk, shaded benches, footbridges, trash receptacles and signage. Walking, jogging 

and biking are proposed on the levee crowns. Equestrian use is proposed at the levee base. 

Nature-based activities and fishing would be allowed. 

6. The total first cost of the Recommended Plan from the final PIRlEIS, based on February 2012 

price levels, is estimated at $840,657,000. Total first cost for the ecosystem restoration features is 

estimated to be $834,211 ,000, and the recreation first cost is estimated to be $6,446,000. The 

total project cost being sought for authorization is $866,707,000, which includes all costs for 

construction; lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations; recreation facilities; preconstruction, engineering and design (PED) and construction management costs; and sunk PIR 

costs ($26,050,000). 

7. In accordance with cost sharing requirements of Section 60 I (e) of the WRDA 2000, as 

3 
254 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 267 85131A.187

CECW-SAD (1105-2-1 Oa) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

amended, the federal cost of the Recommended Plan is $433,353,500 and the non-federal cost is 

$433,353,500. The estimated lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocation (LERRs) costs for 

the Recommended Plan are $380,633,000. Based on FYI2 price levels, a 38-year period of 

economic evaluation and a 4.00% discount rate, the equivalent annual cost of the proposed project 

is estimated at $49,415,000 which includes OMRR&R, interest during construction and 

amortization, but not sunk costs. The estimated annual costs for ecosystem restoration 

OMRR&R, including project monitoring costs, vegetation management and endangered species 

monitoring, are $3,510,000. The project monitoring period is five years except for endangered 

species monitoring, which is 10 years. Any costs associated with project monitoring beyond 10 

years after completion of the construction of the Project (or a component of the Project) shall be a 

non-federal responsibility. The estimated annual OMRR&R cost forrecreation is $412,000. 

8. As a component of the CERP program, the interagency/interdisciplinary scientific and 

technical team, formed to ensure that the system-wide goals are met, will participate in the annual 

monitoring to assess system-wide changes. In accordance with Section 60 I (e)(4) and 

60 I (e)(5)(D) ofWRDA 2000, as amended, OMRR&R costs and adaptive assessment and 

monitoring costs for ecosystem restoration will be shared equally between the federal government 

and the non-federal sponsor. The Project Monitoring Plan was developed assuming that major, 

ongoing monitoring programs that are not funded by the Project would continue to supply data 

relevant to the Project. The Project Monitoring Plan shall not include items that are already 

required to be monitored by another federal agency or other entity as part of their regular 

responsibilities or required by law. Should any of these monitoring programs be discontinued or 

significantly curtailed, then monitoring priorities and funding options may be re-evaluated to 

ensure proper Project evaluations. In accordance with Section 1030) of the WRDA 1986, as 

amended, OMRR&R costs related to recreation features will be funded 100 percent by the nonfederal sponsor. 

9. To ensure that an effective ecosystem restoration plan was recommended, cost effectiveness/ 

incremental cost analysis (CEIICA) techniques were used to evaluate alternative restoration plans. 

These techniques determined the selected alternative plan to be cost effective and incrementally 

justified. The hydraulic model and ecological model utilized to estimate the ecological outputs 

that were used in the economic analysis were both peer reviewed and certified for use in the 

project. The plan recommended for implementation is the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) 

plan, supports the Incremental Adaptive Management principles established by the National 

Research Council and was prepared in a collaborative environment. The Recommended Plan 

provides benefits by: (I) restoring quantity, timing and distribution of water for the Water 

Conservation Areas 3A and 3B and Everglades National Park; (2) improving hydroperiods and 

hydropattems in the project area; and (3) providing water for other CERP projects within the 

vicinity of the project area. 

4 
255 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 85131A.188

CECW-SAD (l105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

10. In accordance with the WRDA 2000 Section 601 (f)(2), individual CERP projects may be 

justified by the environmental benefits realized in the south Florida ecosystem. Similarly, Section 

385.9(a) of the CERP Programmatic Regulations (33 CFR Part 385) requires that individual 

projects shall be formulated, evaluated, and justified based on their ability to contribute to the 

goals and purposes of the CERP and on their ability to provide benefits that justify costs on a 

next-added increment (NAI) basis. Due to the project location at the terminus of the Everglades 

system, the BCWP A Project does not depend on any other CERP or non-CERP projects to 

achieve estimated ecolo gical benefits. The NAI analysis evaluates the effects, or outputs, of the 

Recommended Plan as the next project to be added to the group of already approved CERP 

projects. The results of the N AI analysis show that as a stand-alone project, the BCWP A 

Recommended Plan greatly increases the ecological function of the Everglades ecosystem in 

project area habitats over the expected future without project condition. The Recommended Plan 

will produce an average annual increase of 166,211 habitat units at an annual cost of$49,415,000, 

for a cost of $297.00 per habitat unit. The average annual cost for the recreation features is 

$748,000, the average annual benefit is $1,376,000, and the average annual net benefit of 

approximately $628,000. The benefit to cost ratio for the recommended recreation plan is 

approximately 1.8. 

J 1. Of the total 7,990.47 acres ofland identified for the Project, approximately 6,607.58 acres 

would be required in fee, approximately 851.39 acres owned by FPL would be required in 

perpetual flowage easements, 42 acres owned by FDOT would be provided by Supplemental 

Agreement, and 490 acres acquired as part ofthe original Central & Southern Florida Project 

would be recertified for this Project. No credit shall be afforded and no reimbursement shall be 

provided for the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, or relocations that have been 

provided previously as an item of cooperation for another federal project. The Recommended 

Plan will result in some unavoidable impacts to existing mitigation sites required by Department 

of the Army (DA) Section 404 Permits that are located within both of the impoundment 

footprints. The Recommended Plan addresses this issue through the acquisition of mitigation 

bank credits from an established mitigation bank to replace established DA mitigation areas 

within the impoundment. However, should mitigation bank credits not be available at the time of 

construction, the optional FDOT wetland mitigation area described in this paragraph and further 

detailed in the PIR will be constructed. The original plan called for the rehydration of wetland 

areas on FDOT lands as mitigation to offset wetland impacts resulting from the project. Due to 

USFWS concerns about seleniwn tainted soils on the FDOT land and their ecological risk to 

USFWS trust species, the project will not use these lands for the purpose of wetland mitigation at 

this time. The current mitigation plan will avoid the FDOT lands, and calls for the purchase of 

wetland mitigation bank credits (estimated 54 FCU s) to offset the loss of the FDOT lands that 

would have been used to satisfy project wetland impacts. In order to be ecologically successful, 

the mitigation areas within the impoundments need additional water (above and beyond what 

would be provided in a rainfall driven system) which will be supplied by the BCWPA Project. 

5 
256 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 85131A.189

CECW-SAD (1105-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

The ecological lift that would occur as a result of the replacement mitigation in the impoundments 

is not being counted for Project benefits. The storage provided by the replacement mitigation 

areas, though not used to justify federal participation in the Project, would contribute to provide 

downstream benefits. 

12. In accordance with the Corps of Engineers' Engineering Circular on review of decision 

documents, all technical, engineering, and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic, and 

vigorous review process to ensure technical quality. This included Agency Technical Review 

(ATR), external scientific review of CERP through the National Academy of Science at the 

programmatic level, and Corps Headquarters policy and legal review. Independent External Peer 

Review is not required for this Project because the study was initiated and an array of alternatives 

was selected over two years prior to the enactment of WRDA 2007. All concerns have been 

addressed and incorporated into the final PIR. The final PIRJEIS was published for state and 

agency review on 4 May 2007. In response to comments received from the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Corps sent a letter in May 2012 that clarified the roles and 

responsibilities of the Corps and the non-federal sponsor in addressing residual agricultural 

chemicals on project lands and a parcel known as the Naval Bomb Target, the same parcel is 

sometimes referred to as the Fort Lauderdale Bombing Target #7 (tract #W92000-00l). The 

Corps clarified that based on past investigations, concurred in by FDEP, that there is no known 

contamination requiring remediation at the Naval Bomb Target. A number of interest parties 

commented on the mitigation plan. The Corps has revised the PIR to further clarify that in 

accordance with Section 2036(c) ofWRDA 2007, the mitigation plan is to purchase mitigation 

bank credits. However, should mitigation bank credits be unavailable at the time of construction, 

the mitigation will be accomplished by creating the optional FDOT wetland mitigation area 

described in the PIR and explained in paragraph II of this Report. The agencies supported 

implementation of the recommended plan. The revised final PIRJEIS was also published in the 

Federal Register and sent to federal and state agencies in April 20 12. 

13. Section 60 I (e)(5)(B) ofWRDA 2000, as amended by Section 6004 ofWRDA 2007, 

authorizes credit toward the non-federal share for non-federal design and construction work 

completed during the period of design or construction, subject to execution of the design or 

project partnership agreement (PP A) and subject to a determination by the Secretary that the work 

is integral to the Project. As part of its initiative for early implementation of certain CERP 

projects, the BCWPA Project was included in the "State Expedited Projects and Program" to 

allow the non-federal sponsor to execute work expeditiously. The work completed by the nonfederal sponsor prior to a PP A has focused on engineering and design aspects now a part of the 

PIR. At this time, the non-federal sponsor does expect to commence construction prior to signing 

a PP A. The reporting officers believe that it is in the public interest for the Project to be 

implemented expeditiously due to the regional restoration of federal lands in the Everglades 

National Park, Water Conservation Areas 3A13B, and ecological benefits to the south Florida 

6 
257 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 270 85131A.190

CECW -SAD (1105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

ecosystems. Therefore, the reporting officers recommend that the non-federal sponsor be credited 

for all reasonable, allowable, necessary, auditable and allocable costs applicable to the BCWPA 

Project as may be authorized by law, including those incurred prior to the execution ofa PPA, 

subject to authorization of the Project by law, a determination by the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Civil Works) or hislher designee that the in-kind work is integral to the authorized CERP 

project, that the costs are reasonable, allowable, necessary, auditable and allocable, and that the 

in-kind work has been implemented in accordance with government standards and applicable 

federal and state laws. 

14. The non-federal sponsor and the U.S. Department of the Army entered into an agreement 

known as the Master Agreement Between the Department of the Army and South Florida Water 

Management District for Cooperation in Constructing and Operating, Maintaining, Repairing, 

Replacing and Rehabilitating Projects Authorized to be Undertaken Pursuant to the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, dated 13 August 2009 (hereinafter "Master 

Agreement"). The Master Agreement sets forth the terms of participation in the construction and 

OMRR&R of projects under CERP that will apply to any future project for which the non-federal 

sponsor and the Government have entered into a PP A. The uniform terms of the Master 

Agreement will be incorporated by reference into the BCWPA Project PP A. 

15. Credits for the non-federal sponsor's design and construction work will be evaluated in 

accordance with the terms of the Master Agreement and Design Agreement. All documentation 

provided by the non-federal sponsor will be thoroughly reviewed by the Corps to determine 

reasonable, allowable, necessary, auditable, and allocable costs. Upon completion of this review, 

a [mancial audit will be conducted prior to granting [mal credit. The credit afforded to the nonfuderal sponsor will be limited to the lesser of the following: (1) actual costs that are reasonable, 

allowable, necessary, auditable, and allocable to the Project; or (2) the Corps estimate of the cost 

of the work allocable to the Project had the Corps performed the work. The non-federal sponsor 

has completed design work using its own funds and would not use funds originating from other 

federal sources unless the federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such 

funds is expressly authorized by statute and in accordance with Section 60 1 (e)(3) ofWRDA 2000 

as amended by the Master Agreement. 

16. Washington level review indicates that the plan recommended by the reporting officers is 

environmentally justified, technically sound, cost effective, and socially acceptable. The plan 

conforms to essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and 

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation 

Studies and complies with other administration and legislative policies and guidelines. Also, the 

views of interested parties, including federal, state and local agencies, have been considered. 

17. The Project complies with the following requirements of the WRDA 2000, as amended: 

7 
258 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 271 85131A.191

CECW-SAD (l105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

a. Project Implementation Report (PIR). The requirements of a PIR as defined by Section 

60 I (h)( 4)(A). 

b. Reservation or Allocation of Water for the Natural System. Sections 

60 I (h)( 4)(A)(iii)(IV) and (V) require identification of the appropriate quantity, timing, and 

distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural system and the amount of water to 

be reserved or allocated for the natural system. In accordance with the regulations, an analysis 

was conducted to identify water dedicated and managed for the natural system. Accordingly, 

the non-federal sponsor will protect the water that was identified as necessary to achieve the 

benefits of the Project, using water reservation or allocation authority under Florida law. 

c. Elimination or Transfer of Existing Legal Sources of Water. Section 601(h)(5)(A) states 

that existing legal sources of water shall not be eliminated or transferred until a new source of 

water supply of comparable quantity and quality is available to replace the water to be lost as a 

result of the CERP. An analysis of project effects on existing legal sources of water was 

conducted and it was determined that implementation of the Broward County Water Preserve 

Areas Project will not result in a transfer or elimination of existing legal sources of water. 

d. Maintenance of Flood Protection. Section 601 (h)(5)(B) states that the Plan shall not 

reduce levels of service for flood protection that are in existence on the date of enactment of this 

Act and in accordance with applicable law. Potential flooding effects as a result of the proposed 

project were analyzed and the results indicated that the proposed project would not have an 

adverse impact on the level of service for flood protection in the project area. 

18. I generally concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting 

officers. Accordingly, I recommend that the plan described herein for ecosystem restoration and 

recreation be authorized for implementation as a federal project, with such modifications as in the 

discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, and subject to cost-sharing, fmancing, and 

other applicable requirements of Section 601 of WRDA 2000, as amended. In addition, I 

recommend that the non-federal sponsor be authorized to receive credit for work accomplished 

prior to execution of a PPA for this project, in accordance with the terms described in paragraphs 

13 and 15 of this report. 

Further, this recommendation is subject to the non-federal sponsor agreeing to comply with all 

applicable federal laws and the following items of local cooperation: 

a. Provide 50 percent of total project costs consistent with the provisions of Section 60 I (e) 

of the WRDA 2000, as amended, including authority to perform design and construction of 

project features consistent with federal law and regulation. 

8 
259 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 272 85131A.192

CECW-SAD (l105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

b. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including suitable borrow and dredged 

or excavated material disposal areas, and perform or assure the performance of all relocations 

that the Government and the non-Federal sponsor jointly determine to be necessary for the 

construction and OMRR&R of the Project and valuation will be in accordance with the Master 

Agreement. 

c. Shall not use the ecosystem restoration features or lands, easements, and rights-of-way 

required for such features as a wetlands bank or mitigation credit for any other non-CERP 

projects. 

d. Give the Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, 

upon land that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project for the purpose 

of inspection and, if necessary, for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, 

replacing, or rehabilitating the Project. 

e. Assume responsibility for operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and rehabilitating 

the Project or completed functional portions of the Project, including mitigation features, in a 

manner compatible with the Project's authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable 

Federal and State laws and specific directions prescribed in the OMRR&R manuals and any 

subsequent amendments thereto. Notwithstanding Section 528(e)(3) ofWRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 

3770), the non-Federal sponsor shall be responsible for 50 percent of the cost of OMRR&R 

activities authorized under this section. 

f. The non-Federal sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace and rehabilitate the 

recreational features of the Project and is responsible for 100 percent of the costs. 

g. Keep the recreation features, and access roads, parking areas, and other associated public 

use facilities, open and available to all on equal terms. 

h. Unless otherwise provided for in the statutory authorization for this Project, comply with 

Section 221 ofPL 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, and Section 103 of the 

WRDA of 1986, PL 99-662, as amended which provides that the Secretary of the Army shall not 

commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, until the 

non-Federal sponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for 

the Project or separable element. 

i. Hold and save the Government free from all damages arising from the construction, 

OMRR&R of the Project, and any project-related betterments, except for damages due to the 

fault or negligence of the Government or the Government's contractors. 

9 
260 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 273 85131A.193

CECW-SAD (l105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

j. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the Project to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect 

total project costs and comply with the provisions of the CERP Master Agreement between the 

Department of Army and the South Florida Water Management District for Cooperation in 

Constructing and Operating, Maintaining, Repairing, Replacing, and Rehabilitating Projects 

Authorized to be Undertaken Pursuant to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 

executed on 13 August 2009, including Article XI Maintenance of Records and Audit. 

k. Perform, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), 42 USC 9601-9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, easements or rights-ofway necessary for the construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the Project; except 

that the non-Federal sponsor shall not perform such investigations on lands, easements, or 

rights-of-way that the Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude without 

prior specific written direction by the Government. 

I. Assume complete financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of 

any CERCLA regulated materials located in, on or under lands, easements, or right-of-ways 

necessary for the construction and OMRR&R. 

m. As between the Government and the non-Federal sponsor, the non-Federal sponsor shall 

be considered the operator of the Project for the purposes ofCERCLA liability. To the 

maximum extent practicable, the non-Federal sponsor shall OMRR&R the Project in a manner 

that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA. 

n. Prevent obstructions of and encroachments on the Project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstruction or encroachments) which might reduce 

ecosystem restoration benefits, hinder O&M, or interfere with the Project's proper function, 

such as any new developments on Project lands or the addition of facilities which would degrade 

the benefits of the Project. 

o. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, PL 91-646, as amended by the title IV of the Surface 

Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (PL 100-17), and Uniform 

Regulations contained in 49 CFR part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and 

performing relocations for construction, O&M of the Project, and inform all affected persons of 

applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said act. 

10 
261 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 274 85131A.194

CECW-SAD (1105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

p. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, PL 88-352, and Department of Defense 

Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Army Regulation 600-7, entitled, 

"Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted 

by the Department of the Army," and all applicable Federal labor standards and requirements 

including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-3708 (revising, 

codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act 

[formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.], the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act [formerly 

40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.] and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act [formerly 40 U.S.C. 276c]). 

q. Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in completion of all 

consultation with Florida's State Historic Preservation Office and, as necessary, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation prior to construction as part of the Pre-construction 

Engineering and Design phase of the Project. 

r. Provide 50 percent of that portion of total cultural resource preservation mitigation and 

data recovery costs attributable to the Project that are in excess of one percent of the total 

amount authorized to be appropriated for the Project. 

s. Do not use Federal funds to meet the non-Federal sponsor's share of total project costs 

unless the Federal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is 

expressly authorized and in accordance with Section 60 I (e)(3) ofWRDA 2000. 

t. The non-Federal sponsor agrees to participate in and comply with applicable Federal 

floodplain management and flood insurance programs consistent with its statutory authority. 

(I) Not less than once each year the non-Federal sponsor shall inform affected interests of 

the extent of protection afforded by the Proj ect. 

(2) The non-Federal sponsor shall publicize flood plain information in the area concerned 

and shall provide this information to zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in 

preventing unwise future deVelopment in the flood plain and in adopting such regulations as 

may be necessary to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with 

protection levels provided by the Project. 

(3) The non-Federal sponsor shall comply with Section 402 ofWRDA 1986, as amended 

(33 U.S.C. 70Ib-12), which requires a non-Federal interest to have prepared, within one year 

after the date of signing a project partnership agreement for the Project, a floodplain 

management plan. The plan shall be designed to reduce the impacts of future flood events in the 

project area, including but not limited to, addressing those measures to be undertaken by non11 
262 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 275 85131A.195

CECW -SAD (1105-2-1 Oa) 

SUBJECT: Broward County Water Preserve Areas Project. Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Project, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, 

Florida. 

Federal interests to preserve the level of flood protection provided by the Project. As required 

by Section 402, as amended, the non-Federal interest shall implement such plan not later than 

one year after completion of construction of the Project. The non-Federal sponsor shall provide 

an information copy of the plan to the Government upon its preparation. 

(4) The non-Federal sponsor shall prescribe and enforce regulations to prevent obstruction 

of or encroachment on the Project or on the lands, easements, and rights-of-way determined by 

the Government to be required for the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, 

and rehabilitation ofthe Project, that could reduce the level of protection the Project affords, 

hinder operation or maintenance of the Project, or interfere with the Project's proper function. 

u. The non-federal sponsor shall execute under State law the reservation or allocation of 

water for the natural system as identified in the PIR for this authorized CERP Project as required 

by Sections 601 (h)(4)(B)(ii) ofWRDA 2000 and the non-Federal sponsor shall provide 

information to the Government regarding such execution. In compliance with 33 CFR 385, the 

District Engineer will verifY such reservation or allocation in writing. Any change to such 

reservation or allocation of water shall require an amendment to the PP A after the District 

Engineer verifies in writing in compliance with 33 CFR 385 that the revised reservation or 

allocation continues to provide for an appropriate quantity, timing, and distribution of water 

dedicated and managed for the natural system after considering any changed circumstances or 

new information since completion of the PIR for the authorized CERP Project. 

19. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and 

current Departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect 

program and budgeting priorities in the formulation of a national Civil Works construction 

program or the perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. Consequently, 

the recommendation may be modified before it is transmitted to the Congress as a proposal for 

authorization and implementation funding. 

MERDITH 

~}#f~ W.B. TEMPLE 

Major General, USA 

Acting Commander 

12 
263 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 276 85131A.196

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

CECW-MVD (1l05-2-lOa) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

2600 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, DC 20310-2600 

22 JUN 2012 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration 

Project, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

I. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on ecosystem restoration for Barataria Basin 

Barrier Shoreline (BBBS) in Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana. It is 

accompanied by the report of the New Orleans District Engineer and the Mississippi Valley 

Division Engineer. These reports are in final response to the authorization for BBBS contained 

in Section 7006(c)(I)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007). 

2. Section 7006(c)(l) of WRDA 2007 authorizes the Secretary to carry out five projects, 

including the BBBS project, substantially in accordance with the Report of the Chief of 

Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana Coastal Area dated January 31,2005. 

Section 7006(c)(3) states that before beginning construction of any project under Section 

7006(c), the Secretary shall submit a report documenting any modifications to the project, 

including cost changes, to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. Section 

7006( c)( 4) states that notwithstanding Section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986, the cost of a project under Section 7006( c), including any modifications to the project, 

shall not exceed 150 percent of the cost of such project set forth in Section 7006(c)(l). 

Preconstruction engineering and design activities on the BBBS project will be continued under 

the authority provided by Section 7006(c)(1)(C). Construction of the recommended plan for 

BBBS will be undertaken under the Section 7006(c)(l)(C) authority as well, except for 

constrnction ofthe Shell Island component. 

3. The Report of the Chief of Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana Coastal 

Area, dated January 31, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the LCA Chief's report), describes a 

plan to address the most critical restoration needs in coastal Louisiana. Congress authorized 

these projects for constrnction in WRDA 2007 Title VII. This report addresses BBBS, one of the 

15 near-term ecosystem restoration features described in the LCA Chief's report. 

4. In accordance with Section 7006(c)(l)(C), the reporting officers recommend that the Secretary 

carry out the Caminada Headland component of the recommended plan for BBBS under the 

existing authorization. The reporting officers also recommend that the Congress raise the total 

project cost for the recommended plan for BBBS. The recommended plan for BBBS is consistent 
264 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 277 85131A.197

CECW-MVD (l105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration 

Project, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana 

with the authorization in Section 7006(c)(I)(C) ofWRDA 2007, but modification of that 

authorization is required because the total costs for the recommended plan for BBBS, including 

both the Caminada Headland component and Shell Island component, exceeds the authorized cost 

for the BBBS project as defined in Section 7006(c)(4) ofWRDA 2007. 

5. The BBBS is located approximately 55 miles south of New Orleans, Louisiana. It is a key 

component in regulating estuary hydrology and slowing the rate of wetland loss. Caminada 

Headland, forming the western portion of the barrier shoreline, has experienced some of the 

highest rates of shoreline retreat on the Gulf coast. Shell Island forms the eastern portion of the 

barrier and has disintegrated into several smaller islands and shoals and is gradually converting 

to a series of bays directly connected to the Gulf of Mexico. The two reaches were identified in 

the LCA Chiefs Report as the most critical to maintaining Barataria shoreline integrity and 

protecting the interior coast from further degradation. The BBBS project described in the LCA 

Chiefs report consisted of dredging and placing sediments to restore barrier dunes and marshes. 

At Caminada Headland, about 9-10 million cubic yards (mcy) of sand would be placed to create 

a dune approximately 6 feet high with a shoreward berm about 1000 feet wide and 13 miles long. 

Approximately 6 mcy of material would be placed to create about 3,000 acres of marsh. The 

project would provide a net increase of 640 acres of dunelberm habitat and 1,780 acres of saline 

marsh habitat at Caminada Headland. Shell Island would be restored to a two-island 

configuration. At Shell Island (west) approximately 3.4 mcy of sand would be placed to create 

about 139 acres of dune and about 74 acres of marsh. Approximately 6.6 mcy of sand would be 

placed at Shell Island (east) to create about 223 acres of dunelberm and about 191 acres of 

marsh. The project would provide about 147 acres of shoreline habitat on Shell Island. 

6. The reporting officers reviewed the BBBS project described in the LCA Chiefs report, as 

well as the changed physical conditions of the shoreline. Since 2005 it has continued to degrade 

and has been heavily impacted by hurricanes and tropical storms. Based on this review the 

reporting officers developed the recommended plan presented in this report to respond to the 

changed conditions and to be consistent with the direction provided in WRDA 2007. As in the 

LCA Chiefs Report, this recommended plan includes dune and marsh restoration at Caminada 

Headland and Shell Island, the barrier system's most critical components. The recommended 

plan is the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan. It will restore the barrier system's 

geomorphic and hydrologic form. It will restore critical habitat for the threatened piping plover, 

as well as valuable stopover habitats for migratory birds and Essential Fish Habitats for a variety 

of fish and shellfish. It will protect the interior coast from further degradation, and the sediment 

input will supplement long shore sediment transport processes, increasing the restored 

area's sustainability. 

7. The recommended plan consists of dredging and placing approximately 5.1 mcy of sand to 

restore and create about 880 acres of dune at Caminada Headland. Dune height would be + 7 

feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) with a crown width of290 feet and 

2 
265 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 278 85131A.198

CECW-MVD (l105-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration 

Project, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana 

slopes of20 feet horizontal to 1 foot verticaL The proposed borrow source for Caminada dune 

material is Ship Shoal, located about 40 miles from the project site. Approximately 5.4 mcy of 

material would be placed landward of the dune to restore and create approximately 1,186 acres 

of marsh at an elevation of +2.0 feet NAVD88. The proposed borrow source for Caminada 

marsh material is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Headland. Approximately 71,500 

feet of sand fencing would be installed and a variety of native vegetation species would be 

planted on approximately 8 foot centers. Shell Island would be restored to its pre-Hurricane Bob 

(1979) single island configuration. About 5.6 mcy of sand and 23,800 feet of sand fencing 

would be placed to build approximately 317 acres of dunes to a height of +6 feet NA VD88 with 

a crown width of 189 feet and slopes of 45 feet horizontal to I foot vertical. The proposed 

borrow source for Shell Island dune material is the Mississippi River, about II miles north of the 

project site. Approximately 2.1 mcy of sediment would be placed to restore about 466 acres of 

marsh at an elevation of +2 feet NA VD88. The proposed borrow source for marsh material is an 

offshore site south of the Empire Jetties. A variety of native vegetation species would be planted 

on approximately 8 foot centers. 

8. The recommended plan includes renourishment at staggered intervals to maintain the 

headland and island over time. As part of the non-Federal sponsor's Operation, Maintenance, 

Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) responsibilities, renourishment of the 

Caminada Headland would be implemented every 1.5 to 2 years in conjunction with Corps 

operation and maintenance dredging of the Bayou Lafourchc, Louisiana (Belle Pass) navigation 

project. Shell Island would be renourished by the non-Federal sponsor 20 and 40 years after 

initial construction to the original construction template, as part of its OMRR&R responsibilities. 

9. The recommended plan contains post-construction monitoring and adaptive management at 

an estimated cost of $1 ,300,000 to be conducted for a period of no more than ten years to ensure 

project performance. Monitoring may be cost-shared for a period of no more than ten years. 

The non-Federal sponsor is responsible for monitoring required beyond ten years. Because the 

recommended plan is an ecosystem restoration plan, it does not have any significant adverse 

effects, and no mitigation measures would be required. 

10. The State of Louisiana is the non-Federal cost-sharing sponsor for all features and supports 

the recommended plan described herein. Based on October 2011 price levels, the estimated 

project first cost for the recommended plan is $428,000,000. In accordance with the cost sharing 

provisions in WRDA 1986, as amended by Section 210 ofWRDA 1996 the Federal share of the 

total first cost would be about $278,000,000 (65 percent) and the non-Federal share would be 

about $150,000,000 (35 percent). The project first cost includes an estimated $1,300,000 for 

enviromnental monitoring and adaptive management. The State of Louisiana, acting as the nonFederal sponsor, is required to provide all lands, easements, relocations, right-of-ways and 

dredged or excavated material disposal areas (LERRDs), the costs of which are estimated at 

$3,660,000. Further, the non-Federal sponsor is responsible for OMRR&R of the project after 

3 
266 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 279 85131A.199

CECW-MVD (1105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration 

Project, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana 

construction, including renourishment, currently estimated at about $6,180,000 armually. Based 

on a 4 percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent average armual 

costs of the recommended plan are estimated to be $27,000,000 including OMRR&R. 

II. The reporting officers recommend that the Caminada Headland component of the NER plan 

be implemented under the existing authority provided in Section 7006(c)(1)(C) ofWRDA 2007. 

The reporting officers also recommend that the Congress increase the authorized total project 

cost so that the entire recommended (NER) plan can be implemented. Modification of the 

authorization provided by Section 7006(c)(I)(C) is required because the cost of the 

recommended NER plan, including both the Caminada Headland and Shell Island components, 

exceeds the authorized cost limit as defined in Section 7006( c)( 4). Costs to accomplish the 

original goals of the BBBS project have increased because the shoreline system has continued to 

degrade since the LCA Chiefs report was completed. In addition, the cost of dredging and 

placing material, the largest component of this project, has increased because of increases in fuel 

and construction costs post-hurricane Katrina The State of Louisiana, acting as the non-Federal 

sponsor, supports immediate implementation of the Caminada component. ' 

12. Based on October 2011 price levels, the estimated first cost for the Caminada Headland 

component is $224,000,000. In accordance with the cost sharing provisions in WRDA 1986, as 

amended by Section 210 ofWRDA 1996, the Federal share of the first cost would be about 

$146,000,000 (65 percent) and the non-Federal share would be about $78,000,000 (35 percent). 

The first cost includes an estimated $630,000 for environmental monitoring and adaptive 

management. Ine State of Louisiana, acting as the non-Federal sponsor, is required to provide 

all LERRDs, the costs of which are estimated at $1,650,000, Further, the non-Federal sponsor is 

responsible for OMRR&R of the project after construction, including renourishment, currently 

estimated at about $4,250,000 armually, Based on a 4 percent discount rate and a 50-year period 

of analysis, the total equivalent average annual costs of the recommended plan are estimated to 

be $14,600,000 including OMRR&R. 

13. The reporting officers found the recommended plan and each of the components to be cost 

effective, technically sound, and environmentally and socially acceptable. The cost of the 

recommended aquatic ecosystem restoration features is justified by the decrease in shoreline 

erosion and loss of wetlands; the restored barrier system's regulation of salinity gradients and 

maintenance of the estuary critical to fish and wildlife, such as white and brown shrimp; the 

maintenance of geomorphic form that attenuates storm surge for interior wetlands and 

surrounding coastal communities, including Port Fourchon, major oil and gas infrastructure and 

the regional hurricane evacuation route for residents of southern Lafourche Parish; and the 

approximately 1719 AAHUs ofbeachldune and marsh habitats provided 988 AAHUs on 

Caminada Headland and 731 AAHUs on Shell Island. The recommended plan conforms to 

essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources Council's Economic and Environmental Studies 

and complies with other administration and legislative policies and guidelines. The 

4 
267 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 280 85131A.200

CECW-MVD (1105-2-IOa) 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration 

Project, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana 

recommended plan was developed in coordination and consultation with various Federal, State 

and local agencies using a systems approach in formulating ecosystem restoration solutions and 

in evaluating the impacts and bencfits of those solutions. Study formulation looked at a wide 

range of structural and non-structural alternatives. Further refinement and additional analysis of 

the project will be performed during preconstruction engineering and design, and modifications 

will be made, as appropriate, prior to project implementation. Such analysis or modifications 

will continue to be coordinated with Fcderal, State, and local agencies and other parties. 

14. In accordance with the Engineering Circular on review of decision documents, all technical, 

engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic and rigorous review process to 

ensure technical quality. This included an independent Agency Technical Review (ATR), an 

Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), and a Corps Headquarters policy and legal review. 

All concerns of the ATR have been addressed and incorporated into the report. The IEPR was 

conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute. IEPR of the draft report was completed on 

December 2, 20 II. A total of 16 comments were generated. No comments were rated high 

significance, 15 were rated medium, and I was rated low significance. All comments from this 

review have been addressed and incorporated into the final project documents and 

recommendation as appropriate. 

IS. 1 concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recommend project implementation, in accordance with the reporting officers' 

recommendations with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be 

advisable. I further recommend, in accordance with the reporting officers recommendations, that 

the authorization be modified to raise the total project cost to allow for construction of the entire 

NER plan. My recommendations are subject to cost sharing, financing, and other applicable 

requirements of Federal and State laws and policies, including WRDA 1986, as amended by 

Section 21 0 of WRDA 1996. The State of Louisiana, acting as the non-Federal sponsor, would 

provide the non-Federal cost share and all lands, easements, relocations, right-of-ways and 

disposals. Further, the non-Federal sponsor would be responsible for all OMRR&R. This 

recommendation is subject to the non-Federal sponsor agreeing to comply with all applicable 

Federal laws and policies, including but not limited to its agreeing to: 

a. Provide 35 percent of ecosystem restoration project costs as further specified below: 

(J) Provide the non-Federal share of design costs in accordance with the terms of a 

design agreement entered into prior to commencement of design work for the project; 

(2) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for 

relocations, the borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; 

perform or ensure the performance of all relocations; and construct improvements required on 

lands, easements, and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material that 

5 
268 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 281 85131A.201

CECW-MVD (l105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration 

Project, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana 

the Govermnent determines to be necessary for the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, 

replacement, and rehabilitation of the project; 

(3) Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total 

contribution equal to 35 percent of the total project costs allocated to the project; 

b. Provide the non-Federal share of that portion of the costs of mitigation and data recovery 

activities associated with historic preservation, that are in excess of I percent of the total amount 

authorized to be appropriated for the project; 

c. Not use funds provided by a Federal agency under any other Federal program, to satisfy, 

in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the cost of the project unless the Federal agency that 

provides the funds dctermines that the funds are authorized to be used to carry out thc 

study or project; 

d. Not use the project or lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for the project as a 

wetlands bank or mitigation credit for any other project; 

e. For as long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, replace, and 

rehabilitate the proj ect, or functional portion of the project, including mitigation, at no cost to the 

Federal Govermnent, in a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in 

accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific directions 

prescribed by the Federal Govermnent; 

f. Give the Federal Govermnent a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable 

manner, upon property that the non-Federal sponsor, now or hereafter, owns or controls for 

access to the project for the purpose of inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, 

rehabilitating, or completing the project. No completion, operation, maintenance, repair, 

replacement, or rehabilitation by the Federal Govermnent shall relieve the non-Federal sponsor 

of responsibility to meet the non-Federal sponsor's obligations, or to preclude the Federal 

Govermnent from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to ensure faithful performance; 

g. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from the construction, 

operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the project and any projectrelated betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States 

or its contractors; 

h. Perform, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identifY the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Enviromnental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), that may exist in, on, or 

6 
269 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 282 85131A.202

CECW-MVD (1105-2-10a) 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration 

Project, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana 

under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required 

for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and maintenance of the project. 

However, for lands that the Federal Government determines to be subject to the navigation 

servitude, only the Federal Government shall perform such investigations unless the Federal 

Government provides the non-Federal sponsor with prior specific written direction, in which 

case the non-Federal sponsor shall perform such investigations in accordance with such 

written direetion; 

i. Assume, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, complete 

financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA regulated 

materials located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Goverument 

determines to be necessary for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, or 

maintenance of the project; 

j. Agree that, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, the nonFederal sponsor shall be considered the operator of the project for the purpose of CERCLA 

liability, and to the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, and repair the project in a 

manner that would not cause liability to arise under CERCLA; 

k. Prevent obstructions of or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and 

enforcing regulations to prevent such obstruction or encroachments) which might reduce 

ecosystem restoration benefits, hinder operation and maintenance, or interfere with the proj ect' s 

proper function, such as any new developments on project lands or the addition of facilities 

which would degrade the benefits of the project; 

I. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of three years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents'-and other evidence is required, to the 

extent and in such detail as would properly reflect total costs of construction of the project, and 

in accordance with the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local 

Governments at 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 33.20; 

m. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5), and Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986, Public Law 99-662, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213), which provides that the Secretary of the 

Army shall not conunence the construction of any water resources project or separable element 

thereof, until the non-Federal sponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required 

cooperation for the project or separable element; 

7 
270 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 283 85131A.203

CECW-MVD (1105-2-lOa) 

SUBJECT: Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA), Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration 

Project, Lafourche, Jefferson, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana 

n. Comply with all applicable Federal and state laws and regulations, including, but not 

limited to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), 

and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Army 

Regulation 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and 

Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army," and all applicable Federal 

labor standards and requirements, including but not limited to 40 U.S.C. 3141- 3148 and 40 

U.S.C. 3701 - 3708 (revising, codifying, and enacting without substantial change the provisions 

of the Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.), the Contract Work Hours and Safety 

Standards Act (formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.) and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 

40 U.S.C. 276c et seq.); and 

o. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Uitiform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.s.C. 4601-

4655), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, 

and rights-of-way necessary for the initial construction, periodic nourishment, operation, and 

maintenance of the project, including those necessary for relocations, borrow materials, and 

dredged or excavated material disposal, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, 

policies, and procedures in conncction with said Act. 

16. The recommendations contained herein reflect the information available at this time and 

current departmental policies governing the formulation of individual projects. They do not 

reflect program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of the national civil works 

construction program or the perspective of higher levels within the executive branch. 

Consequently, the recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to Congress 

for additional authorization and/or implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to 

Congress, the State of Louisiana, interested Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised of 

any significant modifications in the recommendations and will be afforded an opportunity to 

comment further. 

Lieutenant General, US Army 

Commanding 

8 
271 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 284 85131A.204

DAEN 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS 

2600 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310·2600 

SUBJECT: Neuse River Basin, Ecosystem Restoration Project, North Carolina 

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

APR 2 32013 

I. I submit for transmission to Congress my report on ecosystem restoration in the Neuse River 

Basin, North Carolina. It is accompanied by the report of the district and division engineers. These 

reports are in final response to two resolutions by the Committee of Public Works of the United 

States House of Representatives, adopted April IS, 1966, and the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, adopted July 23, 1997. The 1966 resolution requested a review of the report ofthe 

Chief of Engineers on the Neuse River Basin, North Carolina, published as House Document 

Numbered 175, Eighty-ninth Congress, and other pertinent reports to determine whether any 

modifications to the recommendations contained in the report are advisable. The 1997 resolution 

further .requested a review of House Document 175 to detcrminc where modifications of the 

recommendations are advisable in the interest offload control (flood risk management), 

environmental protection and restoration, and related purposes. Preconstruction engineering and 

design activities for the Neuse River Basin ecosystem restoration project will continue under the 

authority adopted in July 1997. 

2. The Neuse River Basin, the third-largest river basin in North Carolina contains a total area of 

6,234 square miles, is one of only four watersheds entirely within the state. It originates at the 

confluence of the Eno and Flat Rivers in north central North Carolina near the city of Durham and 

flows southeasterly until reaching tidal waters upstream of the city of New Bern, North Carolina 

where the river broadens dramatically and changes from a unidirectional freshwater regime to a 

mixed tidal regime of the Neuse River Estuary before flowing out into Pamlico Sound and the 

Atlantic Ocean. The Neuse River Basin has experienced severe flooding in the past; consequently 

elements of the Basin ecosystem have shown signs of significant stress and degradation. 

The ecosystem significance of the area is demonstrated on the national, regional, and local level. The 

Neuse River Basin includes 7 essential fish habitats and 12 significant natural heritage areas. The 

Neuse River Basin feeds one ofthe nation's largest and most productive coastal estuaries 

(Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds). The Albemarle-Pamlico estuary system, which is in the National 

Estuary Program, is a nursery for 90 percent of the commercial seafood species caught in North 

Carolina. In 2011 the value of seafood landed in North Carolina had an estimated 

dockside value of$72.8 million. 

The federally listed shortnosed sturgeon will directly benefit from the opening of the dam which will 

improve passage for migration. The Neuse River Basin is also home to 17 species of rare freshwater 

mussels, two of which are federally listed as endangered, and a rare snail species. The federally 

listed dwarfwedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel will benefit from the restoration by increasing 

fish host for transportation. The Neuse River basin also provides habitat for 7 other federally listed 
272 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 285 85131A.205

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Neuse River Basin, Ecosystem Restoration Project, North Carolina 

endangered species which include, the West Indian manatee, Red-cockaded woodpecker, 

Leatherback sea turtle and the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle. 

3. The reporting officers recommend authorization of a plan to restore four components of the Neuse 

River Basin ecosystem. The plan includes construction of rock sills approximately 3,500 feet long at 

Gum Thicket Creek and 5,200 feet long at Cedar Creek, built at distances of about 60 feet offshore; 

regrading a previously filled area within the Kinston East wetland complex to the approximate 

elevation of the adjacent bottomland hardwood forest and allowing natural revegetation of the site by 

bottomland hardwood species and limited planting; modifying the Low-head Dam on the Little River 

to allow migration of anadromous fish; and the creation of 10 acres of 4 foot-high oyster reef within 

an 80 acre service area. The recommended plan is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan. 

Implementation of the recommended plan will have a substantial beneficial impact on biological 

integrity, freshwater mussel populations, anadromous fish populations, emergent wetlands, and the 

quantity and quality of oyster reef habitat. 

4. Based on an October 2012 (FY13) price level the estimated project first cost is $35,774,000. In 

accordance with the cost sharing provisions contained in Section 103(c) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (WRDA 1986), as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213(c», ecosystem restoration 

features are cost-shared at a rate of 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal. Thus the Federal 

share ofthe project first cost is estimated to be $23,253,100 and the non-Federal share is estimated at 

$12,520,900, which includes the costsoflands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged or 

excavated material disposal areas (LERRD) estimated at $254,000. The non-Federal will receive 

credit for the costs ofLERRD towards the non-Federal share. The North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) is the nonFederal cost-sharing sponsor for the recommended plan. The State of North Carolina would be 

responsible for the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) of the 

project after construction, an average annual cost currently estimated at $24,000. 

5. Based on a 3.75 percent discount rate and a 50-year period of analysis, the total equivalent 

average annual costs of the project are estimated to be $1,671,000, including monitoring estimated at 

$312,000 and OMRR&R. All project costs are allocated to the authorized purpose of ecosystem 

restoration and are justified by the restoration of 241 average annual functional units in the Basin. 

The plan would restore the habitats in the most cost-effective manner. The restoration would include 

I) creating 80 acres of oyster reef sanctuary with approximately 10 acres of reef top resulting in 

improved water quality and habitat for commercial and recreational seafood, 2) increasing wetland 

habitat by 14.5 acres of bottomland hardwoods, creating 15 acres of estuarine marsh, preventing 

degradation of another 60 acres of estuarine march and protecting a 240 acre wetland conservation 

easement area for wetland species and improved water resource function, and 3) restoring hydrologic 

connectivity for 46 miles of important spawning habitat for anadromous fish species. 

6. The recommended plan was developed in coordination and consultation with various Federal, 

State, and local agencies using cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis techniques to 

formulate ecosystem restoration solutions and evaluate the impacts and benefits of those solutions. 

Plan formulation evaluated a wide range of non-structural and structural alternatives under Corps 

policy and guidelines as well as consideration of a variety of economic, social and environmental 

2 
273 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 286 85131A.206

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Neuse River Basin, Ecosystem Restoration Project, North Carolina 

goals. The recommended plan delivers a holistic, comprehensive approach to solve water resources 

challenges in a sustainable manner._ 

7. In accordance with the Corps Engineering Circular on sea level change, the study performed an 

analysis of three Sea Level Rise rates, a baseline estimate representing the minimum expected sea 

level change, an intermediate estimate, and a high estimate representing the maximum expected sea 

level change. Projecting the three rates of change over a 50 year period provides a predicted low 

level rise of 0.42 feet (ft), an intermediate level rise of 0.85 ft and a high level rise of2.2 ft. 

Accelerated sea level rise is expected to impact only one part of the recommended plan, which is the 

Gum Thicket/Cedar Creek site. Accelerated rates of future sea level rise may lead to drowning 

scenarios of North Carolinas tidal coastal wetlands. It is estimated in the without project condition, 

at the Gum Thicket reach up to 450 ft of erosion could occur under the historical rate of sea level 

rise, 671 ft of erosion could occur under the baseline estimate and up to 1,381 ft of erosion could 

occur under the high estimate over the 50 year period of analysis. At the Cedar Creek reach, 100 ft, 

149 ft and 306 ft of erosion could occur under historical sea level rise and for baseline, intermediate 

and high scenarios, respectively, over the 50 year period of analysis. The environmental benefits of 

the recommended were based on erosion occurring at the historical rate of sea level rise, this means 

that the environmental benefits from the plan would actually increase with the accelerated sea level 

rise scenarios. Average annual habitat benefits for the recommended plan at Gum Thicket/Cedar 

Creek under the baseline scenario are estimated at 52.7 habitat units (a 10.0 habitat unit increase as 

compared to the historical sea level rate). Both the shoreline stabilization and marsh creation at Gum 

Thicket and Cedar Creeks would be affected by sea level rise. Tbe project is designed based upon a 

historical rate of sea level rise. To reduce risks from potential accelerated sea level rise on the 

plantings,marsh restoration would include both low and high marshes allowing upslope mitigation of 

low-lying marshes. The sill design accounts for the historical rate of sea level rise 

applied over 50 years. 

8. In accordance with Corps Engineering Circular on review of decision documents, all technical, 

engineering and scientific work underwent an open, dynamic and vigorous review process to ensure 

technical quality. This included District Quality Control, Agency Technical Review (ECO-PCX), 

Policy and Legal Compliance Review, Cost Engineering Directory of Expertise Review and 

Certification, and Model Review and Approval. Given the nature ofthe project, an exclusion from 

the requirement to conduct a Type I Independent External Peer Review was granted on 18 May 2012. 

Concerns expressed by the ECO-PCX team have been addressed and incorporated in the final report. 

9. Washington level review indicates the plan recommended by the reporting officers is technically 

sound, environmentally and socially acceptable, and on the basis of Congressional directives, 

economically justified. The plan complies with all essential elements of the U.S. Water Resources 

Council's Economic and Environmental Principal and Guidelines for Water and Land Related 

Resources Implementation Studies. The recommended plan complies with other administration and 

legislative policies and guidelines. The views of interested parties including Federal, State and local 

agencies have been considered. State and Agency comments received during review of the final 

report and environmental assessment included concerns raised by the North Carolina Clearinghouse, 

the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Coast Guard with design refinements for 

compliance with regulations and benefit improvements, as well as a request for continued 

coordination during the Preconstruction, Engineering and Design phase. The concerns were 

addressed through USACE response letters dated 7 March 2013, 12 February 2013, 

3 
274 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 287 85131A.207

DAEN 

SlJBJECT: Neuse River Basin, Ecosystem Restoration Project, North Carolina 

and 26 February 20l3, respectively. 

10. I concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the reporting officers. 

Accordingly, I recolllli:lend that the plan for ecosystem restoration in the Neuse River Basin, North 

Carolina be authorized in accordance with the reporting officers' recommended plan at an October 

2012 (FY13) estimated cost of $35,774,000 with such modifications as in the discretion of the Chief 

of Engineers may be advisable. My recommendation is subject to cost sharing, financing, and other 

applicable requirements of Federal and State laws and policies, including Section 103 of the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213). Accordingly, the nonFederal sponsor must agree with the following requirements prior to project implementation. 

a. Provide 35 percent oftotal ecosystem restoration costs as further specified below: 

(1) Provide 35 percent of design costs in accordance with the terms of a design agreement entered 

into prior to commencement of design work for the project; 

(2) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including those required for relocations, the 

borrowing of material, and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; perform or ensure the 

performance of all relocations; and c()nstruct all improvements required on lands, easements, and 

rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as determined by the 

Government to be required or to be necessary for the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the project; 

(3) Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total contribution equal 

to 35 percent of total project costs; 

b. Shall not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution 

required as a matching share therefore, to meet any of the non-Federal obligations for the project 

unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in writing that 

expenditure of such funds for such purpose is authorized by Federal law; 

c. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and enforcing 

regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new developments on project 

lands, easements, and rightscof-way or the addition of facilities which might reduce the outputs 

produced by the project, hinder operation and maintenance of the project, or interfere with the 

project's proper function; 

d. Shall not use the project orJands, easements, and rights-of-way required for the project as a 

wetlands bank or mitigation credit for any other project; 

e. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601-4655), and the 

Uniform Regulations contained in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24, in acquiring lands, 

easements, and rights-of-way required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, 

including those necessary for relocations, the borrowing of materials, or the disposal of dredged or 

excavated material; and inform aU affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in 

connection with said Act; 

4 
275 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 288 85131A.208

DAEN 

SlJBJECT: Neuse River Basin, Ecosystem Restoration Project, North Carolina 

f. For so long as the project remains authorized, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and 

replace the project, or functional portions of the project, including any mitigation features, at no cost 

f6 the Federal Government, in a manner compatible with the project's authorized purposes and in 

accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations and any specific directions 

prescribed by the Federal Government; 

g. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, 

upon property that the non-Federal sponsor owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose 

of completing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, or replacing the project; 

h. Hold anc\ save the United States free from all damages arising from the design, construction, 

operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the project and any betterments, 

except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its contractors; 

i. Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and 

expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum ofthree years after completion of the 

accounting for which such books, records, documents, and other evidence are required, to the extent 

and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in accordance with the standards for 

financiill management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments at 32 CFR Section 33.20; 

j. Comply willi aiCapplicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including, but not limited 

to: Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and 

Department 'of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; Army Regulations 600-7, entitled 

"Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by 

the Department of the Army"; and all applicable Federal labor standards requirements including, but 

not limited to, 40 U.S.c. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.c. 3701- 3708 (revising, codifYing and enacting 

without substantial change the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (formerly 40 U.S.C 276a et seq.), 

the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 327 et seq.), and the 

Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (formerly 40 U.S.c. 276c et seq. »); 

k. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations for hazardous substances that are 

determined necessary to identifY the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), that may exist in, on, or under the lands, 

easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required for construction, 

operation, and maintenance· of the project. However, for lands that the Federal Government 

determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Federal Government shall perform such 

investigation unless the Federal Government provides the non-Federal sponsor with prior specific 

written direction, in which case the non-Federal sponsor shall perform such investigations in 

accordance with such written direction; 

I. Assume, as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, complete financial 

responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any hazardous substances regulated 

under CERCLAthat are located in, on, or under lands, easements, or rights-of-way that the Federal 

Government determines to be required for construction or operation and maintenance of the project; 

5 
276 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 289 85131A.209

DAEN 

SUBJECT: Neuse River Basin, Ecosystem Restoration Project, North Carolina 

m. Agree,as between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor, that the non-Federal 

sponsor shall be considered the operator of the project for the purpose ofCERCLA liability, and to 

the maximum extent practicable, operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and replace the project in a 

manner that will not cause liability to arise under CERCLA; 

n. Comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Actof 1970, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 1962d-5b), and Section I 03(j) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 

99-662, as amended (33 U.S.C. 2213(j»), which provides that the Secretary of the Army shall not 

commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, until each 

non-Federal interest has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the 

project or separable element. 

11. The recommendation contained herein reflects the information available at this time and current 

departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. It does not reflect program and 

budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a national civil '!Yorks construction program or the 

perspective of higher review levels within the executive branch. Consequently, the recommendation 

may be modified before it is transmitted to Congress as a proposal for authorization and 

implementation funding .. However, prior to transmittal to Congress, the sponsor, the State, interested 

Federal agencies, and other parties will be advised of any significant modifications and will be 

afforded an opportunity to comment further. 

Lieutenant General, USA 

Chief of Engineers 

6 
277 

Section 402. Project modifications 

This section modifies three previously authorized water resources 

projects. These project modifications were requested by the Administration when the President submitted his fiscal year 2014 budget 

request to Congress. Subject to section 902 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986, project cost increases must be authorized 

by Congress. This provision authorizes new cost levels for the following projects: Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida; 

Olmsted Lock and Dam on the Lower Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky; and Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch, Indiana. 

For the Miami Harbor and Little Calumet River Basin projects, the 

authorization level provided in this section is sufficient to complete 

the projects. For the Olmsted project, the provision provides sufficient funding authority for approximately 5 years of work. The Administration would need to request and justify any additional funding authority. 

The Committee remains concerned over the pace of progress on 

the Olmsted Lock and Dam project on the Ohio River. While the 

Administration requested as part of their annual budget $3.1 billion in authority to complete the work, noting the history of costoverruns and other problems with this project, the Committee was 

unwilling to authorize funding beyond that expected to be needed 

within the next 5 years. The Committee expects the Corps of Engineers to be able to justify an additional funding authorization after 

a period of time where tangible results can be reviewed. 

ADDITIONAL MATTERS

Members of Congress have brought it to the attention of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that in some instances when a non-federal interest desires to carry out what is 

typically a federal responsibility related to navigation modifications 

or improvements, the Corps of Engineers has required multiple, 

and at times, duplicative analyses of the same activity. Under current authorities from section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899 (commonly referred to as ‘‘408’’), the Corps of Engineers may 

have erroneously required two separate reports under two separate 

processes to improve or modify a federal navigation project that requires approvals under both laws. 

The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 contains many reforms aimed at empowering non-federal interests. 

Two sections in particular, section 107, Construction of Projects by 

Non-Federal Interests, and section 106, Expediting Approval of 

Modifications of Projects by Non-Federal Interests, were included 

to accelerate project delivery by giving more authority to non-federal interests. Section 107 specifically repeals section 204 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and replaces it with a 

more streamlined process; and section 106 significantly accelerates 

the ‘‘408’’ decision process. 

While the Corps of Engineers has made strides in correctly delegating more of these approval activities to the District Engineer, 

and while the Corps is clarifying that separate and duplicative reports are not required, if the Secretary does not send clear direcVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
278 

tion to Division and District level personnel, the reforms contained 

in section 107 and section 106 of this Act may be slow to achieve. 

The Committee is concerned with the uncertainty facing coastal 

communities on the availability of appropriate natural resources 

for high-priority, authorized coastal projects. These projects are 

critically important to regional safety and resiliency during natural 

disasters, as well as to state and local economies and jobs. With respect to at least one identified project, the Corps of Engineers has 

been studying the availability of such materials for over a decade, 

in furtherance of the authorities under section 935 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986. In August 2013, the Corps of 

Engineers in cooperation with the State of Florida completed the 

Southeast Florida Sediment Assessment and Needs Determination 

(SAND) Study in furtherance of determining the availability of domestic material to meet the authorized needs of five identified Florida counties. In this study, the Corps of Engineers determined that 

sufficient material is available to meet the ‘‘planned, full-sized 

beach nourishment projects through 2062’’ for the identified Florida 

counties. In addition, the Committee understands that use of materials identified in the SAND Study will not have any impact on materials that have already been placed on coastal projects. The Committee, therefore, encourages the Corps of Engineers, the State of 

Florida, and the identified counties to work in coordination to meet 

their authorized coastal project needs. 

America’s engineering industry continues to provide critical technical expertise, innovation, and local knowledge to federal and 

state agencies in order to efficiently deliver water resource projects 

to the public. The Committee recognizes the valuable contributions 

made by the Nation’s engineering industry to the work of the Corps 

of Engineers and urges the Corps to reinforce that partnership by 

taking full advantage of engineering industry capabilities to 

strengthen project performance, improve domestic competitiveness, 

and create jobs. 

When identifying the costs of construction for navigation projects, 

the Corps of Engineers, pursuant to the Act of June 21, 1940 (more 

commonly known as the Truman-Hobbs Act) considers the cost of 

highway and railroad bridge alterations or removals as construction costs, eligible for cost share. However, for flood control projects 

and ecosystem restoration projects, local sponsors are currently required to pay the entire cost of a bridge alteration or removal as 

a non-federal responsibility to provide all lands, easements, rightsof-way, disposal areas, and relocations, pursuant to section 103(a) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended. 

While that specific section is notably applicable to only flood control 

projects, the Corps has applied this responsibility broadly to other 

project purposes, such as ecosystem restoration purposes, as well. 

Bridge alterations and removals can be essential components of 

ecosystem restoration projects, such as related to large-scale ecosystem restoration projects in the Pacific Northwest. As such, the 

Committee encourages the Secretary to explore whether such alterations and removals should, like navigation projects, be considered 

as part of the costs of construction of an ecosystem restoration 

project, and to report to the Committee on its findings. If the Secretary determines that such alterations and removals are integral 

to meeting the goals of ecosystem restoration projects, the SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
279 

retary shall develop new guidance for ecosystem restoration 

projects that fits their unique needs. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) COST SHARING.— (1) ABILITY TO PAY.— (A) * * * 

(B) USE OF PROCEDURES.—øThe ability¿ 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The ability of a non-Federal interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary. 

(ii) DETERMINATION.—Not later than 180 days after 

the date of enactment of the Water Resources Reform 

and Development Act of 2013, the Secretary shall issue 

guidance on the procedures described in clause (i). 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for each of 

fiscal years 2002 through 2012, of which not more than $1,000,000 

may be used with respect to any 1 Indian tribe.¿ 

(e) RESTRICTIONS.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out activities under this section in fiscal years 2014 through 2023. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 214. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, after public notice, may accept 

and expend funds contributed by a non-Federal public entity or 

public-utility company (as defined in section 1262 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16451)) to expedite the 

evaluation of a permit of that entity or company related to a project 

or activity for a public purpose under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that expediting the evaluation of a permit 

through the use of funds accepted and expended under this section 

does not adversely affect the timeline for evaluation (in the Corps 

district in which the project or activity is located) of permits under 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
280 

the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army of other entities that 

have not contributed funds under this section. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e) DURATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided under 

this section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000, through December 31, 2016.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as 

follows: 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 2045. Project streamlining.¿ 

Sec. 2045. Streamlined project delivery. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2008. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT; COST 

SHARING. 

(a) FEDERAL ALLOCATION.—Upon authorization by law of an increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a water resources project or an increase in the total cost 

of a water resources project authorized to be carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall enter into a revised partnership agreement for the project to take into account the change in Federal participation in the project. This subsection shall apply without regard 

to whether the original partnership agreement was entered into before, on, or after the date of enactment of this subsection. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2033. PLANNING. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) CENTERS OF SPECIALIZED PLANNING EXPERTISE.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION PLANNING CENTER OF EXPERTISE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall consolidate deep 

draft navigation expertise within the Corps of Engineers 

into a deep draft navigation planning center of expertise. 

(B) LIST.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the 

consolidation required under subparagraph (A), the SecVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00284 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
281 

retary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

a list of personnel, including the grade levels and expertise 

of the personnel, assigned to the center described in subparagraph (A). 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 2045. PROJECT STREAMLINING. 

ø(a) POLICY.—The benefits of water resources projects are important to the Nation’s economy and environment, and recommendations to Congress regarding such projects should not be delayed 

due to uncoordinated or inefficient reviews or the failure to timely 

resolve disputes during the development of water resources 

projects. 

ø(b) SCOPE.—This section shall apply to each study initiated 

after the date of enactment of this Act to develop a feasibility report under section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), or a reevaluation report, for a water resources project if the Secretary determines that such study requires 

an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

ø(c) WATER RESOURCES PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS.—The Secretary shall develop and implement a coordinated review process 

for the development of water resources projects. 

ø(d) COORDINATED REVIEWS.—The coordinated review process 

under this section may provide that all reviews, analyses, opinions, 

permits, licenses, and approvals that must be issued or made by a 

Federal, State, or local government agency or Indian tribe for the 

development of a water resources project described in subsection (b) 

will be conducted, to the maximum extent practicable, concurrently 

and completed within a time period established by the Secretary in 

cooperation with the agencies identified under subsection (e) with 

respect to the project. 

ø(e) IDENTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES.—With respect 

to the development of each water resources project, the Secretary 

shall identify, as soon as practicable, all Federal, State, and local 

government agencies and Indian tribes that may— 

ø(1) have jurisdiction over the project; 

ø(2) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or opinion for the project; or 

ø(3) be required to make a determination on issuing a permit, license, or approval for the project. 

ø(f) STATE AUTHORITY.—If the coordinated review process is 

being implemented under this section by the Secretary with respect 

to the development of a water resources project described in subsection (b) within the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent 

with State law, may choose to participate in the process and to 

make subject to the process all State agencies that— 

ø(1) have jurisdiction over the project; 

ø(2) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, or 

opinion for the project; or 

ø(3) are required to make a determination on issuing a permit, license, or approval for the project. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
282 

ø(g) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The coordinated review 

process developed under this section may be incorporated into a 

memorandum of understanding for a water resources project between the Secretary, the heads of Federal, State, and local government agencies, Indian tribes identified under subsection (e), and 

the non-Federal interest for the project. 

ø(h) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.— ø(1) NOTIFICATION.—If the Secretary determines that a Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or nonFederal interest that is participating in the coordinated review 

process under this section with respect to the development of 

a water resources project has not met a deadline established 

under subsection (d) for the project, the Secretary shall notify, 

within 30 days of the date of such determination, the agency, 

Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest about the failure to meet 

the deadline. 

ø(2) AGENCY REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the date 

of receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, State, 

or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest involved may submit a report to the Secretary, explaining 

why the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest did not 

meet the deadline and what actions it intends to take to complete or issue the required review, analysis, or opinion or determination on issuing a permit, license, or approval. 

ø(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after the 

date of receipt of a report under paragraph (2), the Secretary 

shall compile and submit a report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Council on Environmental Quality, describing any 

deadlines identified in paragraph (1), and any information provided to the Secretary by the Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest involved 

under paragraph (2). 

ø(i) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section shall preempt or interfere with— 

ø(1) any statutory requirement for seeking public comment; 

ø(2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a Federal, 

State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal 

interest has with respect to carrying out a water resources 

project; or 

ø(3) any obligation to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the regulations 

issued by the Council on Environmental Quality to carry out 

such Act.¿ 

SEC. 2045. STREAMLINED PROJECT DELIVERY. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply: 

(1) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.—The term ‘‘environmental impact statement’’ means the detailed statement of environmental impacts required to be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.). 

(2) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘environmental review process’’ means the process of preparing an environmental imVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
283 

pact statement, environmental assessment, categorical exclusion, or other document under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for a 

project study. 

(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘environmental review process’’ includes the process for and completion of any environmental permit, approval, review, or study required for a 

project study under any Federal law other than the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.). 

(3) FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY.—The term ‘‘Federal jurisdictional agency’’ means a Federal agency with jurisdiction 

over a review, analysis, opinion, statement, permit, license, or 

other approval or decision required for a project study under 

applicable Federal laws, including regulations. 

(4) PROJECT.—The term ‘‘project’’ means a Corps of Engineers 

water resources project. 

(5) PROJECT SPONSOR.—The term ‘‘project sponsor’’ means the 

non-Federal interest as defined in section 221(b) of the Flood 

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

(6) PROJECT STUDY.—The term ‘‘project study’’ means a feasibility study for a project carried out pursuant to section 905 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282). 

(b) APPLICABILITY.—The procedures in this section are applicable 

to all project studies initiated after the date of enactment of the 

Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013 and for 

which an environmental impact statement is prepared under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

and may be applied, to the extent determined appropriate by the 

Secretary, to other project studies initiated after such date of enactment and for which an environmental review process document is 

prepared under such Act. 

(c) LEAD AGENCIES.— (1) FEDERAL LEAD AGENCY.—The Corps of Engineers shall be 

the Federal lead agency in the environmental review process for 

a project study. 

(2) NON-FEDERAL PROJECT SPONSOR AS JOINT LEAD AGEN- CY.—At the discretion of the Secretary and subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a non-Federal project sponsor that is 

an agency defined in subsection (a)— 

(A) may serve as a joint lead agency with the Corps of 

Engineers for purposes of preparing any environmental review process document under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and 

(B) may assist in the preparation of any such environmental review process document required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if the Secretary 

provides guidance in the preparation process, participates 

in preparing the document, independently evaluates that 

document, and approves and adopts the document before 

the Secretary takes any subsequent action or makes any approval based on that document. 

(3) ADOPTION AND USE OF DOCUMENTS.—Any environmental 

review process document prepared in accordance with this subVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00287 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
284 

section shall be adopted and used by any Federal agency in 

making any approval of a project subject to this section as the 

document required to be completed under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to the same 

extent that the Federal agency may adopt or use a document 

prepared by another Federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

(4) ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITY OF FEDERAL LEAD AGENCY.— 

With respect to the environmental review process for any 

project, the Federal lead agency shall have authority and responsibility— 

(A) to take such actions as are necessary and proper, 

within the authority of the Federal lead agency, to facilitate 

the expeditious resolution of the environmental review process for the project study; and 

(B) to prepare or ensure that any required environmental 

impact statement or other document for a project study required to be completed under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) is completed in 

accordance with this section and applicable Federal law. 

(d) PARTICIPATING AND COOPERATING AGENCIES.— 

(1) IDENTIFICATION.—The Federal lead agency shall identify, 

as early as practicable in the environmental review process for 

a project study, any Federal or State agency, local government, 

or Indian tribe that may— 

(A) have jurisdiction over the project; 

(B) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, analysis, opinion, or statement for the project study; or 

(C) be required to make a determination on issuing a permit, license, or other approval or decision for the project 

study. 

(2) INVITATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal lead agency shall invite 

any such agency identified under paragraph (1) to become 

a participating or cooperating agency in the environmental 

review process for the project study. 

(B) DEADLINE.—An invitation to participate issued under 

subparagraph (A) shall establish a deadline by which a response to the invitation shall be submitted, which may be 

extended by the Federal lead agency for good cause. 

(3) FEDERAL COOPERATING AGENCY.—Any Federal agency that 

is invited by the Federal lead agency to participate in the environmental review process for a project study shall be designated 

as a cooperating agency by the Federal lead agency unless the 

invited agency informs the Federal lead agency, in writing, by 

the deadline specified in the invitation that the invited agency— 

(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the 

project; 

(B) has no expertise or information relevant to the project 

study; and 

(C) does not intend to submit comments on the project 

study. 

(4) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
285 

(A) REQUIREMENT.—A participating or cooperating agency shall comply with the requirements of this section and 

any schedule established under this section. 

(B) IMPLICATION.—Designation under this subsection 

shall not imply that the participating or cooperating agency— 

(i) supports a proposed project; or 

(ii) has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise 

with respect to evaluation of, the project. 

(5) CONCURRENT REVIEWS.—Each participating or cooperating agency shall— 

(A) carry out the obligations of that agency under other 

applicable law concurrently and in conjunction with the required environmental review process unless doing so would 

prevent such agency from conducting needed analysis or 

otherwise carrying out their obligations under those other 

laws; and 

(B) formulate and implement administrative, policy, and 

procedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure completion of the environmental review process in a timely, coordinated, and environmentally responsible manner. 

(e) PROGRAMMATIC COMPLIANCE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall issue guidance regarding the use of programmatic approaches to carry out the environmental review process that— 

(A) eliminates repetitive discussions of the same issues; 

(B) focuses on the actual issues ripe for analyses at each 

level of review; 

(C) establishes a formal process for coordinating with 

participating and cooperating agencies, including the creation of a list of all data that is needed to carry out the environmental review process; and 

(D) complies with— 

(i) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and 

(ii) all other applicable laws. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall— 

(A) as the first step in drafting guidance under that 

paragraph, consult with relevant Federal and State agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, and the public on the 

use and scope of the programmatic approaches; 

(B) emphasize the importance of collaboration among relevant Federal agencies, State agencies, local governments, 

and Indian tribes in undertaking programmatic reviews, 

especially with respect to reviews with a broad geographical 

scope; 

(C) ensure that the programmatic reviews— 

(i) promote transparency, including of the analyses 

and data used in the environmental review process, the 

treatment of any deferred issues raised by a Federal or 

State agency, local government, Indian tribe, or the 

public, and the temporal and special scales to be used 

to analyze those issues; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
286 

(ii) use accurate and timely information in the environmental review process, including— 

(I) criteria for determining the general duration 

of the usefulness of the review; and 

(II) the timeline for updating any out-of-date review; 

(iii) describe— 

(I) the relationship between programmatic analysis and future tiered analysis; and 

(II) the role of the public in the creation of future 

tiered analysis; and 

(iv) are available to other relevant Federal and State 

agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, and the 

public; 

(D) allow not less than 60 days of public notice and comment on any proposed guidance; and 

(E) address any comments received under subparagraph 

(D). 

(f) COORDINATED REVIEWS.— (1) COORDINATION PLAN.— (A) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Federal lead agency, after 

consultation with each participating and cooperating agency and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, 

as applicable, shall establish a plan for coordinating public 

and agency participation in and comment on the environmental review process for a project study. 

(B) INCORPORATION.—In developing the plan established 

under subparagraph (A), the Federal lead agency shall take 

under consideration the scheduling requirements under section 101 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act of 2013. 

(2) SCHEDULE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal lead agency, after consultation with each participating and cooperating agency 

and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as 

applicable, shall establish, as part of the coordination plan 

established in paragraph (1)(A), a schedule for completion 

of the environmental review process for the project study. In 

developing the schedule, the Federal lead agency shall take 

under consideration the scheduling requirements under section 101 of the Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act of 2013. 

(B) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In establishing the 

schedule, the Federal lead agency shall consider factors 

such as— 

(i) the responsibilities of participating and cooperating agencies under applicable laws; 

(ii) the resources available to the participating and 

cooperating agencies and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable; 

(iii) the overall size and complexity of the project; 

(iv) the overall schedule for and cost of the project; 

and 

(v) the sensitivity of the natural and historic resources that may be affected by the project. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
287 

(C) CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER TIME PERIODS.—A schedule under subparagraph (A) shall be consistent with any 

other relevant time periods established under Federal law. 

(D) MODIFICATION.—The Federal lead agency may— 

(i) lengthen a schedule established under subparagraph (A) for good cause; or 

(ii) shorten a schedule only with the concurrence of 

the affected participating and cooperating agencies and 

the non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as 

applicable. 

(E) DISSEMINATION.—A copy of a schedule established 

under subparagraph (A) shall be— 

(i) provided to each participating and cooperating 

agency and the non-Federal project sponsor or joint 

lead agency, as applicable; and 

(ii) made available to the public. 

(3) COMMENT DEADLINES.—The Federal lead agency shall establish the following deadlines for comment during the environmental review process for a project study: 

(A) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS.—For 

comments by agencies and the public on a draft environmental impact statement, a period of not more than 60 

days after such document is made publicly available, unless— 

(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 

the Federal lead agency, all participating and cooperating agencies, and the non-Federal project sponsor or 

joint lead agency, as applicable; or 

(ii) the deadline is extended by the Federal lead 

agency for good cause. 

(B) OTHER COMMENT PERIODS.—For all other comment 

periods established by the Federal lead agency for agency 

or public comments in the environmental review process, a 

period of not more than 30 days after the date on which the 

materials for which comment is requested are made available, unless— 

(i) a different deadline is established by agreement of 

the Federal lead agency, all participating and cooperating agencies, and the non-Federal project sponsor or 

joint lead agency, as applicable; or 

(ii) the deadline is extended by the Federal lead 

agency for good cause. 

(4) DEADLINES FOR DECISIONS UNDER OTHER LAWS.— 

(A) PRIOR APPROVAL DEADLINE.—If a participating or cooperating agency is required to make a determination regarding or otherwise approve or disapprove the project 

study prior to the record of decision or finding of no significant impact, such participating or cooperating agency shall 

make such determination or approval not later than 30 

days after the Federal lead agency publishes notice of the 

availability of a final environmental impact statement or 

other final environmental document, or not later than such 

other date that is otherwise required by law, whichever occurs first. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
288 

(B) OTHER DEADLINES.—With regard to any determination or approval of a participating or cooperating agency 

that is not subject to subparagraph (A), each participating 

or cooperating agency shall make any required determination or otherwise approve or disapprove the project study 

not later than 90 days after the date that the Federal lead 

agency approves the record of decision or finding of no significant impact for the project study, or not later than such 

other date that is otherwise required by law, whichever occurs first. 

(C) RECORD CLOSED.—In the event that any participating 

or cooperating agency fails to make a determination or approve or disapprove the project study within the applicable 

deadline described in subparagraph (A), the Federal lead 

agency may close the record and find the record sufficient 

for the project study as it relates to such agency determination or approval. 

(g) ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION.— (1) COOPERATION.—The Federal lead agency and participating and cooperating agencies shall work cooperatively in accordance with this section to identify and resolve issues that 

may delay completion of the environmental review process or result in the denial of any approval required for the project study 

under applicable laws. 

(2) FEDERAL LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal lead agency shall make 

information available to the participating and cooperating 

agencies as early as practicable in the environmental review process regarding the environmental and socioeconomic resources located within the project area and the 

general locations of the alternatives under consideration. 

(B) DATA SOURCES.—Such information under subparagraph (A) may be based on existing data sources, including 

geographic information systems mapping. 

(3) PARTICIPATING AND COOPERATING AGENCY RESPONSIBIL- ITIES.—Based on information received from the Federal lead 

agency, participating and cooperating agencies shall identify, as 

early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the potential environmental or socioeconomic impacts of the project, including any issues that may substantially delay or prevent an 

agency from granting a permit or other approval that is needed 

for the project study. 

(4) ACCELERATED ISSUE RESOLUTION AND ELEVATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Upon the request of a participating or 

cooperating agency or non-Federal project sponsor, the Secretary shall convene an issue resolution meeting with the 

relevant participating and cooperating agencies and the 

non-Federal project sponsor or joint lead agency, as applicable, to resolve issues that may— 

(i) delay completion of the environmental review 

process; or 

(ii) result in denial of any approval required for the 

project study under applicable laws. 

(B) MEETING DATE.—A meeting requested under this 

paragraph shall be held not later than 21 days after the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
289 

date on which the Secretary receives the request for the 

meeting, unless the Secretary determines that there is good 

cause to extend that deadline. 

(C) NOTIFICATION.—Upon receipt of a request for a meeting under this paragraph, the Secretary shall notify all relevant participating and cooperating agencies of the request, 

including the issue to be resolved and the date for the meeting. 

(D) ELEVATION OF ISSUE RESOLUTION.—If a resolution 

cannot be achieved within 30 days after a meeting under 

this paragraph and a determination is made by the Secretary that all information necessary to resolve the issue 

has been obtained, the Secretary shall forward the dispute 

to the heads of the relevant agencies for resolution. 

(E) CONVENTION BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary may convene an issue resolution meeting under this subsection at 

any time, at the discretion of the Secretary, regardless of 

whether a meeting is requested under subparagraph (A). 

(h) STREAMLINED DOCUMENTATION AND DECISIONMAKING.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal lead agency in the environmental review process for a project study, in order to reduce paperwork and expedite decisionmaking, shall prepare a condensed final environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.). 

(2) CONDENSED FORMAT.—A condensed final environmental 

impact statement for a project study in the environmental review process shall consist only of— 

(A) an incorporation by reference of the draft environmental impact statement; 

(B) any updates to specific pages or sections of the draft 

environmental impact statement as appropriate; and 

(C) responses to comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement and copies of the comments. 

(3) TIMING OF DECISION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in conducting the environmental review process for 

a project study, the Federal lead agency shall combine a final 

environmental impact statement and a record of decision for the 

project study into a single document if— 

(A) the alternative approved in the record of decision is 

either a preferred alternative identified in the draft environmental impact statement or is a modification of such 

preferred alternative developed in response to comments on 

the draft environmental impact statement; and 

(B) the Federal lead agency has a written commitment 

from parties responsible for implementation of the measures applicable to the approved alternative that are identified in the final environmental impact statement that they 

will implement those measures. 

(i) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section shall preempt or interfere with— 

(1) any practice of seeking, considering, or responding to public comment; or 

(2) any power, jurisdiction, responsibility, or authority that a 

Federal or State agency, local government, Indian tribe, or nonVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
290 

Federal project sponsor has with respect to carrying out a 

project study or any other provision of law applicable to a 

project. 

(j) TIMING OF CLAIMS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, a claim arising under Federal law seeking judicial review 

of a permit, license, or other approval issued by a Federal agency for a project study shall be barred unless it is filed not later 

than 150 days after publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the permit, license, or other approval is 

final pursuant to the law under which the agency action is 

taken, unless a shorter time is specified in the Federal law 

which allows judicial review. Nothing in this subsection shall 

create a right to judicial review or place any limit on filing a 

claim that a person has violated the terms of a permit, license, 

or other approval. 

(2) NEW INFORMATION.—The Secretary shall consider new information received after the close of a comment period if the information satisfies the requirements for a supplemental environmental impact statement under title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. The preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement or other environmental document when required 

by this section shall be considered a separate final agency action and the deadline for filing a claim for judicial review of 

such action shall be 150 days after the date of publication of 

a notice in the Federal Register announcing such action. 

(k) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall— 

(A) survey the use by the Corps of Engineers of categorical exclusions in projects; 

(B) publish a review of the survey that includes a description of— 

(i) the types of actions that were categorically excluded or may be the basis for developing a new categorical exclusion; and 

(ii) any requests previously received by the Secretary 

for new categorical exclusions; and 

(C) solicit requests from other Federal agencies and nonFederal project sponsors for new categorical exclusions. 

(2) NEW CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.—Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this subsection, if the Secretary 

identifies, based on the review under paragraph (1), a category 

of activities that merit establishing a categorical exclusion not 

in existence on the day before the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose that new categorical exclusion, to the extent 

that the categorical exclusion meets the criteria for a categorical 

exclusion under section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulation). 

(l) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE.—The Secretary shall prepare 

guidance documents that describe the processes that the Secretary 

will use to implement this section. 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
291 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5019. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS, 

DELAWARE, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) REPORT.—After each fiscal year, if the Secretary did not allocate funds in accordance with subsection (b), the Secretary, in conjunction with the President’s next submission to Congress of a budget under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, shall submit to Congress a report that describes— 

(1) the reasons why the Secretary did not allocate funds in accordance with subsection (b) during that fiscal year; and 

(2) the impact, on the jurisdiction of each Commission specified in subsection (b), of not allocating the funds, including 

with respect to— 

(A) water supply allocation; 

(B) water quality protection; 

(C) regulatory review and permitting; 

(D) water conservation; 

(E) watershed planning; 

(F) drought management; 

(G) flood loss reduction; 

(H) recreation; and 

(I) energy development. 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—HARBOR DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 204. CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS. 

ø(a) AUTHORITY.—In addition to projects undertaken pursuant to 

sections 201 and 202 of this title, any non-Federal interest is authorized to undertake navigational improvements in harbors or inland harbors of the United States, subject to obtaining any permits 

required pursuant to Federal and State laws in advance of the actual construction of such improvements. 

ø(b) STUDIES AND ENGINEERING.—When requested by an appropriate non-Federal interest the Secretary is authorized to undertake all necessary studies and engineering for any construction to 

be undertaken under the terms of subsection (a) of this section, and 

provide technical assistance in obtaining all necessary permits, if 

the non-Federal interest contracts with the Secretary to furnish the 

United States funds for such studies and engineering during the 

period that they are conducted. 

ø(c) COMPLETION OF STUDIES.—The Secretary is authorized to 

complete and transmit to the appropriate non-Federal interest any 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
292 

study for improvements to harbors or inland harbors of the United 

States which were initiated prior to the date of enactment of this 

Act, or, upon the request of such non-Federal interest, to terminate 

such study and transmit such partially completed study to the nonFederal interest. The Secretary is further authorized to complete 

and transmit to the appropriate non-Federal interest any study for 

improvement to harbors or inland harbors of the United States 

that is initiated pursuant to section 107 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1960 or, upon request of such non-Federal interest, to terminate such study and transmit such partially completed study to the 

non-Federal interest. Studies under this subsection shall be completed without regard to the requirements of subsection (b) of this 

section. 

ø(d) AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT IMPROVEMENT.—Any non-Federal 

interest which has requested and received from the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this section, the completed study 

and engineering for an improvement to a harbor or an inland harbor, or separable element thereof, for the purpose of constructing 

such improvement and for which improvement a final environmental impact statement has been filed, shall be authorized to 

carry out the terms of the plan for such improvement. Any plan of 

improvement proposed to be implemented in accordance with this 

subsection shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements for obtaining the appropriate permits required under the Secretary’s authority and such permits shall be granted subject to the non-Federal 

interest’s acceptance of the terms and conditions of such permits: 

Provided, That the Secretary determines that the applicable regulatory criteria and procedures have been satisfied. The Secretary 

shall monitor any project for which permits are granted under this 

subsection in order to ensure that such project is constructed (and, 

in those cases where such activities will not be the responsibility 

of the Secretary, operated and maintained) in accordance with the 

terms and conditions of such permits. 

ø(e) REIMBURSEMENT.— 

ø(1) GENERAL RULE.—Subject to the enactment of appropriation Acts, the Secretary is authorized to reimburse any nonFederal interest an amount equal to the estimate of Federal 

share, without interest, of the cost of any authorized harbor or 

inland harbor improvement, or separable element thereof, including any small navigation project approved pursuant to section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960, constructed 

under the terms of this section if— 

ø(A) after authorization of the project (or, in the case of 

a small navigation project, after completion of a favorable 

project report by the Corps of Engineers) and before initiation of construction of the project or separable element— 

ø(i) the Secretary approves the plans of construction 

of such project by such non-Federal interest, and 

ø(ii) such non-Federal interest enters into an agreement to pay the non-Federal share, if any, of the cost 

of operation and maintenance of such project; and 

ø(B) the Secretary finds before approval of the plans of 

construction of the project that the project, or separable 

element, is economically justified and environmentally acceptable. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
293 

ø(2) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN REVIEWING PLANS.—In 

reviewing such plans, the Secretary shall consider budgetary 

and programmatic priorities, potential impacts on the cost of 

dredging projects nationwide, and other factors that the Secretary deems appropriate. 

ø(3) MONITORING.—The Secretary shall regularly monitor 

and audit any project for a harbor or inland harbor constructed 

under this subsection by a non-Federal interest in order to ensure that such construction is in compliance with the plans approved by the Secretary, and that costs are reasonable. No reimbursement shall be made unless and until the Secretary has 

certified that the work for which reimbursement is requested 

has been performed in accordance with applicable permits and 

the approved plans. 

ø(f) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Whenever a non-Federal interest constructs improvements to any harbor or inland harbor, the 

Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance in accordance with 

section 101(b) if— 

ø(1) the Secretary determines, before construction, that the 

improvements, or separable elements thereof, are economically 

justified, environmentally acceptable, and consistent with the 

purposes of this title; 

ø(2) the Secretary certifies that the project is constructed in 

accordance with applicable permits and the appropriate engineering and design standards; and 

ø(3) the Secretary does not find that the project, or separable 

element thereof, is no longer economically justified or environmentally acceptable. 

ø(g) DEMONSTRATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS ACTING AS

AGENT OF SECRETARY.—For the purpose of demonstrating the potential advantages and efficiencies of non-Federal management of 

projects, the Secretary may approve as many as two proposals pursuant to which the non-Federal interests will undertake part or all 

of a harbor project authorized by Congress as the agent of the Secretary by utilizing its own personnel or by procuring outside services, so long as the cost of doing so will not exceed the cost of the 

Secretary undertaking the project.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 210. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) ASSESSMENT OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, and biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall assess the operation and maintenance needs of the 

harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2). 

(2) TYPES OF HARBORS.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the 

Secretary shall assess the operation and maintenance needs of 

the harbors used for— 

(A) commercial navigation; 

(B) commercial fishing; 

(C) subsistence, including utilization by Indian tribes (as 

such term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-DeterVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
294 

mination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)) 

for subsistence and ceremonial purposes; 

(D) use as a harbor of refuge; 

(E) transportation of persons; 

(F) purposes relating to domestic energy production, including the fabrication, servicing, or supply of domestic offshore energy production facilities; 

(G) activities of the Secretary of the department in which 

the Coast Guard is operating; 

(H) public health and safety related equipment for responding to coastal and inland emergencies; 

(I) recreation purposes; and 

(J) any other authorized purpose. 

(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—For fiscal year 2015, and biennially thereafter, in conjunction with the President’s annual 

budget submission to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, 

United States Code, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works of the Senate a report that, with respect to harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2)— 

(A) identifies the operation and maintenance costs associated with the harbors, including those costs required to 

achieve and maintain the authorized length, width, and 

depth for the harbors, on a project-by-project basis; 

(B) identifies the amount of funding requested in the 

President’s budget for the operation and maintenance costs 

associated with the harbors, on a project-by-project basis; 

(C) identifies the unmet operation and maintenance 

needs associated with the harbors, on a project-by-project 

basis; and 

(D) identifies the harbors for which the President will allocate funding over the next 5 fiscal years for operation and 

maintenance activities, on a project-by-project basis, including the amounts to be allocated for such purposes. 

(d) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGING HARBOR

PROJECTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—To the maximum extent practicable, the 

Secretary shall make expenditures to pay for operation and 

maintenance costs of the harbors referred to in subsection (a)(2), 

including expenditures of funds appropriated from the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund, based on an equitable allocation of 

funds among all such harbors, regardless of the size or tonnage 

throughput of the harbor. 

(2) CRITERIA.—In determining the equitable allocation of 

funds under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall— 

(A) utilize the information obtained in the assessment 

conducted under subsection (c); 

(B) consider the national and regional significance of 

harbor operation and maintenance; and 

(C) not make such allocation based solely on the tonnage 

transiting through a harbor. 

(3) EMERGING HARBORS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in 

making expenditures described in paragraph (1) for each of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
295 

fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Secretary shall allocate not 

less than 10 percent of the total amount of the expenditures 

to pay for operation and maintenance costs of emerging 

harbors. 

(B) EMERGING HARBOR DEFINED.—In this paragraph, the 

term ‘‘emerging harbor’’ means a harbor referred to in subsection (a)(2) that transits less than 1,000,000 tons of commerce annually. 

(4) EMERGENCY EXPENDITURES.—Nothing in this subsection 

may be construed to prohibit the Secretary from making an expenditure to pay for the operation and maintenance costs of a 

specific harbor, including the transfer of funding from the operation and maintenance of a separate project, if— 

(A) the Secretary determines that the action is necessary 

to address the navigation needs of a harbor where safe 

navigation has been severely restricted due to an unforeseen 

event; and 

(B) the Secretary provides advance notice and information on the need for the action to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. 

(5) MANAGEMENT OF GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION SYSTEM.—To 

sustain effective and efficient operation and maintenance of the 

Great Lakes Navigation System, including any navigation feature in the Great Lakes that is a Federal responsibility with respect to operation and maintenance, the Secretary shall manage 

and allocate funding for all of the individually authorized 

projects in the Great Lakes Navigation System as components 

of a single, comprehensive system, recognizing the interdependence of the projects. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—INLAND WATERWAY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 302. INLAND WATERWAYS USERS BOARD. 

(a) * * * 

ø(b) DUTIES.—The Users Board shall meet at least semi-annually 

to develop and make recommendations to the Secretary regarding 

construction and rehabilitation priorities and spending levels on 

the commercial navigational features and components of the inland 

waterways and inland harbors of the United States for the following fiscal years. Any advice or recommendation made by the 

Users Board to the Secretary shall reflect the independent judgment of the Users Board. Notwithstanding section 3003 of Public 

Law104-66 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note; 109 Stat. 734), the Users Board 

shall, by December 31, 1987, and annually thereafter file such recommendations with the Secretary and with the Congress. 

ø(c) ADMINISTRATION.—The Users Board shall be subject to the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (83 Stat. 770; 5 U.S.C. App.), 

other than section 14, and, with the consent of the appropriate 

agency head, the Users Board may use the facilities and services 

of any Federal agency. Non-Federal members of the Users Board 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
296 

while engaged in the performance of their duties away from their 

homes or regular places of business, may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by 

section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.¿ 

(b) DUTIES OF USERS BOARD.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Users Board shall meet not less frequently than semiannually to develop and make recommendations to the Secretary and Congress regarding the inland waterways and inland harbors of the United States. 

(2) ADVICE AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—For commercial navigation features and components of the inland waterways and inland harbors of the United States, the Users Board shall provide— 

(A) prior to the development of the budget proposal of the 

President for a given fiscal year, advice and recommendations to the Secretary regarding construction and rehabilitation priorities and spending levels; 

(B) advice and recommendations to Congress regarding 

any completed feasibility report in accordance with section 

905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2282) relating to those features and components; 

(C) advice and recommendations to Congress regarding 

an increase in the authorized cost of those features and 

components; 

(D) not later than 60 days after the date of the submission of the budget proposal of the President to Congress, 

advice and recommendations to Congress regarding construction and rehabilitation priorities and spending levels; 

and 

(E) advice and recommendations on the development of a 

long-term capital investment program in accordance with 

subsection (d). 

(3) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAMS.—The chairperson of the 

Users Board shall appoint a representative of the Users Board 

to serve as an informal advisor to the project development team 

for a qualifying project or the study or design of a commercial 

navigation feature or component of the inland waterways and 

inland harbors of the United States. 

(4) INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.—Any advice or recommendation made by the Users Board to the Secretary shall reflect the 

independent judgment of the Users Board. 

(c) DUTIES OF SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall— 

(1) communicate not less than once each quarter to the Users 

Board the status of the study, design, or construction of all commercial navigation features or components of the inland waterways or inland harbors of the United States; and 

(2) submit to the Users Board a courtesy copy of all completed 

feasibility reports relating to a commercial navigation feature 

or component of the inland waterways or inland harbors of the 

United States. 

(d) CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in coordination with 

the Users Board, shall develop and submit to Congress a report 

describing a 20-year program for making capital investments 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
297 

on the inland and intracoastal waterways based on the application of objective, national project selection prioritization criteria. 

(2) CONSIDERATION.—In developing the program under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into consideration the 20- 

year capital investment strategy contained in the Inland Marine 

Transportation System (IMTS) Capital Projects Business 

Model, Final Report published on April 13, 2010, as approved 

by the Users Board. 

(3) CRITERIA.—In developing the plan and prioritization criteria under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure, to the 

maximum extent practicable, that investments made under the 

20-year program described in paragraph (1)— 

(A) are made in all geographical areas of the inland waterways system; and 

(B) ensure efficient funding of inland waterways projects. 

(4) STRATEGIC REVIEW AND UPDATE.—Not later than 5 years 

after the date of enactment of this subsection, and not less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary, in coordination with the Users Board, shall— 

(A) submit to Congress a strategic review of the 20-year 

program in effect under this subsection, which shall identify and explain any changes to the project-specific recommendations contained in the previous 20-year program 

(including any changes to the prioritization criteria used to 

develop the updated recommendations); and 

(B) make revisions to the program, as appropriate. 

(e) PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLANS.—The chairperson of the Users 

Board and the project development team member appointed by the 

chairperson under subsection (b)(3) may sign the project management plan for the qualifying project or the study or design of a commercial navigation feature or component of the inland waterways 

and inland harbors of the United States. 

(f) ADMINISTRATION.—The Users Board shall be subject to the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, other than section 14, and, with 

the consent of the appropriate agency head, the Users Board may 

use the facilities and services of any Federal agency. For the purposes of complying with such Act, the members of the Users Board 

shall not be considered special Government employees (as defined in 

section 202 of title 18, United States Code). Non-Federal members 

of the Users Board while engaged in the performance of their duties 

away from their homes or regular places of business, may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as 

authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IX—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 902. MAXIMUM COST OF PROJECTS. 

øIn order to insure¿ (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to insure against 

cost overruns, each total cost set forth with respect to a project for 

water resources development and conservation and related purposes authorized to be carried out by the Secretary in this Act or 

in a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, including the Water Resources Development Act of 1988, or in an amendVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
298 

ment made by this Act or any later law with respect to such a 

project shall be the maximum cost of that project, except that such 

maximum amount— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), in accordance with section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on 

rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes’’, approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701h), the Secretary may accept 

funds from a non-Federal interest for any authorized water resources development project that has exceeded its maximum cost 

under subsection (a), and use such funds to carry out such project, 

if the use of such funds does not increase the Federal share of the 

cost of such project. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 905. FEASIBILITY REPORTS. 

(a) PREPARATION OF REPORTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any water resources projectrelated study authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary 

that results in recommendations concerning a project or the operation of a project and that requires specific authorization by 

Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall øperform a 

reconnaissance study and¿ prepare a feasibility report, subject 

to section 105 of this Act. 

(2) CONTENTS OF FEASIBILITY REPORTS.—A feasibility report 

shall describe, with reasonable certainty, the economic, environmental, and social benefits and detriments of the recommended plan and alternative plans considered by the Secretary and the engineering features (including hydrologic and 

geologic information), the public acceptability, and the purposes, scope, and scale of the recommended plan. A feasibility 

report shall also include the views of other Federal agencies 

and non-Federal agencies with regard to the recommended 

plan, a description of a nonstructural alternative to the recommended plan when such plan does not have significant nonstructural features, and a description of the Federal and nonFederal participation in such plan, and shall demonstrate that 

States, other non-Federal interests, and Federal agencies have 

been consulted in the development of the recommended plan. 

A feasibility report shall include a preliminary analysis of the 

Federal interest and the costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of the project. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(b) RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES.—Before initiating any feasibility 

study under subsection (a) of this section after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall first perform, at Federal expense, a reconnaissance study of the water resources problem in 

order to identify potential solutions to such problem in sufficient 

detail to enable the Secretary to determine whether or not planning to develop a project should proceed to the preparation of a feasibility report. Such reconnaissance study shall include a preliminary analysis of the Federal interest, costs, benefits, and environVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00302 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
299 

mental impacts of such project, and an estimate of the costs of preparing the feasibility report. The duration of a reconnaissance 

study shall normally be no more than twelve months, but in all 

cases is to be limited to eighteen months.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 911. REVIEW OF COST EFFECTIVENESS OF DESIGN. 

øDuring the design of each water resources project which has a 

total cost in excess of $10,000,000, which is authorized before, on, 

or after the date of enactment of this Act and undertaken by the 

Secretary, and on which construction has not been initiated as of 

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall require a review of the cost effectiveness of such design. The review shall employ cost control techniques which will ensure that such project is 

designed in the most cost-effective way for the life of the project.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE XI—MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 1117. W.D. MAYO LOCK AND DAM. 

ø(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Cherokee 

Nation of Oklahoma is authorized to design and construct hydroelectric generating facilities at the W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam on 

the Arkansas River in Oklahoma, as described in the report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated December 23, 1981: Provided, That, the 

agreement described in subsection (d) of this section is executed by 

all parties described in subsection (b) of this section. 

ø(b)(1) Conditioned upon the parties agreeing to mutually acceptable terms and conditions, the Secretary and the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Southwestern Power Administration, may 

enter into a binding agreement with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma under which the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma agrees— 

ø(A) to design and initiate construction of the generating facilities referred to in subsection (a) of this section within three 

years after the date of such agreement, 

ø(B) to reimburse the Secretary for his costs in— 

ø(i) approving such design and inspecting such construction, and 

ø(ii) providing any assistance authorized under subsection (c)(2) of this section, and 

ø(C) to release and indemnify the United States from any 

claims, causes of action, or liabilities which may arise from 

such design or construction. 

ø(2) Such agreement shall also specify— 

ø(A) the procedures and requirements for approval and acceptance of such design and construction are set forth, 

ø(B) the rights, responsibilities, and liabilities of each party 

to the agreement are set forth, and 

ø(3) the amount of the payments under subsection (f) of this 

section, and the procedures under which such payments are to 

be made, are set forth. 

ø(c)(1) No Federal funds may be expended for the design or construction of the generating facilities referred to in subsection (a) of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
300 

this section prior to the date on which such facilities are accepted 

by the Secretary under subsection (d) of this section. 

ø(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary is 

authorized to provide, on a reimbursable basis, any assistance requested by the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma in connection with 

the design or construction of the generating facilities referred to in 

subsection (a) of this section. 

ø(d)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon completion of the construction of the generating facilities referred to in 

subsection (a) of this section, and final approval of such facilities 

by the Secretary— 

ø(A) the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma shall transfer title to 

such facilities to the United States, and 

ø(B) the Secretary shall— 

ø(i) accept the transfer of title to such generating facilities on behalf of the United States, and 

ø(ii) operate and maintain such facilities. 

ø(2) The Secretary is authorized to accept title to such facilities 

only after certifying that the quality of the construction meets all 

standards established for similar facilities constructed by the Secretary. 

ø(e) Pursuant to any agreement under subsection (b) of this section, the Southwestern Power Administration shall market the excess power produced by the generating facilities referred to in subsection (a) of this section in accordance with section 5 of the Act 

of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 825s). 

ø(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 

Energy, acting through the Southwestern Power Administration, is 

authorized to pay to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into under subsection (b) of this section, out of the revenues from the sale of 

power produced by the generating facilities of the interconnected 

systems of reservoirs operated by the Secretary and marketed by 

the Southwestern Power Administration— 

ø(1) all reasonable costs incurred by the Cherokee Nation of 

Oklahoma in the design and construction of the generating facilities referred to in subsection (a) of this section, including 

the capital investment in such facilities and a reasonable rate 

of return on such capital investment, and 

ø(2) for a period not to exceed fifty years, a reasonable annual royalty for the design and construction of the generating 

facilities referred to in subsection (a) of this section. 

ø(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 

Energy, acting through the Southwestern Power Administration, is 

authorized— 

ø(1) to construct such transmission facilities as necessary to 

market the power produced at the generating facilities referred 

to in subsection (a) of this section with funds contributed by 

non-Federal sources, and 

ø(2) to repay those funds, including interest and any administrative expenses, directly from the revenues from the sale of 

power produced by the generating facilities of the interconnected systems of reservoirs operated by the Secretary and 

marketed by the Southwestern Power Administration. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
301 

ø(h) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 

the fiscal year in which title to the generating facilities is transferred and accepted under subsection (d) of this section, and for 

each succeeding fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary to operate and maintain such facilities.¿ 

SEC. 1117. W.D. MAYO LOCK AND DAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma may— 

(1) design and construct one or more hydroelectric generating 

facilities at the W.D. Mayo Lock and Dam on the Arkansas 

River, Oklahoma; and 

(2) market the electricity generated from any such facility. 

(b) PRECONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) PERMITS.—Before the date on which construction of a hydroelectric generating facility begins under subsection (a), the 

Cherokee Nation shall obtain any permit required under Federal or State law, except that the Cherokee Nation shall be exempt from licensing requirements that may otherwise apply to 

construction, operation, or maintenance of the facility under the 

Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.). 

(2) REVIEW OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.—The Cherokee 

Nation may initiate the design or construction of a hydroelectric 

generating facility under subsection (a) only after the Secretary 

reviews and approves the plans and specifications for the design and construction. 

(c) PAYMENT OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may accept funds offered by 

the Cherokee Nation and use such funds to carry out the design 

and construction of a hydroelectric generating facility under 

subsection (a). 

(2) ALLOCATION OF COSTS.—The Cherokee Nation shall— 

(A) bear all costs associated with the design and construction of a hydroelectric generating facility under subsection (a); and 

(B) provide any funds necessary for the design and construction to the Secretary prior to the Secretary initiating 

any activities related to the design and construction. 

(d) ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY.—The Cherokee Nation shall— 

(1) hold all title to a hydroelectric generating facility constructed under subsection (a) and may, subject to the approval 

of the Secretary, assign such title to a third party; 

(2) be solely responsible for— 

(A) the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and 

rehabilitation of the facility; and 

(B) the marketing of the electricity generated by the facility; and 

(3) release and indemnify the United States from any claims, 

causes of action, or liabilities that may arise out of any activity 

undertaken to carry out this section. 

(e) ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE.—The Secretary may provide technical 

and construction management assistance requested by the Cherokee 

Nation relating to the design and construction of a hydroelectric 

generating facility under subsection (a). 

(f) THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS.—The Cherokee Nation may enter 

into agreements with the Secretary or a third party that the CherVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00305 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
302 

okee Nation or the Secretary determines are necessary to carry out 

this section. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR THE TERRITORIES. 

øThe Secretary shall waive¿ (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary 

shall waive local cost-sharing requirements up to $200,000 for all 

studies and projects in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. 

(b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—The Secretary shall adjust the dollar amount specified in subsection (a) for inflation for the period beginning on November 17, 1986, and ending on the date of enactment of this subsection. 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 211. CONSTRUCTION OF øFLOOD CONTROL¿ WATER RESOURCES 

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS. 

(a) AUTHORITY.—Non-Federal interests are authorized to undertake øflood control¿ water resources development projects in the 

United States, subject to obtaining any permits required pursuant 

to Federal and State laws in advance of actual construction. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) COMPLETION OF STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES.—In the case 

of any study or design documents for a øflood control¿ water resources development project that were initiated before the ødate of 

the enactment of this Act¿ date of enactment of the Water Resources 

Reform and Development Act of 2013, the Secretary may complete 

and transmit to the appropriate non-Federal interests the study or 

design documents or, upon the request of such non-Federal interests, terminate the study or design activities and transmit the partially completed study or design documents to such non-Federal interests for completion. Studies and design documents subject to 

this subsection shall be completed without regard to the requirements of subsection (b). 

(d) AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT IMPROVEMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.— 

(A) STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES UNDER SUBSECTION

(b).— 

ø(i) IN GENERAL.—A non-Federal interest may carry 

out construction for which studies and design documents are prepared under subsection (b) only if the 

Secretary approves the project for construction.¿ 

(i) IN GENERAL.—A non-Federal interest may carry 

out construction for which studies and design documents are prepared under subsection (b) only if— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
303 

(I) the Secretary approves the project for construction; and 

(II) the project is specifically authorized by Congress. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(B) STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES UNDER SUBSECTION

(c).—Any non-Federal interest that has received from the 

Secretary under subsection (c) a favorable recommendation 

to carry out a flood control project, or separable element of 

a flood control project, based on the results of completed 

studies and design documents for the project or element 

may carry out the project or element if a final environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) has been 

filed for the project or element.¿ 

(B) STUDIES AND DESIGN ACTIVITIES UNDER SUBSECTION

(c).—Any non-Federal interest that has received from the 

Secretary under subsection (c) a favorable recommendation 

to carry out a water resources development project, or separable element thereof, based on the results of completed 

studies and design documents for the project or element 

may carry out the project or element if— 

(i) a final environmental impact statement under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) has been filed for the project or element; 

and 

(ii) the project is specifically authorized by Congress. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) REIMBURSEMENT.— 

(1) GENERAL RULE.—Subject to appropriations Acts, the Secretary may reimburse any non-Federal interest an amount 

equal to the estimate of the Federal share, without interest, of 

the cost of any authorized øflood control¿ water resources development project, or separable element of a øflood control¿ water 

resources development project, constructed pursuant to this section and provide credit for the non-Federal share of the 

project— 

(A) * * * 

(B) if the Secretary finds, after a review of studies and 

design documents prepared pursuant to this section, that 

construction of the project or separable element is economically justified and environmentally acceptable; øand¿ 

(C) if the construction work is substantially in accordance with plans prepared under subsection (b)ø.¿; and 

(D) if the project is specifically authorized by Congress. 

* * * * * * * 

(4) MONITORING.—The Secretary shall regularly monitor and 

audit any project for øflood control¿ water resources development approved for construction under this section by a nonFederal interest to ensure that such construction is in compliance with the plans approved by the Secretary and that the 

costs are reasonable. 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 

(6) SCHEDULE AND MANNER OF REIMBURSEMENT.— 

(A) * * * 

ø(B) COMMENCEMENT OF REIMBURSEMENTS.—Reimbursements under this section may commence on approval of a 

project by the Secretary.¿ 

ø(C)¿ (B) CREDIT.—øAt the request¿ In accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 

1962d–5b), at the request of a non-Federal interest, the 

Secretary may reimburse the non-Federal interest by providing credit toward future non-Federal costs of the 

project, or toward the non-Federal share of any other authorized water resources development study or project of 

such non-Federal interest. 

ø(D)¿ (C) SCHEDULING.—Nothing in this paragraph affects the discretion of the President to schedule new construction starts. 

(f) SPECIFIC PROJECTS.—For the purpose of demonstrating the potential advantages and effectiveness of non-Federal implementation 

of øflood control¿ water resources development projects, the Secretary shall enter into agreements pursuant to this section with 

non-Federal interests for development of the following øflood control¿ water resources development projects by such interests: 

(1) BERRYESSA CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—The Berryessa Creek 

element of the project for øflood control¿ water resources development, Coyote and Berryessa Creeks, California, authorized 

by section 101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606); except that, subject to the approval 

of the Secretary as provided by this section, the non-Federal 

interest may design and construct an alternative to such element. 

(2) LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CALIFORNIA.—The 

project for øflood control¿ water resources development, Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, authorized by section 

101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 

Stat. 4611). 

(3) STOCKTON METROPOLITAN AREA, CALIFORNIA.—The project 

for øflood control¿ water resources development, Stockton Metropolitan Area, California. 

(4) UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—The project for 

øflood control¿ water resources development, Upper Guadalupe 

River, California. 

(5) FLAMINGO AND TROPICANA WASHES, NEVADA.—The project 

for øflood control¿ water resources development, Las Vegas 

Wash and Tributaries (Flamingo and Tropicana Washes), Nevada, authorized by section 101(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4803). 

(6) BRAYS BAYOU, TEXAS.—Flood control components comprising the Brays Bayou element of the project for øflood control¿ water resources development, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610); except that, 

subject to the approval of the Secretary as provided by this section, the non-Federal interest may design and construct an alternative to the diversion component of such element. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
305 

(7) HUNTING BAYOU, TEXAS.—The Hunting Bayou element of 

the project for øflood control¿ water resources development, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, authorized by such section; except that, subject to the approval of the Secretary as 

provided by this section, the non-Federal interest may design 

and construct an alternative to such element. 

(8) WHITE OAK BAYOU, TEXAS.—The project for øflood control¿ 

water resources development, White Oak Bayou watershed, 

Texas. 

(12) PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—The project for øflood control¿ 

water resources development, Perris, California. 

(13) THORNTON RESERVOIR, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—An element of the project for øflood control¿ water resources development, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, Illinois. 

(14) LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA.—The project 

for øflood control¿ water resources development, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana. 

(15) BUFFALO BAYOU, TEXAS.—A project for øflood control¿ 

water resources development, Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide 

an alternative to the project authorized by the first section of 

the River and Harbor Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and 

modified by section 3a of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 

1939 (53 Stat. 1414). 

(16) HALLS BAYOU, TEXAS.—A project for øflood control¿ 

water resources development, Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an 

alternative to the project for øflood control¿ water resources development, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, authorized by 

section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1990 (104 Stat. 4610). 

* * * * * * * 

(g) TREATMENT OF FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION MEASURES.—For 

the purposes of this section, flood damage prevention measures at 

or in the vicinity of Morgan City and Berwick, Louisiana, shall be 

treated as an authorized separable element of the Atchafalaya 

Basin feature of the project for øflood control¿ water resources development, Mississippi River and Tributaries. 

(h) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION PROJECTS.— Whenever a non-Federal interest constructs improvements to a harbor or inland harbor, the Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance in accordance with section 101(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)) if— 

(1) the Secretary determines, before construction, that the improvements, or separable elements thereof, are economically justified and environmentally acceptable; 

(2) the Secretary certifies that the project is constructed in accordance with applicable permits and the appropriate engineering and design standards; 

(3) the Secretary does not find that the project, or separable 

element thereof, is no longer economically justified or environmentally acceptable; and 

(4) the project is specifically authorized by Congress. 

(i) IMPLEMENTATION.—All laws and regulations that would apply 

to the Secretary if the Secretary were carrying out a project shall 

apply to the non-Federal interest carrying out a project under this 

section. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
306 

(j) NOTIFICATION OF COMMITTEES.—The Secretary shall notify in 

writing the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate prior to initiation of negotiations with 

a non-Federal interest regarding the utilization of the authorities 

under this section. 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.— 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 206. Construction of shoreline protection projects by non-Federal interests.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 225. Challenge cost-sharing program for the management of recreation facilities.¿ 

225. Contributions by non-Federal interests for management of Corps of Engineers 

facilities. 

TITLE II—GENERALLY APPLICABLE 

PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 204. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) REDUCING COSTS.—To reduce or avoid Federal costs, the 

Secretary shall consider the beneficial use of dredged material 

in a manner that contributes to the maintenance of sediment resources in the nearby coastal system. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 206. CONSTRUCTION OF SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS BY 

NON-FEDERAL INTRESTS. 

ø(a) AUTHORITY.—Non-Federal interests are authorized to undertake shoreline protection projects on the coastline of the United 

States, subject to obtaining any permits required pursuant to Federal and State laws in advance of actual construction. 

ø(b) STUDIES AND ENGINEERING.— 

ø(1) BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—A non-Federal interest 

may prepare, for review and approval by the Secretary, the 

necessary studies and engineering for any construction to be 

undertaken under subsection (a). 

ø(2) BY SECRETARY.—Upon request of an approriate non-Federal interest, the Secretary may undertake all necessary studies and engineering for any construction to be undertaken 

under subsection (a) and provide technical assistance in obtainVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
307 

ing all necessary permits for such construction if the non-Federal interest contracts with the Secretary to furnish the United 

States funds for the studies and engineering during the period 

that the studies and engineering will be conducted. 

ø(c) COMPLETION OF STUDIES.—The Secretary is authorized to 

complete and transmit to the appropriate non-Federal interests any 

study for shoreline protection which was initiated before the date 

of the enactment of this Act or, upon the request of such non-Federal interest, to terminate the study and transmit the partially 

completed study to the non-Federal interest for completion. Studies 

subject to this subsection shall be completed without regard to the 

requirements of subsection (b). 

ø(d) AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT IMPROVEMENT.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—Any non-Federal interest which has received feom the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) or (c)a favorable recommendation to carry out a shoreline protection 

project or separable element thereof, based on the results of 

completed studies and engineering for the project or element,may carry out the project or element if a final environmental impact statement has been filed for the project or element. 

ø(2) PERMITS.—Any plan of improvement proposed to be implemented in accordance with this subsection shall be deemed 

to satisfy the requirements for obtaining the appropriate permits required under the Secretary’s authority and such permits 

shall be granted subject to the non-Federal interest’s acceptance of the terms and conditions of such permits if the Secretary determines that the applicable regulatory criteria and 

procedures have been satisfied. 

ø(3) MONITORING.—The Secretary shall monitor any project 

for which permits are granted under this subsection in order 

to ensure that such project is constructed (and, in those cases 

where such activities will not be the responsibility of the Secretary,operated and maintained) in accordance with the terms 

and conditions of such permits. 

ø(e) REIMBURSEMENT.— ø(1) GENERAL RULE.—Subject to the enactment of appropriation Acts, the Secretary is authorized to reimburse any nonFederal interest an amount equal to the estimate of the Federal share, without interest, of the cost of any authorized 

shoreline protection project, or separable element thereof, constructed under this section— 

ø(A) if, after authorization and before initiation of construction of the project or separable element, the Secretary 

approves the plans for construction of such project by such 

non-Federal interest and enters into a written agreement 

with the non-Federal interest with respect to the project or 

separable element (including the terms of cooperation); 

and 

ø(B) if the Secretary finds, after a review of studies and 

engineering prepared pursuant to this section, that construction of the project or separable element is economically justified and environmentally acceptable. 

ø(2) MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN REVIEWING PLANS.—In 

reviewing plans under this subsection, the Secretary shall conVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
308 

sider budgetary and programmatic priorities and other factors 

that the Secretary deems appropriate. 

ø(3) MONITORING.—The Secretary shall regularly monitor 

and audit any project for shore protection constructed under 

this section by a non-Federal interest in order to ensure that 

such construction is in compliance with the plans approved by 

the Secretary and that the costs are reasonable. 

ø(4) LIMITATION ON REIMBURSEMENTS.—No reimbursement 

shall be made under this section unless and until the Secretary 

has certified that the work for which reimbursement is requested has been performed in accordance with applicable permits or approved plans.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 225. CHALLENGE COST-SHARING PROGRAM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF RECREATION FACILITIES.¿ 

SEC. 225. CONTRIBUTIONS BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS FOR MANAGEMENT OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS FACILITIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to develop and implement a program to share the cost of ømanaging recreation facilities¿ operating, maintaining, and managing inland navigational 

facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources at water resource development projects under the Secretary’s jurisdiction. 

(b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—To implement the program 

under this section, the Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal public and private entities to 

provide for operation øand management of recreation facilities¿, 

maintenance, and management of inland navigation facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources at civil works projects 

under the Secretary’s jurisdiction where such facilities and resources are being maintained at complete Federal expense. 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1990 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.— 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 404. Demonstration of construction of Federal project by non-Federal interests.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—MISCELLANEOUS 

PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
309 

øSEC. 404. DEMONSTRATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL 

PROJECT BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS. 

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of demonstrating the safety benefits and economic efficiencies which would accrue as a consequence of non-Federal management of harbor improvement 

projects, the Secretary shall enter into agreements with 2 non-Federal interests pursuant to which the non-Federal interests will undertake part or all of a harbor project authorized by law, by utilizing their own personnel or by procuring outside services, if the 

cost of doing so will not exceed the cost of the Secretary undertaking the project. If proposals for such agreements meet the criteria of section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986, the agreements shall be entered into not later than 1 year 

after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

ø(b) LIMTATION.—At least 1 project carried out pursuant to this 

section shall pertain to improvements to a major ship channel 

which carries a substantial volume of both passenger and cargo 

traffic. 

ø(c) REPORT.—The Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report 

regarding the safety benefits and economic efficiencies accrued 

from entering into agreements with non-Federal interests under 

this section.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

ACT OF JUNE 22, 1936 

AN ACT Authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 

for flood control, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1936

SEC. 5. That pursuant to the policy outlined in sections 1 and 3, 

the following works of improvement, for the benefit of navigation 

and the control of destructive flood waters and other purposes, are 

hereby adopted and authorized to be prosecuted, in order of their 

emergency as may be designated by the President, under the direction of the Secretary of War and supervision of the Chief of Engineers in accordance with the plans in the respective reports and 

records hereinafter designated: Provided, That penstocks or other 

similar facilities, adapted to possible future use in the development 

of adequate electric power may be installed in any dam herein authorized when approved by the Secretary of War upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. Provided further, That the 

Secretary of War is authorized to receive øfrom States and political 

subdivisions thereof,¿ from a non-Federal interest (as defined in 

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

such funds as may be contributed by them for workø, which includes planning and design¿, to be expended in connection with 

funds appropriated by the United States for any authorized water 

resources development study or project, including a project for 

navigation on the inland waterways, whenever such work and expenditure may be considered by the Secretary of War, on recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, as advantageous in the 

public interest, and the plans for any reservoir project may, in the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
310 

discretion of the Secretary of War, on recommendation of the Chief 

of Engineers, be modified to provide additional storage capacity for 

domestic water supply or other conservation storage, on condition 

that the cost of such increased storage capacity is contributed by 

local agencies and that the local agencies agree to utilize such additional storage capacity in a manner consistent with Federal uses 

and purposes: And provided further, That when contributions made 

øby States and political subdivisions thereof,¿ by a non-Federal interest are in excess of the actual cost of the work contemplated and 

properly chargeable to such contributions, such excess contributions may, with the approval of the Secretary of War, be returned 

to the proper representatives of the contributing interestsø: Provided further, That the term ‘‘States’’ means the several States, the 

District of Columbia, the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States, and Federally recognized Indian tribes¿: 

And provided further, That the term ‘‘work’’ means the planning, 

design, or construction of an authorized water resources development study or project, or the repair, restoration, or replacement of 

an authorized water resources development project that has been 

damaged by an event or incident that results in a declaration by the 

President of a major disaster or emergency pursuant to the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

5121 et seq.). 

* * * * * * * 

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION B—ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 

2012 

TITLE I—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

* * * * * * * 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL 

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 111. (a) * * * 

ø(b) The Secretary shall notify the appropriate committees of 

Congress prior to initiation of negotiations for accepting contributed funds under 33 U.S.C. 701h.¿ 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
311 

ACT OF MARCH 4, 1915 

AN ACT Making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of 

certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 4. That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to receive from private parties such funds as may be contributed by 

them to be expended in connection with funds appropriated by the 

United States for any authorized work of public improvement of 

rivers and harbors whenever such work and expenditure may be 

considered by the Chief of Engineers as advantageous to the interests of navigation: Provided, That when contributions heretofore or 

hereafter made by local interests for river and harbor improvements, in accordance with specific requirements or under general 

authority of Congress, are in excess of the actual cost of the work 

contemplated and properly chargeable to such contributions, such 

excess contributions may, with the approval of the Secretary of 

War, be returned to the proper representatives of the contributing 

interests, unless the provision of law under which the contribution 

is made requires that the entire contribution be retained by the 

United States.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 221 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1970 

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

(a) COOPERATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—øIn any case in which the non-Federal interest is 

to receive credit under subparagraph (A)(ii) for the cost of 

work carried out by the non-Federal interest and such 

work has not been carried out as of the date of enactment 

of this subparagraph, the Secretary and the non-Federal 

interest shall enter into an agreement under which the 

non-Federal interest shall carry out such work, and only 

work carried out following the execution of the agreement 

shall be eligible for credit.¿ 

(i) CONSTRUCTION.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which the nonFederal interest is to receive credit under subparagraph (A) for the cost of construction carried out by 

the non-Federal interest before execution of a partnership agreement and that construction has not 

been carried out as of the date of enactment of this 

clause, the Secretary and the non-Federal interest 

shall enter into an agreement under which the 

non-Federal interest shall carry out such work and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
312 

shall do so prior to the non-Federal interest initiating construction or issuing a written notice to 

proceed for the construction. 

(II) ELIGIBILITY.—Construction that is carried 

out after the execution of an agreement under subclause (I) and any design activities that are required for that construction, even if the design activity is carried out prior to the execution of the 

agreement, shall be eligible for credit. 

(ii) PLANNING.— (I) IN GENERAL.—In any case in which the nonFederal interest is to receive credit under subparagraph (A) for the cost of planning carried out by 

the non-Federal interest before execution of a feasibility cost sharing agreement, the Secretary and 

the non-Federal interest shall enter into an agreement under which the non-Federal interest shall 

carry out such planning and shall do so prior to 

the non-Federal interest initiating that planning. 

(II) ELIGIBILITY.—Planning that is carried out 

by the non-Federal interest after the execution of 

an agreement under subclause (I) shall be eligible 

for credit. 

* * * * * * * 

(E) APPLICABILITY.— (i) * * * 

ø(ii) LIMITATION.—In any case in which a specific 

provision of law provides for a non-Federal interest to 

receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of a study for, or construction or operation and maintenance of, a water resources project, the specific provision of law shall apply instead of this paragraph.¿ 

(ii) LIMITATION.—In any case in which a specific provision of law provides for a non-Federal interest to receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 

a study for, or construction or operation and maintenance of, a water resources project, the Secretary shall 

apply— 

(I) the specific provision of law instead of this 

paragraph; or 

(II) at the request of the non-Federal interest, the 

specific provision of law and such provisions of 

this paragraph as the non-Federal interest may request. 

(iii) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

subparagraph may be construed to affect the applicability of subparagraph (C). 

ø(b) DEFINITION OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—¿ 

(b) DEFINITIONS.— (1) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The term ‘‘non-Federal interest’’ means— 

ø(1)¿ (A) a legally constituted public body (including a 

federally recognized Indian tribe); or 

ø(2)¿ (B) a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local government, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
313 

that has full authority and capability to perform the terms of 

its agreement and to pay damages, if necessary, in the event 

of failure to perform. 

(2) WATER RESOURCES PROJECT.—The term ‘‘water resources 

project’’ includes projects studied, reviewed, designed, constructed, operated and maintained, or otherwise subject to Federal participation under the authority of the civil works program of the Secretary of the Army for the purposes of navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, hurricane 

and storm damage reduction, water supply, recreation, hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife conservation, water quality, environmental infrastructure, resource protection and development, and related purposes. 

(c) Every agreement entered into pursuant to this section shall 

be øenforcible¿ enforceable in the appropriate district court of the 

United States. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ACT 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Dam Safety Program 

Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act, the following definitions apply: 

(1) * * * 

(2) DAM.—The term ‘‘dam’’— 

(A) * * * 

(B) does not include— 

(i) * * * 

(ii) a barrier described in subparagraph (A) that— 

(I) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

unless the barrier, because of the location of the barrier or another physical characteristic of the barrier, is 

likely to pose a significant threat to human life or 

property if the barrier fails (as determined by the øDirector¿ Administrator). 

(3) øDIRECTOR¿ ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘øDirector¿ Administrator’’ means the øDirector¿ Administrator of FEMA. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3. INSPECTION OF DAMS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) STATE PARTICIPATION.—On request of a State dam safety 

agency, with respect to any dam the failure of which would affect 

the State, the head of a Federal agency shall— 

(1) provide information to the State dam safety agency on 

the construction, operation, øor maintenance¿ maintenance, 

condition, or provision for emergency operations of the dam; or 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
314 

SEC. 7. INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON DAM SAFETY. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established an Interagency Committee on Dam Safety— 

(1) * * * 

(2) chaired by the øDirector¿ Administrator. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 8. NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The øDirector¿ Administrator, in consultation 

with ICODS and State dam safety agencies, and the Board shall 

establish and maintain, in accordance with this section, a coordinated national dam safety program. The Program shall— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) DUTIES.—The øDirector¿ Administrator shall prepare a strategic plan— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) OBJECTIVES.—The objectives of the Program are to— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(4) develop and encourage public awareness projects to increase public acceptance and support of State dam safety programs;¿ 

(4) develop and implement a comprehensive dam safety hazard education and public awareness initiative to assist the public in mitigating against, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from dam incidents; 

* * * * * * * 

(e) ASSISTANCE FOR STATE DAM SAFETY PROGRAMS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—To encourage the establishment and maintenance of effective State programs intended to ensure dam 

safety, to protect human life and property, and to improve 

State dam safety programs, the øDirector¿ Administrator shall 

provide assistance with amounts made available under section 

13 to assist States in establishing, maintaining, and improving 

dam safety programs in accordance with the criteria specified 

in paragraph (2). 

* * * * * * * 

(3) WORK PLANS.—The øDirector¿ Administrator shall enter 

into a agreement with each State receiving assistance under 

paragraph (2) to develop a work plan necessary for the State 

dam safety program to reach a level of program performance 

specified in the agreement. 

(4) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—Assistance may not be provided to a State under this subsection for a fiscal year unless 

the State enters into such agreement with the øDirector¿ Administrator as the øDirector¿ Administrator requires to ensure 

that the State will maintain the aggregate expenditures of the 

State from all other sources for programs to ensure dam safety 

for the protection of human life and property at or above a 

level equal to the average annual level of such expenditures for 

the 2 fiscal years preceding the fiscal year. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
315 

(5) APPROVAL OF PROGRAMS.— (A) SUBMISSION.—For a State to be eligible for assistance under this subsection, a plan for a State dam safety 

program shall be submitted to the øDirector¿ Administrator for approval. 

(B) APPROVAL.—A State dam safety program shall be 

deemed to be approved 120 days after the date of receipt 

by the øDirector¿ Administrator unless the øDirector¿ Administrator determines within the 120-day period that the 

State dam safety program fails to meet the requirements 

of paragraphs (1) through (3). 

(C) NOTIFICATION OF DISAPPROVAL.—If the øDirector¿ 

Administrator determines that a State dam safety program 

does not meet the requirements for approval, the øDirector¿ Administrator shall immediately notify the State in 

writing and provide the reasons for the determination and 

the changes that are necessary for the plan to be approved. 

(6) REVIEW OF STATE DAM SAFETY PROGRAMS.—Using the expertise of the Board, the øDirector¿ Administrator shall periodically review State dam safety programs. If the Board finds 

that a State dam safety program has proven inadequate to reasonably protect human life and property and the øDirector¿ 

Administrator concurs, the øDirector¿ Administrator shall revoke approval of the State dam safety program, and withhold 

assistance under this subsection, until the State dam safety 

program again meets the requirements for approval. 

(f) BOARD.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The øDirector¿ Administrator shall establish an advisory board to be known as the ‘‘National Dam 

Safety Review Board’’ to monitor the safety of dams in the 

United States, to monitor State implementation of this section, 

and to advise the øDirector¿ Administrator on national dam 

safety policy. 

* * * * * * * 

(3) VOTING MEMBERSHIP.—The Board shall consist of 11 voting members selected by the øDirector¿ Administrator for expertise in dam safety, of whom— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(F) 5 members shall be selected by the øDirector¿ Administrator from among State dam safety officials; and 

(G) 1 member shall be selected by the øDirector¿ Administrator to represent the private sector. 

(4) NONVOTING MEMBERSHIP.—The øDirector¿ Administrator, 

in consultation with the Board, may invite a representative of 

the National Laboratories of the Department of Energy and 

may invite representatives from Federal or State agencies, representatives from nongovernmental organizations, or dam safety experts, as needed, to participate in meetings of the Board. 

* * * * * * * 

(6) WORK GROUPS.—The øDirector¿ Administrator may establish work groups under the Board to assist the Board in accomplishing its goals. The work groups shall consist of memVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:36 Oct 22, 2013 Jkt 085131 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR246P1.XXX HR246P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
316 

bers of the Board and other individuals selected by the øDirector¿ Administrator. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 9. RESEARCH. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The øDirector¿ Administrator, in cooperation 

with the Board, shall carry out a program of technical and archival 

research to develop and support— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) CONSULTATION.—The øDirector¿ Administrator shall provide 

for State participation in research under subsection (a) and periodically advise all States and Congress of the results of the research. 

SEC. 10. DAM SAFETY TRAINING. 

At the request of any State that has or intends to develop a State 

dam safety program, the øDirector¿ Administrator shall provide 

training for State dam safety staff and inspectors. 

SEC. 11. REPORTS. 

Not later than 90 days after the end of each odd-numbered fiscal 

year, the øDirector¿ Administrator shall submit a report to Congress that— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) includes any recommendations for legislative and other 

action that the øDirector¿ Administrator considers necessary. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) NATIONAL DAM SAFETY PROGRAM.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) ALLOCATION.— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) DETERMINATION.—The øDirector¿ Administrator and 

the Board shall determine the amount allocated to States. 

* * * * * * * 

FREEDOM TO FISH ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED AREAS AT CORPS OF ENGINEERS DAMS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) EXISTING RESTRICTED AREA.—If the Secretary has established 

a restricted area or modified an existing restricted area during the 

period beginning on August 1, 2012, and ending on the day before 

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall— 

(1) cease implementing and enforcing the restricted area 

øuntil the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of 

this Act¿; and 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
317 

(c) ESTABLISHING NEW OR MODIFIED RESTRICTED AREA.—If, on or 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary establishes 

any new or modified restricted area, the Secretary shall— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) not implement or enforce the restricted area øuntil the 

date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act¿ 

until the Secretary has complied with the provisions of this subsection; and 

* * * * * * * 

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 22. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) LEVEE SAFETY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a State or political subdivision thereof, and in consultation with that State and appropriate non-Federal interests, the Secretary may provide technical assistance to a State to— 

(A) encourage effective State or local programs intended 

to ensure levee safety to protect human life and property; 

(B) assist the State or political subdivision in establishing and carrying out a levee safety program; or 

(C) improve an existing State or local levee safety program. 

(2) PURPOSES.—The purposes of technical assistance provided 

under this subsection shall be— 

(A) to ensure that human lives and property that are protected by new and existing levees are safe; 

(B) to encourage the use of appropriate engineering policies and procedures for levee site investigation, design, construction, operation and maintenance, and emergency preparedness; 

(C) to encourage effective levee safety programs in a 

State; 

(D) to develop and support public education and awareness projects to increase public acceptance and support of 

levee safety programs; 

(E) to build public awareness of the residual risks associated with living in levee protected areas; and 

(F) to develop technical assistance materials, seminars, 

and guidelines to improve the security of levees in the 

United States. 

(3) FEDERAL GUIDELINES.— (A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out this subsection, the 

Secretary, in consultation with States and non-Federal interests, shall establish Federal guidelines relating to levee 

safety. 

(B) INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.—The guidelines established under subparagraph (A) shall encompass, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
318 

to the maximum extent practicable, activities and practices 

carried out by appropriate Federal agencies. 

(C) INCORPORATION OF STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES.— 

The guidelines established under subparagraph (A) shall 

encompass, to the maximum extent practicable— 

(i) the activities and practices carried out by States, 

local governments, and the private sector to safely 

build, regulate, operate, and maintain levees; and 

(ii) Federal activities that facilitate State efforts to 

develop and implement effective State programs for the 

safety of levees, including levee inspection, levee rehabilitation, locally developed flood plain management, 

and public education and training programs. 

(D) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall allow States and nonFederal interests, including appropriate stakeholders, to review and comment on the guidelines established under subparagraph (A) before the guidelines are made final. 

(4) ASSISTANCE FOR STATE LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAMS.— 

(A) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible for technical assistance 

under this subsection, a State shall— 

(i) be in the process of establishing or have in effect 

a State levee safety program under which a State levee 

safety agency, in accordance with State law, carries out 

the guidelines established under paragraph (3); and 

(ii) allocate sufficient funds in the budget of that 

State to carry out such State levee safety program. 

(B) WORK PLANS.—The Secretary shall enter into an 

agreement with each State receiving technical assistance 

under this subsection to develop a work plan necessary for 

the State levee safety program of that State to reach a level 

of program performance that meets the guidelines established under paragraph (3). 

(C) INSPECTION PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall work 

with States receiving technical assistance under this subsection to develop State technical guidelines for levee inspection programs that— 

(i) address hazard classifications and technically 

based frameworks for levee assessment; and 

(ii) are incorporated into State levee safety programs. 

(D) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—Technical assistance may 

not be provided to a State under this subsection during a 

fiscal year unless the State enters into an agreement with 

the Secretary to ensure that the State will maintain during 

that fiscal year aggregate expenditures for programs to ensure levee safety that are at or above the average annual 

level of such expenditures for the State for the 2 fiscal years 

preceding that fiscal year. 

ø(e)¿ (f) For the purposes of this section, the term ‘‘State’’ means 

theseveral States of the United States, Indian tribes, the Commonwealth of PuertoRico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, 

the Commonwealthof the Northern Marianas, and the Trust Territory of thePacific Islands. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
319 

RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1958 

TITLE I—RIVERS AND HARBORS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 104. (a) There is hereby authorized a comprehensive program to provide for control and progressive eradication of noxious 

aquatic plant growths and aquatic invasive species from the navigable waters, tributary streams, connecting channels, and other allied waters of the United States, in the combined interest of navigation, flood control, drainage, agriculture, fish and wildlife conservation, public health, and related purposes, including continued 

research for development of the most effective and economic control 

measures, to be administered by the Chief of Engineers, under the 

direction of the Secretary of the Army, in cooperation with other 

Federal and State agencies. Local interests shall agree to hold and 

save the United States free from claims that may occur from control operations and to participate to the extent of 30 per centum 

of the cost of such operations. Costs for research and planning undertaken pursuant to the authorities of this section shall be borne 

fully by the Federal Government. 

* * * * * * * 

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle I—Trust Fund Code 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 98—TRUST FUND CODE 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter A—Establishment of Trust Funds 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 9505. HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) EXPENDITURES FROM HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND.— 

Amounts in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund shall be available, 

as provided by appropriation Acts, for making expenditures— 

(1) to carry out section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 ø(as in effect on the date of the enactment 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996)¿, 

* * * * * * * 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(320) 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 336 here 85131A.210

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chainnan 

COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE 

~.$. J!?OU5C of !\cprcscntatil.Jcs COMMITTeE ON -;'Hf: SunGI-: I 

Wi!lmJ/JtI1utoll, J:i)Q[ 20515 

September 27, 2013 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washin!,>ton, D,C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Shuster, 

1 am writing concerning H.R. 3080, the Water Resources R~form and Development Act 0/2013 

(WRRDA), which was marked-up by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on 

September 19, 2013. 

In order to expedite House consideration ofH.R. 3080, the Committee on the Budget will forgo 

action on the bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice 

the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on 

this or similar legislation. 

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confinning this understanding with respect to 

H.R. 3080, and would ask that a copy of our exchange ofletters on this matter be included in the 

Congressional Record during Floor consideration. 

(702) ?2ti-J7JO 

Paul Ryan 

Chainnan 

20,' C,nnon House Ofbce 8uildln~1 
321 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 337 here 85131A.211

lthl ~ 

<Jlmif!!WH 

T11c r lonorabk Patd Ryan 

('hairman 

(\)nlmiucC' on tb>2 

207 Cannon I louse 

\V<l~;hlr~glon. DC 2051) 

()(\1T i'dr, Chairn:3n: 

tWO 3JnfnLstructun 

SCP"(l'tllbCf JO. 2013 

Buildin6 

~;irl\ ,11. ffi<lh:~ll!' Jli! 

li\<lnkjll~l ti{r!tth~r 

rhank y{)U Ii)!' y('~ur IeUer regarding fLR 3080. the Wotel' /?('sol!r('es Nt/lInn find /)el'ciopm<.!nf 

£fC! (\VRRD/\L which wa:" ()rdcrcd to be reported by the C\)mmilkc ()]1 Tr~msportalion 

~md on Septemher 19,2013, appreciate your \\,il1ingn...::ss to support ~;.\pcditiTlg 

iloor considcrat~()n of this legislation. 

forgoing action on this legislation, the ConHllilkc \)1) the will not 

\vith rcspcd to ~hc appointment or conferees or iurisdictional 

pn:mgativcs Oll or similnr Icgislntion. 

I apprecIate yellr cnopcrcltion regarding lh1.'> Icgislatlon and 1 will include ()ur IcHers on ! LR. 

3080 ill the Cfmgrcs''':ional Rel.:ort! during nODI" c()n~idera1ion of this bili. 

cc: ','11C ]'\0[10rah1e .1I)hn Bo;;hncf 

I'hc I jonlwabk >~kk J. Raha!!. 11 

I'hc Ilot"lornhlc ('hris V <in 1101kn 

Sinccn.:-lv, 

gill 

~~~ Shuster 

{'hairnlan 

Mr Thol11ns J. \Vicklwlr!. Jr.. Parlial11\..'nlari?l11 
322 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 338 here 85131A.212

lll.:§, :1HOU£lC of 1Rcpresclltattuc£l 

QrulIlmittcc 1111 NuturallRclwU!W.1 

i!111lHlritllcltllll, lIIQI 21131 Cl 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman 

October 3, 2013 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

2165 Rayburn 110]3 

Washington, D.C. 20S1S 

Dear Mr. Chainl1an: 

Thank you Cor the 0ppOliunity to review the relevant provisions of the text ofB.R, 3080, 

the Water Resources Reform and DevelopmCllt Act of2013, As you are aware, the bill was 

primarily referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, while the Committee 

on Natural Resources received an additional referral. 

! rccogni;:c and appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the I-louse in an 

expeditious manner, and, nccordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 3080 from further consideration 

by the Comnlittec on Natural Resources. I do so with the understanding that by discharging the 

bm, the Committee on Natural Resources does not waive any future jurisdictional claim on this 

or similar matters. Further, the Committee on Natural Resources reserves the right to seek the 

appointment of conferees, if it should become necessary. 

1 ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters into the bill rcpori tiled hy the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. as well as in the Congressional Record during 

consideration of this measure on the House floor. 

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look forward to continued cooperation 

bet\Veen our respective committees. 

lfo-Ik Doc Hastings 

ChaimulTI 
323 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 339 here 85131A.213

ce: The Honorable John A. Boehner, Speaker 

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahali, II 

The Honorable Thomas J. Wickham, Parliamentarian 
324 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 340 here 85131A.214

illH! ::Tllttnirl 

Ct)airltlJ:O 

The Honorable Doc Hastings 

Chaimlan 

Committee on Natural Resources 

1324 Longworth I-louse Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

October 4, 2013 

~lf!l:;11 f!:al!t!!L 3!]! 

j!Lmkt!l~j !iirlllUCr 

Thank you for your letter regarding H.R 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act of 2013 (WRRDA), which was ordered to be reported by the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure on September 19, 2013. I appreciate your willingness to support expediting the 

consideration of this legislation on the House floor. 

1 acknowledge that by discharging the bill, the Committee on Natural Resources does not waive 

any future jurisdictional claim on this or similar matters, In addition, I recognize that the 

Committee on Natural Resources reserves the right to seck the appointment of conferees, 

I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation and I will include our letters on H.R, 

3080 in the bill report tiled by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as in 

the Conr.;ressionai Record during consideration of this measure on the I-louse floor. 

ec: The Honorable John Boehner 

The Honorable Nick J, Rahal!, II 

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio 

Sincerely, 

(Jyj) 

Bill Shuster 

Chairman 

My. Thomas J, Wickham, Jr., Parliamentarian 
325 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 341 here 85131A.215

Q:ongrcsB of the United ~tdtCB 

n.5. House of Hcprrsclltatlucs UWMlll[[ ON Wf\.Y~) AND tv1['I\NS 

l~ClL LI)h,(,''I,)lflil HOI!"" 0111C1 B' LI ')INC 

PO?) 

111"£>llIlIgroll. I'lll: ,0111,·(\jI8 

hllt) IWdY;;;ln(inl(;,IIli).ilou:;e nov 

October 17.2013 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

2165 Rayburn I louse Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Shuster, 

lam 

2013:' 

concerning H.R. 3080. the "Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 

may be scheduled for !loor consideration as early as next week. 

1\s you know, the Committee on V/ays and Means has jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue 

Code 1986. Section 201 of this bill amends the Internal Revenue Code by modifying the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund expenditure authority. Ho\vcver, in order to expedite this legislation for 

1100r consideration, the C0n11nittec will forgo action on this bill. This is being done with the 

understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the 

appointJTlent of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. 

I would appreciate your response to this letter, contirming this understanding with respect to 

H.R, 3080, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of lelters on this matter be included in the 
326 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 342 here 85131A.216

Congressional Record during 1100r consideration. 

f\:;: jl 

Chairman 

DAVE CA 

MtI' 

0 Ai 

"V 

1A. 

'" V "" 

N r ~ 

cc: The Honorable John Boehner 

Thc llonorablc Eric Cantor 

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy 

The llonorable Nancy Pelosi 

The Honorable StellY Hoyer 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II 

The IIonorable Sander M. Levin 

Mr. Thomas.l. Wickham, Jr., Parliamentarian 
327 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 343 here 85131A.217

i3dl~l)llr.tH 

'rl~~Hn11"n 

The! lonorahk 1)8.\,(' Camp 

('h:airnlll)l 

(lllll 3htfru!ltruc1uf£ 

1.1 g" HI1l1!;c (It it{eprcH£l1tatitW.l 

Yllu.!.1tlnlgtOiL til!: :~n:3El 

Ocloh.:r ! ~i, :~o 13 

CDlllHlittt'C on \\Tay~ and MCi.:16 

11 D? LOllgworth IlolL';c Onice Building 

\V~lshington, DC 205"] 5 

ikar \,11'. Chainnan: 

!Xick 31. ill.a~aU. 3Ul 

:fRHt)i\in~l fHemher 

Thililk :you for your feller I'e~~ardillg ~ 1.1< ::;OfW, tlK~ lfifllcr RI.'.'>ollrccv H(:jurm and f)(Tl'/upmcnt 

.1c'! (d 20J3 (\VRRDl\), which \Va'> ordcn:d to be reported hy till..' Cnrnmittcc on 'i'ransportatinl1 

and lnfrastru-::lun: on September 19,20 i 3. I Hp:)fccialc your willingllCss to support c\:pc-diting the 

consideration orthis lcgisL11ioil 011 IJH.: Houst..' HoOf. 

I acknov,,[Cdgc !!ml by forgoing action on this hi!1~ the Cnnmittee on \Vays Hnd l'v1cans wiH Ilot ill 

Clny \vay he prejudiced \vih P.:spcct LO tbe apooinlHll'llt ur conkrccs or Its jU1isdicl~onal 

pn:rogative~ on thi~ ur similar \cgis!mio:i. 

1 apr,nxi3tc )'(,ur cDopcratiOli rcgmt.1itlg Ihis legislation and 1 will include our lettes olliLR. 

':;080 illlhe bill n:cd by the CorllmiHcl' on Transportalion alld lnll'aslruciuTC'. as \vell clS in 

the Hecord during (()J1si6cration uC fhis measure on the I I i,.)u-:c; Iloor. 

Tbc I !on,m,iblc John BpchJlcr 

'I he Ilunorabic 'lid ,I. l\1hilll. II 

rhe j·]olltH;;lhlc SCHidcl 1\.1 ~ .' .. Tin 

Since re1), 

Bill 

~~ ShLI<.;lcr 

Ch':iil1n~1n 

1\,11". l'ih)H1;JS.I. V,lkkh,!rlL II' P(l,·lia1ll"-'Jlwrian 
(328) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

H.R. 3080 is a good bill, and one that I am grateful to Chairman 

Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and Subcommittee Chairman 

Gibbs for the opportunity to participate in drafting. It is a bill that 

I supported during the Committee markup, and one that I expect 

to support during consideration on the House Floor. 

It is not the bill that my caucus would have written on its own, 

and I am certain it is not the bill that others on the Committee 

would have independently written, either. However, H.R. 3080 does 

reflect the better traditions of this Committee, where members 

from both sides of the aisle come to the table, with a blank sheet 

of paper, to actively participate in the creation of legislation. That 

is how this Committee was so often successful in the past, and how 

it can be effective going forward into larger and more complex 

issues. The process our Chairman used in the creation of H.R. 3080 

should be a model on how the rest of Congress should operate. 

In addition, this bill shows that Congress still can roll-up-oursleeves, on a bipartisan basis, and get things done when it chooses 

to do so. 

Finally, H.R. 3080 is a bill that moves us forward to enactment 

of a water resources development act—something that has been 

lamentably absent over the past 6 years. 

I am providing these supplemental views to highlight one area 

where, in my view, continued Congressional and administration attention needs to be placed—addressing the challenges facing the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund. 

Over the past few years, the Subcommittee on Water Resources 

and Environment has held numerous hearings and roundtables on 

the challenges facing these user-funded navigation trust funds, 

which, ironically, are facing the exact opposite problems—one that 

is spending-down far less than it is collecting, growing a sizable 

surplus of unspent harbor maintenance revenues at the same time 

there is a growing backlog of unmet maintenance needs, and the 

other with insufficient resources to address ongoing inland waterways construction projects. 

When Congress created these trust funds, it entered into an 

agreement with shippers and other industries that the fees and 

taxes collected from these interests would be used to support the 

nation’s network of ports and inland waterways. Yet, shippers, 

users, and our nation’s ports argue that the Federal government 

has not held up its end of the agreement. 

Over the past few years, Federal investments in inland waterways and coastal ports, both in terms of real and inflationary-adjusted value, have declined. This lack of adequate investment has 

impacted the availability and reliability of domestic ports (large 

and small) and waterways, and is having significant short- and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
329 

long-term implications on our national, regional, and local economies and global competitiveness. On this point, I believe we all 

agree. 

H.R. 3080 will provide some relief to our inland and coastal harbors; however, this legislation does not solve the challenges facing 

these two trust funds, and more work remains. 

Specifically, H.R. 3080 includes provisions encouraging increased 

appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for necessary operation and maintenance activities at our nation’s ports— 

starting at 65 percent of collections in 2014 and increasing to 80 

percent of collections by 2020. This is a step in the right direction, 

but does not accomplish the goal of full utilization of annual Harbor Maintenance Tax collections for which many members strongly 

advocate. Even at the upper limit of utilization in H.R. 3080, more 

revenues will be collected into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

than are expended for harbor maintenance needs. 

In addition, because the mechanism in H.R. 3080 for expending 

additional revenues relies on the current budgetary and appropriations process, this Committee must remain vigilant that the 

changes proposed in this bill do not further erode the ability of the 

Corps to carry out construction projects, such as those necessary to 

deepen our nation’s ports to accommodate the post-Panamax vessels that will come once the Panama Canal expansion is complete. 

As a result of discretionary budget caps on appropriations bills, 

any increase in one account of the Corps (such as the operation and 

maintenance account) would cause a corresponding decrease in 

other Corps’ accounts (including the largest remaining account of 

the Corps—the construction account). To address the proposed increase in Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures, H.R. 3080 

includes ‘‘Sense of the Congress’’ language that ‘‘any increase in 

harbor maintenance programs . . . shall result from an overall increase in appropriations from the civil works program of the Corps 

of Engineers and not from similar reductions in the appropriations 

for other programs, projects, and activities’’ of the Corps. Without 

such protections, according to the Corps, any increase in Trust 

Fund expenditures ‘‘would have to be offset elsewhere, in either the 

Civil Works program or another program in the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act.’’ (See attached letter from Assistant Secretary of the Army, Jo-Ellen Darcy, dated February 21, 

2012.) 

At the Committee markup of H.R. 3080, I urged stakeholders 

and members, alike, to lock arms and encourage our colleagues on 

the Budget and Appropriations Committees to fully fund both the 

Corps’ operation and maintenance account as well as its construction account, otherwise, members may awake to the unintended 

consequences of our efforts in this bill. 

Yet, in the long term, rather than ‘‘robbing Peter to pay Paul,’’ 

Congress should instead pursue a strategy that ensures both fullutilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund collections as 

well as robust appropriations for the Corps’ construction account. 

One way to accomplish this would be to designate some or all of 

the annual collections to the Fund as mandatory spending. Congress could direct the Secretary to expend Harbor Maintenance 

Trust Fund collections outside of the normal discretionary budget 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
330 

caps, as it has for other transportation trust funds, such as the 

Highway Trust Fund. In practice, if Congress were to designate 

some portion of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditures as 

outside the normal discretionary budget caps, any such expenditure 

would not have to compete with other appropriations within the 

Corps’ discretionary budget allocation. In essence, Congress would 

be using the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as a real trust fund, 

where user fees are dedicated and expended for their intended purposes. 

In previous years, this Committee has reported bipartisan legislation (H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act, 104th Congress) that 

would have accomplished this same goal—putting the ‘‘trust’’ back 

in the transportation trust funds. What was said about that bill is 

equally as important today—that using the unspent Trust Fund 

balances to achieve savings within the overall unified budget of the 

United States breaks faith with the transportation users who have 

paid into the trust funds with the expectation that they will be 

used for transportation purposes. 

As both Chairman Shuster and I noted during the Committee 

markup, taking some or all of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 

collections off-budget will have a budgetary cost—the scope of 

which depends on how this is accomplished; however, if we truly 

want to ensure that Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund collections 

are used, in a timely manner, to promote efficiency at our nation’s 

harbors, and to avoid having this occur at the expense of the Corps’ 

construction accounts, a logical way to do this is to take all or portions of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund off budget. 

Similarly, H.R. 3080 includes several reforms for the development and implementation of navigation projects on the inland waterways system. However, H.R. 3080 makes little headway in addressing the leading concern raised by users of the inland waterway system at multiple hearings held before the Subcommittee on 

Water Resources and Environment—the lack of available funding 

to carry out projects on the inland system. 

As several witnesses before Subcommittee testified, the largest 

limiting factor in carrying out inland waterways projects is the lack 

of readily-available resources in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 

to carry out the backlog of construction and rehabilitation projects. 

For example, when a representative of an inland waterways user 

group was recently asked the question of what single recommendation could be made to speed up navigation projects, his response 

was simple—funding. 

It is without question that failure to fund projects in a sufficient 

and timely fashion at critical stages of development results in construct delays, inefficient utilization of resources, and increased 

total costs of completed projects. As Major General Michael Walsh 

recently testified before the Subcommittee, if Congress inefficiently 

provides funding to the Corps, projects take longer to complete and 

wind up costing more than they would if funding were provided in 

a more consistent manner. However, when the opposite is true and 

the Corps is provided with all the necessary resources, such as was 

the case in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the reconstruction of flood control structures for the City of New Orleans, projects 

generally came in on-time and under budget. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
331 

The reality is that, based on current revenues to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, the administration (regardless of party) is limited in what it can do to accelerate project delivery other than constrain the pipeline of ongoing projects. For example, in the fiscal 

year 2014 budget request, the administration provides a total of 

$176 million for a limited number of inland waterways projects— 

including a transfer of the entire $93 million balance from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. According to hearing testimony from 

the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Jo-Ellen Darcy, 

this is the ‘‘maximum amount that is affordable within the projected Trust Fund revenue under existing law.’’ 

To reverse this trend, we must ensure that sufficient resources 

are made available for Corps’ projects throughout the study, design, and construction phases. 

While H.R. 3080 does touch on this concern through multiple 

studies looking at long-term options for funding inland waterways 

projects, a short-term fix to this challenge, and one endorsed by the 

users of the inland system and others, is to increase the current 

user fee on fuel used while operating on the inland system. 

In September, 2013, a significant number of business interests, 

inland waterways users, and agricultural commodity groups cosigned a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means calling for a 6-to-9 cent increase in the 

current 20-cent-per-gallon user fee that funds the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. (See attached letter from several inland waterways stakeholders, dated September 24, 2013.) This would represent a 30 to 45 percent increase in the current user fee, and, at 

the 9-cent per gallon increase, would just be sufficient to restore 

the inflationary-adjusted value of the current 20-cent-per-gallon to 

the level when it was established in 1995. 

In addition, other organizations, such as the American Society of 

Civil Engineers, have urged Congress in testimony to go even further and ensure that, in addition to increasing the current user fee, 

Congress also include a provision to index the user fee to the Consumer Price Index, and that the fee be adjusted every two years 

to avoid any future erosion of the value as a result of inflation. 

I recognize the concerns raised by Chairman Shuster that increasing the current user fee involves the participation of other 

Congressional committees and was not possible in the Committee 

markup of H.R. 3080. However, I am also encouraged by the Chairman’s willingness to examine options to address funding in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund in the future. 

In my view, the fact that we continue to rely on user fee rates 

that were established almost 20 years ago to finance critical investments on our inland system is not sustainable. 

I also believe that much of the hand-wringing about the causes 

of project delay, both in the inland waterway system and beyond, 

would be resolved if sufficient funding were made available for 

these projects at critical times during project study and delivery. 

The solutions for many project development and implementation 

challenges are readily apparent—the question, then, is how Congress will respond to these solutions, and whether we will take the 

steps necessary to achieve what I believe we all want—an efficient 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
332 

and sustainable system of water resources projects to serve the 

needs of our nation. 

TIM BISHOP, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
333 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 348 85131A.218

Waterways Council, Inc. 

80 IN. Quincy Street, Suite 200 

Arlington, VA 22203; (703) 373-2261 

waterwayscouncil@vesselallianee.com 

September 24,2013 

The Honorable Dave Camp 

Chairman 

House Ways & Means Committee 

1102 Longworth House Office Building 

Washinl,'lon,DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin: 

The Honorable Sander Levin 

Ranking Member 

House Ways & Means Committee 

110 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Now that the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee has acted on a Water Resources Reform and Development 

Act (WRRDA), there is an urgent need for the revenue committees to act to increase the user fee for modernizing our nation's 

inland waterways. 

TIle undersigned organizations strongly support an increase in the user fee that barge and towing companies pay into the 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

This user fec - cun-ently 20-cents-per-gallon offuel used while operating on the inland system should be increased to 26-

to 29-cents-per-gallon. This amount is matched by General Treasury Funds and is dedicated to new construction and major 

rehabilitation of the inland system. This user fee increase is supported by those who pay it - just 300 commercial operators 

- while the entire nation benefits, from hydropower, municipal water supply, recreational boating and fishing, flood control, 

national security, and waterfront property development. 

The inland waterways provide the most cost-competitive transportation option for our bulk cOlmnodities used in America 

and exported to marketplaces worldwide. The facts are clear: 

.. 60% of the nation's expolt-bound grain is transported on the inland waterways . 

.. An effective and efficient waler transpolt system is essential to supply American farmers with fertilizer for Spring and Fall 

planting seasons . 

.. Patmers depend on our waterways' infrastructure to compete and win against producers outside the USA . 

.. The soon to be completed Panama Canal expatlsion will create opportunities for increased American trade, but not if our 

channels are not dredged and our locks atld dams are not functioning . 

.. Americatl family-wage jobs depend on operational potts and inland waterways . 

.. The waterways at"e vital to our manufacturing sectors atld to the construction industry . 

.. American consumers benefit from transportation cost-savings made possible by the inland waterways; for every $1 

invested in our inland waterways, $10 is retumed in national benefits. 

Most of America's locks and dams were built in the I 920s and 1 93Os, yet are used to transport 21stcentury cargoes that fuel 

our modem economy. This critical component of the transportation supply chain needs reinvestment atld recapitalization, 

and a WRRDA bill that joins industry supported project delivery refomls with an industry sought increase in the uscr fee it 

pays is fiscally responsible. 

We hope that the Membel~ of dIe House Ways & Means Committee support inclusion of a user fee increase in the WRRDA 

bill that passes the House. 

,~ 

MissouriCfml (;nl",'i,A.'$()cilltion National Coundl of 

r:"-",,,, r"",.".r"hvl>~ 

Sincerely, 

M Manufacturers 

INDIAtIf, 

CORN 

GROWEHS 

ASSOCIATION 

.=*'*'=. NOIUH AMERICA'S BUIlD!NG TRADES UN!oN~ 

WATERWAYS It,1''1 1' 

National 

Barley 

Growers 

AsSOCiation 

Pennsylvania 

II. 

FannBureau 
334 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 349 85131A.219

coloradoCo~ 

I.: 

IOWA ,!, CORN 

GROWERS ' '"''ClHH''' 

;¥~~nal Association 

,/ of ut.eat Growers 

'r. lLLlNo/s 'li 'FARM 

Farm. -~ Family_ Food:' 

F~11:ilizer Institute 'Nebraska 

• Illinois 

tf~ Corn ,.,:1iI Growers 

Association 

()j) 

&Wheat 

rASA 

American $qybean Association 0 

10', Corn 

Producers 1// ,Association 

{/otTexas 

v Board 

(} 

NGFA 

;. Tne American Waterways Operators 

National Organizations: Agricultural Retailers Association * American forum Bureau Federation· American SoybcanAssociation • American 

Waterways Operators· Associated General Contmctors of America· Building and Construction Trades Department,AFL-OO. Ca'l>enters' 

District Council of S1. LOllis & Vicinity· The Fertilizer Institute. GROWMARK, Inc. -International lInion of Operating Engineers· National 

Associatkm of Manufacturers· National Association of Wheat Growers· National Barley Growers Ass.ociation - National Com Growers Association· National Council of Farmer Cooperatives - National Grain & Feed Association - National Oilseed Processors AssocIation • The United 

Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters -Onited Brotherhood of C.arpenters - US Canola Association· US Chamber of Commerce. US Dry Bean 

Council· Waterways Council, Inc. 

State Organizations: Alabama Soybean and Corn Association· Colorado Corn Growers Association. Com Producers Association of Texa<; • 

I!!inois Com Growers Association· Illinois Fann Bureau - Indiana Com Grmvers Association - Indiana Soybean Alliance· Iowa Com Growers 

Association - Kentucky Com GrowcrsAssociation - Missouri Com Growers As.;;;ociation • Nebraska Com Board -Ohio Com & Wheat Growers 

Association· Ohio Soybean Association - Pennsylvania fann Bureau 

City/County Organizations: Greater New Orleans, Inc.· Adams County {Illinois) Fann Bureau - Brown Coun!}' (lllinois) Fanll Bureau. Calhoun County (llIinnis) Fann Bureau· Cass COlmty (Hlinois) Pann Bureau· Christian County (Illinois) f'rum Bureau. Cook County (Illinois) 

Fann Bureau· Crawford County (IllinOIS) Faml Bureau· Cumberland County (Illinois) farm Bureau· Ford-Iroquois County (Illinois) Farm Bure.,l.u· Hancock County (Illinois) Faun Bureau· Henry County (Illinois) Fann Bureau - Jackson County (Illinois) Falm Bureau. Kankakee 

County (lIIinois) Farm Bureau· Knox County (lliinois) I-rum Bureau - LaSalle COlUlty (Illinois) Fann Bureau -r ..awrence County (lIIinois) Emu 

BUfC."l.tI • Lee COWlty (Illinois) rann Bureau· Livingston County (Illinois) Farm Bureau· Marshall-Putnam County (Illinois) Farm Bureau. 

Ma'ioo County (U!inois) Farm Bureau - Ma~sac County (Illinois) rann Bureau· McHenry County (Illinois) Farm Bureau· McLean County (illinois) (-ann Bureau· Menard County (Illinois) Faml Bureau· Mercer County (Illinois) Farm Bureau· Monroe County (lilinois) Farrn BUreau· 

Morgan County (Illinois) E1nn Bureau' Moultrie (')Junty (Illinois) Fann Bureau· Peoria County (Illinois) Fann Bureau- Pike County (Illinois) 

Fan}} Bureau" Pula<;ki-AlcxanderCOlUlly (Ulinois) fann Bureau· Richland County (Illinois) Farm Bureau· Rock Island County (Illinois) Fann 

Bureau· Sangamoll COWlty (Illinois) ranll Bureau· Scott County (Illinois) From Bureau· St. Clair County (Illinois) Fann BUreau· lInion 

County (Illinois) Fann Bureau· Vermilion County (Illinois) Fann Bureau· \VayneCounty (Illinois) Farm Bureau· White County (Illinois) Falln 

Bureau· Will County (Illinois) raml Bureau· Winnebago-Boone COlmty (fIlinois) Fanll Bureau 

cc: Members of the House Ways & Means Committee 
335 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 350 85131A.220

Honorable Timothy H. Bishop 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

CIVIL WORKS 

108 ARMY PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON OC 20310-0108 

''fA 21 2012 

United States House of Representatives 

306 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20314 

Dear Representative Bishop: 

This is in response to your letter dated February 14, 2012 to Major General Michael 

Walsh, Deputy Commanding General, Civil and Emergency Operations. You asked if the 

substantive provisions of H.R. 104, "Realizing America's Maritime Promise" (RAMP) were 

enacted, as currently drafted, would the legislation have an adverse impact on other business 

lines and missions of the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers. I am 

responding on behalf of Major General Walsh. 

Let me be clear that I am responding to your request for information on the potential 

impacts of H.R. 104, but I am not providing a statement of an Army or Administration position on 

the bill, because no Army or Administration position has been developed at this time. 

First, under current law, spending from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) is 

included in the President's Budget and is dependent on Congressional appropriations. The 

funds are not automatically available, so mandating that they be spent would not be effective 

without a supporting appropriations action. 

Second, if the level of spending from the HMTF that RAMP envisions were to be 

appropriated, one cannot assume that the President's Budget for the Civil Works program would 

be increased by a comparable amount. Indeed, in today's economic and fiscal climate, it is 

extremely unlikely that the Civil Works budget would be so increased. As a result, as you stated 

in your letter, reductions would need to be taken in flood risk management, environmental 

restoration, hydropower, recreation, and the other Civil Works mission areas. 

Third, under the Congressional budget process, the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation would have to be increased by an amount 

comparable to the increase in spending from the HMTF. Otherwise, that increase would have to 

be offset elsewhere, in either the Civil Works program or another program in the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act. 

I hope this answers your question. Thank you for your interest in and support for the 

Army Civil Works program. 

Very truly yours, 

o-Ellen ~~ Darcy 

Assi ta Secretary of the Arm 

(Civil Works) 

PnflledOn$ Rm:yded PalX'f 
(336) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

While we support H.R. 3080, we have concerns with Section 

103—a modified version of streamlining provisions that were included in MAP–21 and previous amendments to Title 23 that relate 

to transportation projects. While not as broad, the provisions will 

still undermine the environmental protection and public participation processes that are provided for under National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and other laws, such as the Endangered Species 

Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. When considered 

with other provisions in the bill that strictly limit the timeline for 

and the amount of funds that can be spent on feasibility studies, 

Section 103 could limit the quality of information available to the 

Corps in planning projects that often have broad environmental impacts. 

While we support the timely delivery of water resources projects, 

there is no question that the biggest obstacle to the construction of 

Corps of Engineers’ projects is a lack of funding. There are literally 

tens of billions of dollars of authorized projects that have not initiated construction, and H.R. 3080 would authorize an additional $8 

billion in new projects. The estimated cost for completion of Corps 

projects currently under construction is about $20 billion. At the 

same time, the most recent appropriation for the Corps’ construction budget was $1.2 billion. This is not a new problem. In 1986, 

GAO did a study of the causes of delay in Corps construction 

projects and found that the $60 billion backlog in Corps construction was caused by a lack of funding given an annual construction 

appropriation of only $1.6 billion. Corps officials also stated that 

delays were due to a lack of local support or the project no longer 

being economically feasible. All of these reasons remain applicable 

today, and it is unfortunately beyond the scope of this bill to address them. 

One thing that is clear, at least from the hearing record developed in support of this bill, there has been no demonstration that 

the public participation or environmental review process is the 

cause of delay in implementation of Corps’ studies and projects. In 

the hearings that preceded Committee markup of H.R. 3080, no 

witness called before the Committee identified a single project 

where the public participation or environmental review processes 

caused the project implementation to be delayed. In fact, when 

asked direct questions about why Corps’ projects typically take 

years to implement, the common answer from witnesses before the 

Committee was simple—lack of available appropriations at critical 

times during project development and construction. In the words of 

one witness, ‘‘[w]hen projects are fully funded or they have a steady 

funding stream, they tend to be completed more expeditiously and 

more efficiently.’’ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
337 

Further, it remains unclear whether simply taking language that 

was developed for highway projects and applying it part and parcel 

to water resources projects will improve decision making and not, 

instead, hamper agency collaboration and slow decisions. Additionally, there seems to be no distinction in this language between the 

‘‘streamlining’’ of reviews for projects or activities that might be 

considered a repair or a replacement, versus the wholesale construction of a large scale, complex project in a previously undisturbed area. While trying to expedite the review process might 

make sense in some situations, we are not convinced that you can 

apply arbitrary schedules, review deadlines and penalties with no 

regard for the scale, complexity and impacts of a project as this bill 

would do. 

As one example, we have serious concerns with the provision 

that would limit to 150 days, the ability of the public to seek judicial review of a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) issued 

by the Corps, or any other permits that might be issued for a water 

resources project. Imposing an arbitrary time limit on judicial review—that is years shorter than current law—ignores the largescale and very complex nature of many Corps projects. When you 

consider this provision in light of the already very short comments 

periods that the bill imposes throughout the environmental review 

process, and the elimination of the comment period that typically 

exists between the publication of the final EIS and the record of 

decision, there is a real likelihood that the bill could short 

circuiting the public’s ability to participate in the decision making 

process. 

In short, while we strongly support timely delivery of water resources projects, we have concerns as to whether the changes made 

in this bill in the name of streamlining will actually achieve that 

goal, particularly given the real world funding issues that we face, 

and we remain very concerned about the impacts these changes 

will have on the public participation process and the assessment of 

impacts to the environment. The Senate environmental review language was ultimately adopted as a ten year pilot program. We believe a meaningful pilot program would ensure a review of whether 

this process is actually working and has not undermined environmental protections or precluded public participation in the project 

development process. 

PETER DEFAZIO. 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON. 

MICHAEL CAPUANO. 

MIKE MICHAUD. 

GRACE NAPOLITANO. 

ALBIO SIRES. 

ELIZABETH ESTY. 

RICK NOLAN. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(338) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON WATER RESOURCES REFORM AND 

DEVELOPMENT ACT CONCERNS ABOUT STREAMLINING 

PROVISIONS AND NEED FOR PILOT PROGRAM 

We first want to commend Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall for their leadership and hard work with Subcommittee 

Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member Bishop. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) demonstrates that 

compromise and collaboration is still possible in the People’s 

House. 

We would, however, like to express concerns about the environmental streamlining provisions included in this bill. While the goal 

of accelerating the pace at which we are putting projects on the 

ground is certainly admirable, looking at these provisions through 

the lens of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee, on which some of us are honored to serve, we believe that limiting environmental review is not 

the answer to that problem. It is possible that the streamlining 

provisions will not accelerate the pace of project construction, but 

could actually lead to projects that are more costly and environmentally destructive. 

Specifically, we remain concerned that Sections 101 (Vertical Integration and Acceleration of Studies) and 103 (Environmental 

Streamlining) in the bill as reported could have an unintended effect of undermining effective environmental reviews of water 

projects and the critical protections provided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other vitally important environmental laws. These provisions were drafted on the assumption that 

the environmental review process is a root cause of project delays. 

However, evidence suggests that environmental reviews are not 

responsible for delaying construction of economically and environmentally sound projects. In most cases, the terrible delays in too 

many Corps projects are the result of the huge project backlog, lack 

of consistent and robust federal funding, and poor project planning. 

During a September 18 hearing in the Senate Environment and 

Public Works on similar streamlining provisions included in MAP– 

21, witnesses testified that streamlining provisions have not been 

as successful as we hoped in accelerating project delivery. The 

major reason for project delay is not onerous review requirements, 

but unrealistic budgeting and high project cost. We have offered 

into the record an article and letter that describe some of these 

concerns in more detail [attached]. 

During the Senate hearing, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

testified that, ‘‘instead of getting to ‘yes’ faster, we believe these 

‘streamlining’ provisions may serve to get to ‘no’ faster.’’ While it 

is heartening to see that the Fish and Wildlife Service would not 

rubber-stamp projects, these circumstances seem contrary to the 

very idea of project acceleration. It is possible that by including the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
339 

1September 19, 2005 Letter to the Honorable Cathy McMorris, Chair of the Task Force on 

Improving the National Environmental Policy Act from Russell E. Train (CEQ Chair 1970– 

1973), Russell W. Peterson (CEQ Chair 1973–1976), John Busterud (CEQ Chair 1976–1977), 

Charles W. Warren (CEQ Chair 1977–1979), J. Gustave Speth (CEQ Chair 1979–1981), Michael 

R. Deland (CEQ Chair 1989–1993), Kathleen A. McGinty (CEQ Chair 1995–1998), George T. 

Frampton Jr. (CEQ Chair 1998–2001), Gary Widman (CEQ General Counsel 1974–1976), Nick 

Yost (CEQ General Counsel 1977–1981) (emphasis added). 2September 19, 2005 Letter to the Honorable Cathy McMorris, Chair of the Task Force on 

Improving the National Environmental Policy Act from Russell E. Train (CEQ Chair 1970– 

1973), Russell W. Peterson (CEQ Chair 1973–1976), John Busterud (CEQ Chair 1976–1977), 

Charles W. Warren (CEQ Chair 1977–1979), J. Gustave Speth (CEQ Chair 1979–1981), Michael 

R. Deland (CEQ Chair 1989–1993), Kathleen A. McGinty (CEQ Chair 1995–1998), George T. 

Frampton Jr. (CEQ Chair 1998–2001), Gary Widman (CEQ General Counsel 1974–1976), Nick 

Yost (CEQ General Counsel 1977–1981) (emphasis added). 

streamlining provisions as they are currently drafted in the 

WRRDA bill, we could actually be slowing down Corps projects instead of speeding them up. 

Before we begin to fundamentally change the way the federal 

government—and the public—reviews water resources projects, we 

should make sure that this concept actually works effectively and 

does not have unintended consequences—especially those that 

could damage our environmental resources. The taxpayer investment in Corps projects is substantial, and we should be ensuring 

we’re spending their money as wisely as possible. 

Unfortunately, the Corps has too often relied on flawed analyses 

and has been known for constructing projects that are often complex, large-scale and costly. Since 1994, more than 35 reports from 

independent experts have revealed major flaws in Corps project 

planning and implementation. In light of this history, I believe that 

we should only make changes to the project review process if we 

are certain that such changes will ensure better projects that protect the safety and well-being of our communities and our environment. 

Poorly planned Corps projects can lead to incomprehensible 

losses, like the flooding of New Orleans during Hurricane 

Katrina—and can destroy natural systems that provide free and effective flood protection. We need robust project review to help ensure better, more resilient projects to protect our communities from 

storms, floods and other disasters. Rigorous review of projects 

being built with federal dollars is critical to protect people, restore 

ecosystems and ensuring the movement of commerce. 

NEPA reviews have saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and have produced better projects with more public support. 

It is not prudent in today’s fiscal environment to undermine these 

longstanding protections in the hopes that the proposed changes 

will somehow speed up project construction. Before making permanent changes to a process that has served the nation well for decades. We should have a firm understanding of how these provisions 

will actually work. 

We agree with the conclusions reached by eight past chairs of the 

Council on Environmental Quality from both Republican and 

Democratic administrations: NEPA is ‘‘not an impediment to responsible government action; it is a prerequisite for it.’’ 1 Indeed, 

NEPA is ‘‘essential to responsible government decision-making.’’ 2

Effective environmental reviews protect people, wildlife, and taxpayer dollars by ensuring construction of better projects that serve 

the national good. In fact, with limited funds available to the Army 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
340 

Corps diminishing year by year, it is all the more critical that these 

reviews exist to ensure that only the best, most justified projects 

proceed to construction phase. 

We believe that the Sections 101 and 103 should be reevaluated, 

and at a minimum, include language that would establish sections 

101 and 103 as a Pilot Program with a look-back mechanism to assess their effectiveness before making these provisions permanent. 

The Carson amendment was submitted that would frame these 

streamlining provisions as a Pilot Program with a mechanism to 

assess their effectiveness. Unfortunately, the Pilot Program amendment was not accepted into the manager’s amendment. We sincerely hope that the bill sponsors will commit to working with us 

as we prepare this bill for floor action to find a suitable compromise that meets all our objectives. It is past time for a good 

Water Resources bill and we are very close to something that we 

can all support. 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 

Development, Public 

Buildings and Emergency 

Management. 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON. 

DONNA EDWARDS. 

JANICE HAHN. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
341 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here 85131A.221

ATTACHMENTS 

Sept. 18,2013 11:30 a,m, 

White House Official Says Environmental Reviews Wrongly Blamed for Project Delays 

By Nathan Hurst, CQ Roll Call 

Legally mandated environmental reviews are often wrongly blamed for delays in transportation 

infrastructure projects, the top White House environmental official said Wednesday in prepared testimony 

to a Senate subcommittee. 

Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Nancy Sutley told a Senate Environment and Public 

Works subcommittee that provisions in last year's surface transportation law (PL 112-141) designed to 

consolidate environmental reviews have succeeded in speeding up some major projects, such as 

replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge north of New York. 

But she also said that changes to the 1970 National Environmental Protection Act (PL 91-190), a 1970 

law that allows public input on projects, will not necessarily address the causes of many project delays. 

"While it can be true that litigation over NEPA documents or an overly detailed NEPA process due to the 

fear of litigation may result in project delays, many other realities of major project development often are 

incorrectly attributed to the NEPA process," Sutley said in prepared testimony. "Challenges such as 

securing project funding, low priority, local opposition to a project, project complexity, or changes in 

project scope are more often responsible for delays in building projects. However, because these issues 

are frequently identified during the NEPA process, NEPA itself is often targeted as the culprit" 

Environmental groups such as the National Wildlife Federation complained that the changes to NEPA 

reviews required by the surface transportation authorization were intended to shut them out of the prebuilding planning process. Supporters of the changes in the law complain that environmental groups 

frequently draw out the legal process to stall unwanted construction projects. 

Sutley's testimony reiterates earlier criticism from environmental groups that changing NEPA protections 

would have little practical effect on many projects. The Federal Highway Administration, for instance, 

has only about 30 projects per year out of 9,700 roughly 0.3 percent - that require full environmental 

impact statement, the most intense level of federal review under NEPA. The Federal Transit 

Administration averages about five projects out of more than 3,000 annually, or about 0.2 percent, that 

need complete environmental impact statements. 

Sutley delivered her testimony on the eve of a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

markup Thursday of a water resources bill (HR 3080) that also includes provisions designed to expedite 

project reviews. Environmental groups objected to language in the Senate water bill (S 601) that would 

speed up prQject reviews. 

l/atli(lIIlillr.l'/(a,cqrollca/l.coffl 

Source: CQ News 

Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill. 

© 2013 CQ Roll Call All Rights Reserved. 
342 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here 85131A.222

REGIONAL GROUPS: 

Ad Hoc Downstream Group' Alabama Rivers Alliance' Amigos de Bolsa Chica • 

Apalachicola Riverkeeper • Arkansas Wildlifc Federation' Atlantic States Legal 

Foundation, Inc .• Audubon Society of New Hampshire' Center for a Sustainable Coast· 

Chattahoochee Riverkeeper • Chesapeake Climate Action Network' Colorado Mountain 

Club' Committee on the Middle Fork of the Vermilion River' Conservation Council for 

Hawai'i • Delaware Nature Society· Endangered Habitats League' Environmental Action 

Committee of West Marin' Float Fishermen of Virginia • Freshwater Future' Friends for 

our Riverfront· Friends of Clear Creek' Friends of Perdido Bay' Friends of the Kaw • 

Friends of the North Fork and White Rivers' Friends ofthe River' Friends ofthe Rivers 

of Virginia • Friends of the Weskeag' Galveston Bay Foundation' Georgia River Network 

• Great Old Broads for Wilderness' Great Rivers Environmental Law Center' GreenLaw 

• Gulf Restoration Network' Hackensack Riverkceper, Inc .• Hands Across the Lake' 

Help Save the Apalachicola River Group' Highway J Citizens Group' Hoosier 

Environmental Council' lIIinois Council of Trout Unlimited' Iowa Environmental 

Council' Iowa Wildlife Federation' Izaak Walton League of America' Kalamath Forest 

Alliance' Kansas Wildlife Federation' Kentucky Resources Council' Kentucky Sierra 

Club' Kentucky Waterways Alliance' Labadie Environmental Organization' Lake 

Champlain Committee' Lake Erie Region Conservancy' Levees.Org • Louisiana Audubon 

Council' Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper • Mankato Area Environmentalists' Matilija 

Coalition' Mid South Fly Fishers' Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy' Milwaukee 

Riverkeeper • Missouri Coalition for the Environment· MnDak Upstream Coalition' 

Montana Audubon' National Committee for the New River' New YorklNew Jersey 

Baykeeper' NJINY Environmental Watch' Northwest Environmental Advocates' Ohio 

Environmental Council' The Ozark Society· Palm Beach County Reef Rescue' Planning 

and Conservation League • Prairie Rivers Network' Raritan Riverkeeper' The River 

Project· Rivers Unlimited' San Diego Coastkeeper • San Juan Citizens Alliance' Save 

Our Farmland Coalition' Save Our Saugahatchee, Inc .• Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition 

• Save the American River Association' Save the Cape, Inc .• South Carolina Coastal 

Conservation League' South Dakota Wildlife Federation' Southern Environmental Law 

Center' Southern Illinois University· South Wings • Surfrider Foundation' Tennessee 

Clean Water Network' Tennessee Parks and Greenways Foundation' Tennessee 

RIVERKEEPER • Texas Conservation Alliance' Tip of the Mitt· Tualatin Riverkeepers • 

University of Tennessee at Martin' Upper Cumberland Watershed Watch' Upper st. 

Lawrence Riverkeeper, Save The River' Utah Rivers Council' Virgin Islands 

Conservation Society· Wilderness Workshop' Yell County Wildlife Federation 
343 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 361 here 85131A.223

NATIONAL GROUPS 

Alliance for Sustainability • American Rivers' Audubon' Center for Biological Diversity . 

Center for Environmental Law & Policy' Clean Water Action' Clean Water Network' 

The Climate Reality Project· Coalition for Alternative Wastcwater Treatment· Defenders 

of Wildlife' Earthjustice . Environmental Defense Action Fund' Friends of the Earth' 

Greenpeace USA' Leagne of Conservation Voters' National Wildlife Federation' Natural 

Resources Defense Council' Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility· Sierra 

Club' Union of Concerned Scientists' Water Advocates' Water Protection Network' 

September 10, 2013 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman 

Transportation & Infrastructure Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Nick Rahall 

Ranking Member 

Transportation & Infrastructure Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Do Not Weaken the Environmental Review Process for Corps of Engineers Projects; 

Protect Public Safety, the Environment, and Taxpayers 

Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall: 

On behalf of the undersigned organizations and our millions of members and supporters, we 

urge you to ensure that the Water Resources Development Act of 2013 (WRDA) does not 

undermine the environmental review and public input and participation process for federal 

water resources projects. For four decades, environmental laws enacted with strong bipartisan 

support have produced better and less costly projects, providing critical protections for 

communities, taxpayers, and the environment. We urge you to maintain these vital, good 

government protections. 

So called, "environmental streamlining" provisions such as those included in the recently 

passed Senate WRDA (5.601) and in last year's transportation package (MAP-21) strike at the 

very core of the environmental review process, placing communities and fragile ecosystems in 

harm's way. Our organizations strongly oppose applying such provisions to U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) project planning. 

To shorten the review, proposals have been made to weaken the opportunity for affected 

citizens to have a say in Corps of Engineers projects. Democracy demands that when the 
344 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 362 here 85131A.224

federal government is spending millions or billions of dollars to alter the economies and 

environment of affected communities, those citizens receive a fair opportunity to hear what is 

contemplated and be heard. 

Robust environmental review is especially vital for Corps projects, which affect the health, 

safety, and wellbeing of millions of Americans. Poorly planned Corps projects can damage 

rivers, coasts, and wetlands that provide free and effective flood protection for communities; 

support jobs and businesses that rely on these resources; and provide vital habitat for fish and 

wildlife. Poor planning can also lead to incomprehensible losses like those caused by the 

flooding of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Robust environmental review is also critical 

given the Corps' long and well documented history of flawed analyses revealed by dozens of 

major reports from the National Academy of Sciences, Army Inspector General, Government 

Accountability Office, National Academy of Public Administration, and others. The Army 

Inspector General found that the Corps had intentionally manipulated data in an attempt to 

justify a $1.2 billion project and that the Corps has an institutional bias for constructing costly, 

large scale structural projects. (Army Inspector General, Case No. 00-019). 

The National Environmental Policy Act and coordination with agencies like the u.s. Fish and 

Wildlife Service disclose the true environmental and economic costs of Corps projects and allow 

decision makers and the public to determine whether those projects deserve investment by 

federal taxpayers. They lead to more effective, less damaging projects and have prevented 

fundamentally ill-conceived projects from moving forward. This has saved many hundreds of 

millions in taxpayer dollars while protecting wetlands vital to flood protection, migratory 

waterfowl, and clean water. In the face of increasing fiscal challenges, severe storms, floods, 

droughts, and sea level rise, we simply cannot afford to undermine these critical safeguards. 

What's more, undermining environmental reviews will not address the real reasons for delays 

in planning and constructing Corps projects. Such delays are driven by funding limitations, the 

Corps' existing $60 to $80 billion project backlog, and poor project planning and design. There 

is no study, report, or credible evidence showing that effective environmental reviews are the 

reason why meritorious Corps projects are not constructed more quickly. 

The value of the existing environmental review process is well recognized by the Corps. In a 

letter sent to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on March 14, 2013, the 

Corps urged Congress to "affirm continued use of the current foundational environmental 

framework for all water resource project decisions ... support efforts to evaluate the full range 

of reasonable alternatives, ensure the integrity of its analysis, and promote better 

environmental stewardship." More pointedly, the letter recommended that WRDA "should not 

prescribe regulatory deadlines, limit pUblic participation, or constrain the Federal review 

process of the potential impacts" of Corps proposals. 

We urge the Committee to abandon attempts to cripple environmental reviews of, and public 

participation in, Corps projects. 
345 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 here 85131A.225

Sincerely, 

Madeline Luke 

Coordinator 

Ad Hoc Downstream Group 

Cindy Lowry 

Executive Director 

Alabama Rivers Alliance 

Sean Gosiewski 

Program Director 

Alliance for Sustainability 

Jim Bradley 

Senior Director of Government Relations 

American Rivers 

Jennifer Robins 

President 

Amigos de Bolsa Chica 

Dan Tonsmeire 

Riverkeeper 

Apalachicola Riverkeeper 

Ellen McNulty 

Vice President 

Arkansas Wildlife Federation 

Samuel Sage 

President 

Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. 

Brian Moore 

Legislative Director 
346 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 here 85131A.226

Audubon 

Michael Bartlett 

President 

Audubon Society of New Hampshire 

David Kyler 

Executive Director 

Center for a Sustainable Coast 

William Snape 

Senior Counsel 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Suzanne Skinner 

Executive Director 

Center for Environmental law & Policy 

Laura Hartt 

Water Policy Director 

Chattahoochee Riverkeeper 

Mike Tidwell 

Executive Director 

Chesapeake Climate Action Network 

Lynn Thorp 

National Campaigns Director 

Clean Water Action 

Arthur Feinstein 

Board Member 

Clean Water Network 

Maggie L. Fox 

CEO and President 

The Climate Reality Project 
347 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 here 85131A.227

Valerie Nelson 

Director 

Coalition for Alternative Wastewater Treatment 

Heather MacSlarrow 

Director of Conservation 

Colorado Mountain Club 

Clark Bullard 

Director 

Committee on the Middle Fork of the Vermilion River 

Marjorie Ziegler 

Executive Director 

Conservation Council for Hawai'i 

Mary Beth Beetham 

Director of Legislative Affairs 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Brenna Goggin 

Environmental Advocate 

Delaware Nature Society 

Marty Hayden 

Vice President, Policy and Legislation 

Earthjustice 

Dan Silver 

Executive Director 

Endangered Habitats League 

Amy Trainer 

Executive Director 

Environmental Action Committee of West Marin 
348 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 366 here 85131A.228

Elizabeth B. Thompson 

President 

Environmental Defense Action Fund 

Tony Adams 

President 

Float Fishermen of Virginia 

Jill Ryan 

Executive Director 

Freshwater Future 

Virgina Mclean 

President 

Friends for our Riverfront 

Mona Shoup 

Chair 

Friends of Clear Creek 

James lane 

President 

Friends of Perdido Bay 

Ben Schreiber 

Acting Climate and Energy Program Director 

Friends ofthe Earth 

laura Calwell 

Kansas Riverkeeper 

Friends ofthe Kaw 

Jane Darr 

Immediate Past President 

Friends of the North Fork and White Rivers 

Ronald Stork 
349 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 367 here 85131A.229

Senior Policy Advocate 

Friends of the River 

William Tanger 

Chair 

Friends of the Rivers of Virginia 

Vivian Newman 

Friends of the Weskeag 

Bob Stokes 

President 

Galveston Bay Foundation 

April Ingle 

Executive Director 

Georgia River Network 

Shelley Silbert 

Executive Director 

Great Old Broads for Wilderness 

Bruce Morrison 

General Counsel 

Great Rivers Environmental Law Center 

Steven D. Caley 

Senior Attorney 

Greenlaw 

Kyle Ash 

Senior legislative Representative 

Greenpeace USA 

Cynthia Sarthou 

Executive Director 

Gulf Restoration Network 
350 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 368 here 85131A.230

Hugh Carola 

Program Director 

Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc. 

Thomas Pakurar 

VP Technology 

Hands Across the lake 

Marilyn Blackwell 

President 

Help Save the Apalachicola River Group 

Jeffrey Gonyo 

Steering Committee Member 

Highway J Citizens Group 

Tim Maloney 

Senior Policy Director 

Hoosier Environmental Council 

Edward Michael 

Chairman 

Illinois Council ofTrout Unlimited 

Ralph Rosenberg 

Executive Director 

Iowa Environmental Council 

Joe Wilkinson 

President 

Iowa Wildlife Federation 

Scott Kovarovics 

Executive Director 

Izaak Walton league of America 
351 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here 85131A.231

Kimberly Baker 

Executive Director 

Kalamath Forest Alliance 

Steve Sorensen 

Conservation Vice President 

Kansas Wildlife Federation 

Tom FitzGerald 

Director 

Kentucky Resources Council 

Sherry Otto 

State Coordinator & Conservation Mgr. 

Kentucky Sierra Club 

Tim Joice 

Water Policy Director 

Kentucky Waterways Alliance 

Patricia Schuba 

President 

Labadie Environmental Organization 

Lori Fisher 

Executive Director 

lake Champlain Committee 

Tom Fuhrman 

President 

Lake Erie Region Conservancy 

Tiernan Sittenfield 

Senior VP, Government Affairs 

League of Conservation Voters 

Sandy Rosenthal 
352 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here 85131A.232

Founder and Executive Director 

Levees.Org 

Barry Kohl 

President 

Louisiana Audubon Council 

Paul Orr 

Riverkeeper 

Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper 

Leigh Pomeroy 

President 

Mankato Area Environmentalists 

Paul Jenkin 

Ventura Campaign Coordinator 

Matilija Coalition 

Victoria Johnson 

Conservation Director 

Mid South Fly Fishers 

Drew Koslow 

Choptank Riverkeeper 

Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy 

Cheryl Nenn 

Riverkeeper 

Milwaukee Riverkeeper 

Brad Walker 

Floodplain Director 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment 

Trana Rogne 

Steering Committee Chairman 
353 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 371 here 85131A.233

MnDak Upstream Coalition 

Janet Ellis 

Program Director 

Montana Audubon 

George Santucci 

Executive Director 

National Committee for the New River 

Adam Kolton 

Executive Director, National Advocacy Center 

National Wildlife Federation 

Scott Siesinger 

legislative Director 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Debbie Mans 

Executive Director 

New York/New Jersey Baykeeper 

Joe Parrish 

Director 

NJ/NY Environmental Watch 

Nina Bell 

Executive Director 

Northwest Environmental Advocates 

David Celebrezze 

Director of Air & Water Special Projects 

Ohio Environmental Council 

Alice Andrews 

Immediate Past President 

The Ozark Society 
354 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 372 here 85131A.234

Ed Tichenor 

Director 

Palm Beach County Reef Rescue 

Bruce Reznik 

Executive Director 

Planning and Conservation league 

Glynnis Collins 

Executive Director 

Prairie Rivers Network 

Jeff Ruch 

Executive Director 

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 

Bill Schultz 

Riverkeeper 

Raritan Riverkeeper 

Melanie Winter 

Director 

The River Project 

Aaron Rourke 

President 

Rivers Unlimited 

Jill Witkowski 

Waterkeeper 

San Diego Coast keeper 

Dan Randolph 

Executive Director 

San Juan Citizens Alliance 
355 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 373 here 85131A.235

Todd Pieper 

Vice President 

Save Our Farmland Coalition 

Wendy Seesock 

Executive Director 

Save Our Saugahatchee, Inc. 

Gilly lyons 

Policy and legal Director 

Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition 

Alan D. Wade 

Board Secretary and Water Committee Chair 

Save the American River Association 

Michael Rice 

Director 

Save the Cape, Inc. 

Dalal Aboulhosn 

Environmental Quality Washington Representative 

Sierra Club 

Dana Beach 

Executive Director 

South Carolina Coastal Conservation League 

Chris Hesla 

Executive Director 

South Dakota Wildlife Federation 

Navis A. Bermudez 

Deputy legislative Director 

Southern Environmental law Center 

Nicholas Pinter 
356 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 374 here 85131A.236

Professor, Dept. of Geology and Environmental Resources & Policy Program 

Southern Illinois University 

Meredith Dowling 

Gulf Program Director 

SouthWings 

Mark Rauscher 

Coastal Preservation Manager 

Surfrider Foundation 

Gary Bullwinkel 

Board Member 

Tennessee Clean Water Network 

Kathleen Williams 

President and Executive Director 

Tennessee Parks and Greenways Foundation 

David Whiteside 

Executive Director 

Tennessee RIVER KEEPER 

Janice Bezanson 

Executive Director 

Texas Conservation Alliance 

Jennifer McKay 

Policy Specialist 

Tip of the Mitt 

Brian Wegener 

Advocacy & Communications Manager 

Tualatin Riverkeepers 

Andrew Rosenberg, Ph.D. 

Director, Center for Science and Democracy 
357 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 375 here 85131A.237

Union of Concerned Scientists 

Paula Gale 

Professor, Soil Science 

University of Tennessee at Martin 

Jim Perkins 

Upper Cumberland Watershed Watch 

Lee Willbanks 

Executive Director 

Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper, Save The River 

Nick Schou 

Water Outreach Manager 

Utah Rivers Council 

Paul Chakroff 

Member, Board of Directors 

Virgin Islands Conservation Society 

Heather Wylie 

Ventura County Chapter Representative 

Water Advocates 

Tim Guilfoile 

Chair 

Water Protection Network 

Will Roush 

Interim Director and Conservation Advocate 

Wilderness Workshop 

Wayne Shewmake 

Board Member 

Yell County Wildlife Federation 
358 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 376 here 85131A.238

cc: 

The Honorable Bob Gibbs 

The Honorable Tim Bishop 

Members of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

o