H. R. 1495 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, 

to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Water 

Resources Development Act of 2007’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act 

is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary. 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations. 

Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction. 

Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection. 

Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation. 

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

Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration. 

Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection. 

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

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

projects. 

Sec. 1010. Small projects for aquatic plant control. 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Sec. 2001. Non-Federal contributions. 

Sec. 2002. Funding to process permits. 

Sec. 2003. Written agreement for water resources projects. 

Sec. 2004. Compilation of laws. 

Sec. 2005. Dredged material disposal. 

Sec. 2006. Remote and subsistence harbors. 

Sec. 2007. Use of other Federal funds. 

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

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

Sec. 2010. Watershed and river basin assessments. 

Sec. 2011. Tribal partnership program. 

Sec. 2012. Wildfire firefighting. 

Sec. 2013. Technical assistance. 

Sec. 2014. Lakes program. 

Sec. 2015. Cooperative agreements. 

Sec. 2016. Training funds. 

Sec. 2017. Access to water resource data. 

Sec. 2018. Shore protection projects. 

Sec. 2019. Ability to pay. 

Sec. 2020. Aquatic ecosystem and estuary restoration. 

Sec. 2021. Small flood damage reduction projects. 

Sec. 2022. Small river and harbor improvement projects. 

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

public services. 
H. R. 1495—2 

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

Sec. 2025. Remediation of abandoned mine sites. 

Sec. 2026. Leasing authority. 

Sec. 2027. Fiscal transparency report. 

Sec. 2028. Support of Army civil works program. 

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

dredging projects. 

Sec. 2030. Interagency and international support authority. 

Sec. 2031. Water resources principles and guidelines. 

Sec. 2032. Water resource priorities report. 

Sec. 2033. Planning. 

Sec. 2034. Independent peer review. 

Sec. 2035. Safety assurance review. 

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

Sec. 2037. Regional sediment management. 

Sec. 2038. National shoreline erosion control development program. 

Sec. 2039. Monitoring ecosystem restoration. 

Sec. 2040. Electronic submission of permit applications. 

Sec. 2041. Project administration. 

Sec. 2042. Program administration. 

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

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

Sec. 2045. Project streamlining. 

Sec. 2046. Project deauthorization. 

Sec. 2047. Federal hopper dredges. 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS 

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

Sec. 3002. Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

Sec. 3003. King Cove Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 3004. Seward Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 3005. Sitka, Alaska. 

Sec. 3006. Tatitlek, Alaska. 

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

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

Sec. 3009. Tucson drainage area, Arizona. 

Sec. 3010. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas. 

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

Sec. 3012. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas. 

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

Sec. 3014. Cache Creek Basin, California. 

Sec. 3015. CALFED stability program, California. 

Sec. 3016. Compton Creek, California. 

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

Sec. 3018. Hamilton Airfield, California. 

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

Sec. 3020. Kaweah River, California. 

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

Sec. 3022. Llagas Creek, California. 

Sec. 3023. Magpie Creek, California. 

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

Sec. 3025. Petaluma River, Petaluma, California. 

Sec. 3026. Pinole Creek, California. 

Sec. 3027. Prado Dam, California. 

Sec. 3028. Redwood City Navigation Channel, California. 

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

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

Sec. 3031. Sacramento River bank protection, California. 

Sec. 3032. Salton Sea restoration, California. 

Sec. 3033. Santa Ana River Mainstem, California. 

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

Sec. 3035. Santa Cruz Harbor, California. 

Sec. 3036. Seven Oaks Dam, California. 

Sec. 3037. Upper Guadalupe River, California. 

Sec. 3038. Walnut Creek Channel, California. 

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

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

Sec. 3041. Yuba River Basin project, California. 

Sec. 3042. South Platte River basin, Colorado. 

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

and Maryland. 
H. R. 1495—3 

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

Sec. 3045. Brevard County, Florida. 

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

Sec. 3047. Canaveral Harbor, Florida. 

Sec. 3048. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida. 

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

Sec. 3050. Peanut Island, Florida. 

Sec. 3051. Port Sutton, Florida. 

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

Sec. 3053. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida. 

Sec. 3054. Allatoona Lake, Georgia. 

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

Sec. 3056. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho. 

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

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

Sec. 3059. Cache River Levee, Illinois. 

Sec. 3060. Chicago River, Illinois. 

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

Sec. 3062. Emiquon, Illinois. 

Sec. 3063. Lasalle, Illinois. 

Sec. 3064. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois. 

Sec. 3065. Cedar Lake, Indiana. 

Sec. 3066. Koontz Lake, Indiana. 

Sec. 3067. White River, Indiana. 

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

Sec. 3069. Perry Creek, Iowa. 

Sec. 3070. Rathbun Lake, Iowa. 

Sec. 3071. Hickman Bluff stabilization, Kentucky. 

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

Sec. 3073. Prestonsburg, Kentucky. 

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

Sec. 3075. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana. 

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

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

Sec. 3078. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana. 

Sec. 3079. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana. 

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

Sec. 3081. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana. 

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

Sec. 3083. Violet, Louisiana. 

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

Sec. 3085. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine. 

Sec. 3086. Cumberland, Maryland. 

Sec. 3087. Poplar Island, Maryland. 

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

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

Sec. 3090. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan. 

Sec. 3091. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan. 

Sec. 3092. Ada, Minnesota. 

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

Sec. 3094. Grand Marais, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3095. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3096. Granite Falls, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3097. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3098. Red Lake River, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3099. Silver Bay, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3100. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota. 

Sec. 3101. Two Harbors, Minnesota. 

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

Sec. 3103. Jackson County, Mississippi. 

Sec. 3104. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi. 

Sec. 3105. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri. 

Sec. 3106. L–15 levee, Missouri. 

Sec. 3107. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri. 

Sec. 3108. River Des Peres, Missouri. 

Sec. 3109. Lower Yellowstone project, Montana. 

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

Sec. 3111. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

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

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

Sec. 3114. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada. 
H. R. 1495—4 

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

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

Sec. 3117. Cooperative agreements, New Mexico. 

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

Sec. 3119. Buffalo Harbor, New York. 

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

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

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

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

Sec. 3124. New York State Canal System. 

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

New York. 

Sec. 3126. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota. 

Sec. 3127. Wahpeton, North Dakota. 

Sec. 3128. Ohio. 

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

Sec. 3130. Mahoning River, Ohio. 

Sec. 3131. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3132. Arkansas River Corridor, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3133. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3134. Oklahoma lakes demonstration program, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 3135. Ottawa County, Oklahoma. 

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

Sec. 3137. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma. 

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

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

Sec. 3140. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 

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

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

Sec. 3143. South Central Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3144. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 3145. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. 

Sec. 3146. Missouri River Restoration, South Dakota. 

Sec. 3147. Cedar Bayou, Texas. 

Sec. 3148. Freeport Harbor, Texas. 

Sec. 3149. Lake Kemp, Texas. 

Sec. 3150. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas. 

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

Sec. 3152. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas. 

Sec. 3153. Proctor Lake, Texas. 

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

Sec. 3155. Connecticut River restoration, Vermont. 

Sec. 3156. Dam remediation, Vermont. 

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

plant control, Vermont. 

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

Hampshire. 

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

Hampshire. 

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

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

Sec. 3162. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia. 

Sec. 3163. Duwamish/Green, Washington. 

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

and Idaho. 

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

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

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

Sec. 3168. Greenbrier River basin, West Virginia. 

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

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

Sec. 3171. Mcdowell County, West Virginia. 

Sec. 3172. Parkersburg, West Virginia. 

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

Sec. 3174. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin. 

Sec. 3175. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs. 

Sec. 3176. Upper basin of Missouri River. 

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

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

pilot program. 

Sec. 3179. Continuation of project authorizations. 
H. R. 1495—5 

Sec. 3180. Project reauthorizations. 

Sec. 3181. Project deauthorizations. 

Sec. 3182. Land conveyances. 

Sec. 3183. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use restrictions. 

TITLE IV—STUDIES 

Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin Program. 

Sec. 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites. 

Sec. 4003. Southwestern United States drought study. 

Sec. 4004. Delaware River. 

Sec. 4005. Eurasian milfoil. 

Sec. 4006. Fire Island, Alaska. 

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

Sec. 4008. Kuskokwim River, Alaska. 

Sec. 4009. Nome Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 4010. St. George Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 4011. Susitna River, Alaska. 

Sec. 4012. Valdez, Alaska. 

Sec. 4013. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona. 

Sec. 4014. Searcy County, Arkansas. 

Sec. 4015. Aliso Creek, California. 

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

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

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

Sec. 4019. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California. 

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

Sec. 4021. Orick, California. 

Sec. 4022. Shoreline study, Oceanside, California. 

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

Sec. 4024. Sacramento River, California. 

Sec. 4025. San Diego County, California. 

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

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

Sec. 4028. Twentynine Palms, California. 

Sec. 4029. Yucca Valley, California. 

Sec. 4030. Selenium studies, Colorado. 

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

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

Sec. 4033. Collier County Beaches, Florida. 

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

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

Sec. 4036. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida. 

Sec. 4037. Meriwether County, Georgia. 

Sec. 4038. Boise River, Idaho. 

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

Sec. 4040. Chicago, Illinois. 

Sec. 4041. Salem, Indiana. 

Sec. 4042. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky. 

Sec. 4043. Dewey Lake, Kentucky. 

Sec. 4044. Louisville, Kentucky. 

Sec. 4045. Vidalia Port, Louisiana. 

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

Sec. 4047. Clinton River, Michigan. 

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

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

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

Sec. 4051. Northeast Mississippi. 

Sec. 4052. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey. 

Sec. 4053. Bayonne, New Jersey. 

Sec. 4054. Carteret, New Jersey. 

Sec. 4055. Gloucester County, New Jersey. 

Sec. 4056. Perth Amboy, New Jersey. 

Sec. 4057. Batavia, New York. 

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

Sec. 4059. Finger Lakes, New York. 

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

Sec. 4061. Newtown Creek, New York. 

Sec. 4062. Niagara River, New York. 

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

Sec. 4064. Upper Delaware River watershed, New York. 
H. R. 1495—6 

Sec. 4065. Lincoln County, North Carolina. 

Sec. 4066. Wilkes County, North Carolina. 

Sec. 4067. Yadkinville, North Carolina. 

Sec. 4068. Flood damage reduction, Ohio. 

Sec. 4069. Lake Erie, Ohio. 

Sec. 4070. Ohio River, Ohio. 

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

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

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

Sec. 4074. Walla Walla River basin, Oregon. 

Sec. 4075. Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania. 

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

Sec. 4077. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction. 

Sec. 4078. Williamsport, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 4079. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania. 

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

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

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

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

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

Sec. 4085. Chattanooga, Tennessee. 

Sec. 4086. Cleveland, Tennessee. 

Sec. 4087. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee. 

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

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

Sec. 4090. Abilene, Texas. 

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

Sec. 4092. Port of Galveston, Texas. 

Sec. 4093. Grand County and Moab, Utah. 

Sec. 4094. Southwestern Utah. 

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

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

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

Sec. 4098. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin. 

Sec. 4099. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin. 

Sec. 4100. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. 

Sec. 4101. Debris removal. 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS 

Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels. 

Sec. 5002. Watershed management. 

Sec. 5003. Dam safety. 

Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations. 

Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas. 

Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects. 

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

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

Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment. 

Sec. 5010. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project. 

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

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

Sec. 5013. Great Lakes tributary models. 

Sec. 5014. Great Lakes navigation and protection. 

Sec. 5015. Saint Lawrence Seaway. 

Sec. 5016. Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project. 

Sec. 5017. Estuary restoration. 

Sec. 5018. Missouri River and tributaries, mitigation, recovery, and restoration, 

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. 

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

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

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

Sec. 5022. Hypoxia assessment. 

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

and monitoring program. 

Sec. 5024. Lock and dam security. 

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

Sec. 5026. Wage surveys. 
H. R. 1495—7 

Sec. 5027. Rehabilitation. 

Sec. 5028. Auburn, Alabama. 

Sec. 5029. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama. 

Sec. 5030. Alaska. 

Sec. 5031. Barrow, Alaska. 

Sec. 5032. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska. 

Sec. 5033. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska. 

Sec. 5034. Tanana River, Alaska. 

Sec. 5035. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska. 

Sec. 5036. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. 

Sec. 5037. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas. 

Sec. 5038. Loomis Landing, Arkansas. 

Sec. 5039. California. 

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

Sec. 5041. Cambria, California. 

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

Pittsburg, California. 

Sec. 5043. Dana Point Harbor, California. 

Sec. 5044. East San Joaquin County, California. 

Sec. 5045. Eastern Santa Clara basin, California. 

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

Sec. 5047. Lancaster, California. 

Sec. 5048. Los Osos, California. 

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

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

Sec. 5051. San Francisco, California. 

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

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

Sec. 5054. St. Helena, California. 

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

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

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

Sec. 5058. Stamford, Connecticut. 

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

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

Sec. 5061. East Central and Northeast Florida. 

Sec. 5062. Florida Keys water quality improvements. 

Sec. 5063. Lake Worth, Florida. 

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

Sec. 5065. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. 

Sec. 5066. Savannah, Georgia. 

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

Sec. 5068. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho. 

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

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

Sec. 5071. Illinois River basin restoration. 

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

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

Sec. 5074. Southwest Illinois. 

Sec. 5075. Calumet region, Indiana. 

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

Sec. 5077. Paducah, Kentucky. 

Sec. 5078. Southern and eastern Kentucky. 

Sec. 5079. Winchester, Kentucky. 

Sec. 5080. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5081. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana. 

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

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

Sec. 5084. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5085. Southeast Louisiana region, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5086. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. 

Sec. 5087. Charlestown, Maryland. 

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

Sec. 5089. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites. 

Sec. 5090. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan. 

Sec. 5091. Crookston, Minnesota. 
H. R. 1495—8 

Sec. 5092. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota. 

Sec. 5093. Itasca County, Minnesota. 

Sec. 5094. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Sec. 5095. Northeastern Minnesota. 

Sec. 5096. Wild Rice River, Minnesota. 

Sec. 5097. Mississippi. 

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

Sec. 5099. Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois. 

Sec. 5100. St. Louis, Missouri. 

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

Sec. 5102. Missoula, Montana. 

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

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

Sec. 5105. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey. 

Sec. 5106. Atlantic Coast of New York. 

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

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

Sec. 5109. Hudson River, New York. 

Sec. 5110. Mount Morris Dam, New York. 

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

New York. 

Sec. 5112. Rochester, New York. 

Sec. 5113. North Carolina. 

Sec. 5114. Stanly County, North Carolina. 

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

Sec. 5116. Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Sec. 5117. Ohio River basin environmental management. 

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

Sec. 5119. Statewide comprehensive water planning, Oklahoma. 

Sec. 5120. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon. 

Sec. 5121. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5122. Clinton County, Pennsylvania. 

Sec. 5123. Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania. 

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

Sec. 5125. Northeast Pennsylvania. 

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

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

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

Sec. 5129. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and terrestrial 

wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota. 

Sec. 5130. East Tennessee. 

Sec. 5131. Fritz Landing, Tennessee. 

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

Sec. 5133. Nashville, Tennessee. 

Sec. 5134. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee. 

Sec. 5135. Tennessee River partnership. 

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

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

Sec. 5138. Texas. 

Sec. 5139. Bosque River watershed, Texas. 

Sec. 5140. Dallas County region, Texas. 

Sec. 5141. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas. 

Sec. 5142. Harris County, Texas. 

Sec. 5143. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas. 

Sec. 5144. Onion Creek, Texas. 

Sec. 5145. Connecticut River dams, Vermont. 

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

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

Sec. 5148. Eastern Shore and Southwest Virginia. 

Sec. 5149. James River, Virginia. 

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

Sec. 5151. Hamilton Island campground, Washington. 

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

Sec. 5153. Willapa Bay, Washington. 

Sec. 5154. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control. 

Sec. 5155. Central West Virginia. 

Sec. 5156. Southern West Virginia. 

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

Sec. 5158. Additional assistance for critical projects. 

TITLE VI—FLORIDA EVERGLADES 

Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida. 
H. R. 1495—9 

Sec. 6002. Pilot projects. 

Sec. 6003. Maximum costs. 

Sec. 6004. Credit. 

Sec. 6005. Outreach and assistance. 

Sec. 6006. Critical restoration projects. 

Sec. 6007. Regional engineering model for environmental restoration. 

TITLE VII—LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 

Sec. 7001. Definitions. 

Sec. 7002. Comprehensive plan. 

Sec. 7003. Louisiana coastal area. 

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

Sec. 7005. Project modifications. 

Sec. 7006. Construction. 

Sec. 7007. Non-Federal cost share. 

Sec. 7008. Project justification. 

Sec. 7009. Independent review. 

Sec. 7010. Expedited reports. 

Sec. 7011. Reporting. 

Sec. 7012. New Orleans and vicinity. 

Sec. 7013. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet. 

Sec. 7014. Hurricane and storm damage reduction. 

Sec. 7015. Larose to Golden Meadow. 

Sec. 7016. Lower Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. 

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

Sec. 8001. Definitions. 

Sec. 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration. 

Sec. 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements. 

Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization. 

Sec. 8005. Comparable progress. 

TITLE IX—NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM 

Sec. 9001. Short title. 

Sec. 9002. Definitions. 

Sec. 9003. Committee on Levee Safety. 

Sec. 9004. Inventory and inspection of levees. 

Sec. 9005. Limitations on statutory construction. 

Sec. 9006. Authorization of appropriations. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 

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

Army. 

TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES 

PROJECTS 

SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following 

projects for water resources development and conservation and other 

purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, 

described in the respective reports designated in this section: 

(1) HAINES, ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Haines, 

Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 

2004, at a total cost of $14,040,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $11,232,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$2,808,000. 

(2) PORT LIONS, ALASKA.—The project for navigation, Port 

Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 

14, 2006, at a total cost of $9,530,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $7,624,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $1,906,000. 
H. R. 1495—10 

(3) SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, ARIZONA.— 

The project for environmental restoration, Santa Cruz River, 

Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,400,000. 

(4) TANQUE VERDE CREEK, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, 

Pima County, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,906,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $2,070,000. 

(5) SALT RIVER (RIO SALADO OESTE), MARICOPA COUNTY, 

ARIZONA.—The project for environmental restoration, Salt River 

(Rio Salado Oeste), Maricopa County, Arizona: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost 

of $166,650,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000. 

(6) SALT RIVER (VA SHLY’AY AKIMEL), MARICOPA COUNTY, 

ARIZONA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Salt River (Va Shly’ay Akimel), Arizona: Report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a 

total cost of $162,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $105,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$56,900,000. 

(B) COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL RECLAMATION

PROJECTS.—The Secretary, to the maximum extent practicable, shall coordinate the design and construction of 

the project described in subparagraph (A) with the Bureau 

of Reclamation and any operating agent for any Federal 

reclamation project in the Salt River Basin to avoid impacts 

to existing Federal reclamation facilities and operations 

in the Salt River Basin. 

(7) MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS.—The project for 

flood damage reduction, May Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, 

at a total cost of $30,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $15,010,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$15,840,000. 

(8) HAMILTON CITY, GLENN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The 

project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Hamilton City, Glenn County, California: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost 

of $52,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $34,100,000 

and estimated non-Federal cost of $18,300,000. 

(9) SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA.—The project for storm damage reduction, Silver Strand 

Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the Chief of 

Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of 

$13,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at an estimated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic beach nourishment 

over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $21,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$21,250,000. 
H. R. 1495—11 

(10) MATILIJA DAM, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Matilija Dam, Ventura 

County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

December 20, 2004, at a total cost of $144,500,000, with an 

estimated Federal cost of $89,700,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $54,800,000. 

(11) MIDDLE CREEK, LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—The 

project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Middle Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost 

of $45,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $29,500,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,700,000. 

(12) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 

22, 2004, at a total cost of $134,500,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $87,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal 

cost of $47,000,000. 

(B) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out the project 

authorized by this paragraph, the Secretary shall— 

(i) construct a recycled water pipeline extending 

from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District 

Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation 

District Waste Water Treatment Plant to the project; 

and 

(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 

3. 

(13) DENVER COUNTY REACH, SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, DENVER, COLORADO.—The project for environmental restoration, Denver 

County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado: Report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost 

of $20,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $13,065,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000. 

(14) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, INDIAN RIVER

LAGOON, FLORIDA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out the 

project for ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood control, and protection of water quality, Central and Southern 

Florida, Indian River Lagoon, Florida, at a total cost of 

$1,365,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$682,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$682,500,000, in accordance with section 601 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680) and 

the recommendations of the report of the Chief of Engineers 

dated August 6, 2004. 

(B) DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—The following projects are not 

authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: 

(i) The uncompleted portions of the project for 

the C–44 Basin Storage Reservoir of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, authorized by section 

601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), at a total cost of $147,800,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $73,900,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $73,900,000. 

(ii) The uncompleted portions of the Martin 

County, Florida, modifications to the project for Central 
H. R. 1495—12 

and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a 

total cost of $15,471,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $8,073,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $7,398,000. 

(iii) The uncompleted portions of the East Coast 

Backpumping, St. Lucie–Martin County, Spillway 

Structure S–311 modifications to the project for Central 

and Southern Florida, authorized by section 203 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), at a 

total cost of $77,118,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $55,124,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $21,994,000. 

(15) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION

PROJECT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for ecosystem 

restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida, Picayune Strand Restoration Project, 

Collier County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

September 15, 2005, at a total cost of $375,330,000 with an 

estimated Federal cost of $187,665,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $187,665,000. 

(16) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA, SITE 1 IMPOUNDMENT PROJECT, 

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—The project for ecosystem restoration, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Central 

and Southern Florida, Site 1 Impoundment Project, Palm Beach 

County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

December 19, 2006, at a total cost of $80,840,000, with an 

estimated Federal cost of $40,420,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $40,420,000. 

(17) MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Miami 

Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief 

of Engineers dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of 

$125,270,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$75,140,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$50,130,000. 

(B) GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT.—The non-Federal 

share of the cost of the general reevaluation report that 

resulted in the report of the Chief of Engineers referred 

to in subparagraph (A) shall be the same percentage as 

the non-Federal share of cost of construction of the project. 

(C) AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall enter into a new 

partnership with the non-Federal interest to reflect the 

cost sharing required by subparagraph (B). 

(18) EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS.—The project 

for environmental restoration and recreation, East St. Louis 

and Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $208,260,000, with an 

estimated Federal cost of $134,910,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $73,350,000. 

(19) PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, ILLINOIS.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront 

Development, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

July 28, 2003, at a total cost of $18,220,000, with an estimated 
H. R. 1495—13 

Federal cost of $11,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $6,380,000. 

(20) WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION, MADISON

COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—The project for flood damage reduction, 

Wood River Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, 

Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 18, 2006, 

at a total cost of $17,220,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $11,193,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,027,000. 

(21) DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, DES MOINES, IOWA.— 

The project for flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon 

Rivers, Des Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers 

dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of $10,780,000, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $6,967,000 and an estimated nonFederal cost of $3,813,000. 

(22) LICKING RIVER BASIN, CYNTHIANA, KENTUCKY.—The 

project for flood damage reduction, Licking River Basin, 

Cynthiana, Kentucky: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $18,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $11,830,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,370,000. 

(23) BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LOUISIANA.—The project for 

navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief 

of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of 

$9,600,000. The costs of construction of the project are to be 

paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund of 

the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

(24) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOUISIANA.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane and storm 

damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief of Engineers dated August 

23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $886,700,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $576,355,000 and an 

estimated non-Federal cost of $310,345,000. 

(B) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The operation, 

maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the 

Houma Navigation Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway floodgate features of the project described 

in subparagraph (A) that provide for inland waterway 

transportation shall be a Federal responsibility in accordance with section 102 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212). 

(25) PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.—The project for navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers 

dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $131,250,000, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $105,315,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $25,935,000; except that the Secretary, 

in consultation with Vermillion and Iberia Parishes, Louisiana, 

and consistent with the mitigation plan in the report, shall 

use available dredged material and rock placement on the 

south bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the west 

bank of the Freshwater Bayou Channel to provide incidental 

storm surge protection that does not adversely affect the mitigation plan. 

(26) SMITH ISLAND, SOMERSET COUNTY, MARYLAND.—The 

project for environmental restoration, Smith Island, Somerset 

County, Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
H. R. 1495—14 

October 29, 2001, at a total cost of $15,580,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $10,127,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,453,000. 

(27) ROSEAU RIVER, ROSEAU, MINNESOTA.—The project for 

flood damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, 

at a total cost of $25,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $13,820,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$11,280,000. 

(28) ARGENTINE, EAST BOTTOMS, FAIRFAX-JERSEY CREEK, AND NORTH KANSAS LEVEES UNITS, MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBU- TARIES AT KANSAS CITIES, MISSOURI AND KANSAS.—The project 

for flood damage reduction, Argentine, East Bottoms, FairfaxJersey Creek, and North Kansas Levees units, Missouri River 

and tributaries at Kansas Cities, Missouri and Kansas: Report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total 

cost of $65,430,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$42,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,900,000. 

(29) SWOPE PARK INDUSTRIAL AREA, BLUE RIVER, KANSAS

CITY, MISSOURI.—The project for flood damage reduction, Swope 

Park Industrial Area, Blue River, Kansas City, Missouri: Report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total 

cost of $16,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$11,037,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,943,000. 

(30) GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET TO TOWNSENDS INLET, NEW

JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at 

a total cost of $54,360,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $35,069,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$19,291,000, and at an estimated total cost of $202,500,000 

for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $101,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $101,250,000. 

(31) HUDSON RARITAN ESTUARY, LIBERTY STATE PARK, NEW

JERSEY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental restoration, Hudson Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New 

Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 

25, 2006, at a total cost of $34,100,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $22,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal 

cost of $11,900,000. 

(B) RESTORATION TEAMS.—In carrying out the project, 

the Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restoration teams composed of estuary restoration experts from 

the Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey department of 

environmental protection, and the Port Authority of New 

York and New Jersey and other experts designated by 

the Secretary for the purpose of developing habitat restoration and water quality enhancement. 

(32) NEW JERSEY SHORE PROTECTION STUDY, MANASQUAN

INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, New Jersey Shore Protection 

Study, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey: Report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a total 

cost of $71,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$46,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $25,165,000, 
H. R. 1495—15 

and at an estimated total cost of $119,680,000 for periodic 

beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with 

an estimated Federal cost of $59,840,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $59,840,000. 

(33) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION BEACH, 

NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm damage 

reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, 

New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 

4, 2006, at a total cost of $115,000,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $74,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $40,200,000, and at an estimated total cost of $6,500,000 

for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $3,250,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $3,250,000. 

(34) SOUTH RIVER, RARITAN RIVER BASIN, NEW JERSEY.— The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and 

environmental restoration, South River, Raritan River Basin, 

New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 

2003, at a total cost of $122,300,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $79,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$42,800,000. 

(35) SOUTHWEST VALLEY, BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW

MEXICO.—The project for flood damage reduction, Southwest 

Valley, Bernalillo County, New Mexico: Report of the Chief 

of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of 

$24,840,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,150,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,690,000. 

(36) MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK.—The project for hurricane 

and storm damage reduction, Montauk Point, New York: Report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a total 

cost of $14,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$7,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,300,000. 

(37) HOCKING RIVER BASIN, MONDAY CREEK, OHIO.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The project for ecosystem restoration, 

Hocking River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated August 24, 2006, at a total cost 

of $20,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$13,440,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$7,540,000. 

(B) WAYNE NATIONAL FOREST.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation 

with the Secretary of Agriculture, may construct other 

project features on property that is located in the 

Wayne National Forest, Ohio, owned by the United 

States and managed by the Forest Service as described 

in the report of the Corps of Engineers entitled 

‘‘Hocking River Basin, Ohio, Monday Creek Sub-Basin 

Ecosystem Restoration Project Feasibility Report and 

Environmental Assessment’’. 

(ii) COST.—Each project feature carried out on Federal land shall be designed, constructed, operated, and 

maintained at Federal expense. 

(iii) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

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

(38) TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—The project for flood damage reduction, town of 
H. R. 1495—16 

Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost 

of $44,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $28,925,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,575,000. 

(39) PAWLEYS ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA.—The project for 

hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawleys Island, South 

Carolina: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 

19, 2006, at a total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $5,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $3,140,000, and at an estimated total cost of $21,200,000 

for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $10,600,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $10,600,000. 

(40) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS CHRISTI, 

TEXAS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, at 

a total cost of $188,110,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $87,810,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$100,300,000. 

(B) NAVIGATIONAL SERVITUDE.—In carrying out the 

project under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall enforce 

the navigational servitude in the Corpus Christi Ship 

Channel (including the removal or relocation of any facility 

obstructing the project) consistent with the cost sharing 

requirements of section 101 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211). 

(41) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, BRAZOS RIVER TO PORT

O’CONNOR, MATAGORDA BAY RE-ROUTE, TEXAS.—The project for 

navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port 

O’Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief 

of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of 

$17,280,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 

be paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the general fund 

of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

(42) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, HIGH ISLAND TO

BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS.—The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island to Brazos River, Texas: Report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated April 16, 2004, at a total 

cost of $14,450,000. The costs of construction of the project 

are to be paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the general 

fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from 

the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 

(43) LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PHASE I, TEXAS.—The 

project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, 

Lower Colorado River Basin Phase I, Texas: Report of the 

Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost 

of $110,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $69,640,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $41,090,000. 

(44) ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.—The project for 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep 

Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers 

dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000. 
H. R. 1495—17 

(45) CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, NORFOLK

HARBOR AND CHANNELS, HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Craney 

Island Eastward Expansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, 

Hampton Roads, Virginia: Report of Chief of Engineers 

dated October 24, 2006, at a total cost of $712,103,000. 

(B) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—Notwithstanding sections 

101 and 103 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 and 2213), the Federal share 

of the cost of the project shall be 50 percent. 

(46) CENTRALIA, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS COUNTY, WASHINGTON.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, Centralia, Chehalis River, Lewis County, Washington: 

Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 27, 2004, 

at a total cost of $123,770,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $74,740,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$49,030,000. 

(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall— 

(i) credit, in accordance with section 221 of the 

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

the non-Federal share of the cost of the project up 

to $6,500,000 for the cost of planning and design work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest in accordance 

with the project study plan dated November 28, 1999; 

and 

(ii) credit toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project the cost of design and construction 

work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 

the date of the partnership agreement for the project 

if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 

to the project. 

SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study for each 

of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that 

a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 205 

of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s): 

(1) HALEYVILLE, ALABAMA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Haleyville, Alabama. 

(2) WEISS LAKE, ALABAMA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Weiss Lake, Alabama. 

(3) FORT YUKON, ALASKA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Fort Yukon, Alaska. 

(4) LITTLE COLORADO RIVER LEVEE, ARIZONA.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona. 

(5) CACHE RIVER BASIN, GRUBBS, ARKANSAS.—Project for 

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

(6) BARREL SPRINGS WASH, PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, 

California. 

(7) BORREGO SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Borrego Springs, California. 

(8) COLTON, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Colton, California. 

(9) DUNLAP STREAM, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, Yucaipa, California. 
H. R. 1495—18 

(10) HUNTS CANYON WASH, PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, 

California. 

(11) ONTARIO AND CHINO, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, Ontario and Chino, California. 

(12) SANTA VENETIA, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood damage 

reduction, Santa Venetia, California. 

(13) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood damage 

reduction, Whittier, California. 

(14) WILDWOOD CREEK, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA.—Project for 

flood damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California. 

(15) BIBB COUNTY AND CITY OF MACON LEVEE, GEORGIA.— 

Project for flood damage reduction, Bibb County and City of 

Macon Levee, Georgia. 

(16) FORT WAYNE AND VICINITY, INDIANA.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, St. Mary’s and Maumee Rivers, Fort Wayne 

and vicinity, Indiana. 

(17) ST. FRANCISVILLE, LOUSIANA.—Project for flood damage 

reduction, St. Francisville, Louisiana. 

(18) SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for flood damage 

reduction, Salem, Massachusetts. 

(19) CASS RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood damage 

reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, Michigan. 

(20) CROW RIVER, ROCKFORD, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota. 

(21) MARSH CREEK, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood damage 

reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota. 

(22) SOUTH BRANCH OF THE WILD RICE RIVER, BORUP, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch 

of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota. 

(23) BLACKSNAKE CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MISSOURI.—Project 

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

(24) ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JERSEY.—Project 

for flood damage reduction, Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New 

Jersey. 

(25) CANISTEO RIVER, ADDISON, NEW YORK.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, Canisteo River, Addison, New York. 

(26) COHOCTON RIVER, CAMPBELL, NEW YORK.—Project for 

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

(27) DRY AND OTTER CREEKS, CORTLAND, NEW YORK.— 

Project for flood damage reduction, Dry and Otter Creeks, 

Cortland, New York. 

(28) EAST RIVER, SILVER BEACH, NEW YORK CITY, NEW

YORK.—Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver 

Beach, New York City, New York. 

(29) EAST VALLEY CREEK, ANDOVER, NEW YORK.—Project 

for flood damage reduction, East Valley Creek, Andover, New 

York. 

(30) SUNNYSIDE BROOK, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW

YORK.—Project for flood damage reduction, Sunnyside Brook, 

Westchester County, New York. 

(31) LITTLE YANKEE AND MUD RUN, TRUMBULL COUNTY, 

OHIO.—Project for flood damage reduction, Little Yankee and 

Mud Run, Trumbull County, Ohio. 
H. R. 1495—19 

(32) LITTLE NESHAMINY CREEK, WARRINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy 

Creek, Warrington, Pennsylvania. 

(33) SOUTHAMPTON CREEK WATERSHED, SOUTHAMPTON, 

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

(34) SPRING CREEK, LOWER MACUNGIE TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Spring Creek, 

Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania. 

(35) YARDLEY AQUEDUCT, SILVER AND BROCK CREEKS, YARDLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, 

Yardley Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania. 

(36) SURFSIDE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Project for flood 

damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South Carolina. 

(37) SANDY CREEK, JACKSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—A 

project for flood damage reduction, Sandy Creek, Jackson 

County, Tennessee. 

(38) CONGELOSI DITCH, MISSOURI CITY, TEXAS.—Project for 

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

(39) DILLEY, TEXAS.—Project for flood damage reduction, 

Dilley, Texas. 

(40) CHEYENNE, WYOMING.—Project for flood damage reduction, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

(b) SPECIAL RULES.— (1) CACHE RIVER BASIN, GRUBBS, ARKANSAS.—The Secretary 

may proceed with the project for the Cache River Basin, Grubbs, 

Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(5), notwithstanding that 

the project is located within the boundaries of the flood control 

project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, authorized 

by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950, (64 Stat. 

172) and modified by section 99 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41). 

(2) ONTARIO AND CHINO, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary shall 

carry out the project for flood damage reduction, Ontario and 

Chino, California, referred to in subsection (a)(11) if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

(3) SANTA VENETIA, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary shall carry 

out the project for flood damage reduction, Santa Venetia, 

California, referred to in subsection (a)(12) if the Secretary 

determines that the project is feasible and shall allow the 

non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the 

project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that 

the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section 

is necessary to implement the project. 

(4) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary shall carry out 

the project for flood damage reduction, Whittier, California, 

referred to in subsection (a)(13) if the Secretary determines 

that the project is feasible. 

(5) WILDWOOD CREEK, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary shall review the locally prepared plan for the project 

for flood damage, Wildwood Creek, California, referred to in 

subsection (a)(14) and, if the Secretary determines that the 

plan meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps 

of Engineers and that the plan is feasible, the Secretary may 

use the plan to carry out the project and shall provide credit 
H. R. 1495—20 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 

the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 

the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 

Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

(6) FORT WAYNE AND VICINITY, INDIANA.—In carrying out 

the project for flood damage reduction, St. Mary’s and Maumee 

Rivers, Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana, referred to in subsection (a)(16) the Secretary shall— 

(A) provide a 100-year level of flood protection at the 

Berry Thieme, Park-Thompson, Woodhurst, and Tillman 

sites along the St. Mary’s River; and 

(B) allow the non-Federal interest to participate in 

the financing of the project in accordance with section 

903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary to 

implement the project. 

(7) SOUTH BRANCH OF THE WILD RICE RIVER, BORUP, MINNESOTA.—In carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, 

South Branch of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota, 

referred to in subsection (a)(22) the Secretary may consider 

national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project and shall allow the non-Federal 

interest to participate in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s 

evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary 

to implement the project. 

(8) ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JERSEY.—The Secretary shall carry out the project for flood damage reduction, 

Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, referred to in subsection (a)(24) if the Secretary determines that the project 

is feasible. 

(9) SANDY CREEK, TENNESSEE.—Consistent with the report 

of the Chief of Engineers dated March 24, 1948, on the West 

Tennessee Tributaries project, in carrying out the project for 

flood damage reduction, Sandy Creek, Tennessee, referred to 

in section (a)(37)— 

(A) Sandy Creek shall not be considered to be an 

authorized channel of the West Tennessee Tributaries 

project; and 

(B) the project shall not be considered to be part of 

the West Tennessee Tributaries project. 

(10) DILLEY, TEXAS.—The Secretary shall carry out the 

project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred to 

in subsection (a)(39) if the Secretary determines that the project 

is feasible. 

SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 

projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 

may carry out the project under section 14 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r): 

(1) ALISO CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Projects for emergency 

streambank protection, Aliso Creek, California. 
H. R. 1495—21 

(2) ST. JOHNS BLUFF TRAINING WALL, DUVAL COUNTY, 

FLORIDA.—Project for emergency streambank protection, St. 

Johns Bluff Training Wall, Duval County, Florida. 

(3) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, IBERVILLE PARISH, LOUISIANA.—Projects for emergency streambank protection, Gulf 

Intracoastal Waterway, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. 

(4) OUACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, ARKANSAS AND LOUISIANA.—Projects for emergency streambank protection, 

Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana. 

(5) PINEY POINT LIGHTHOUSE, ST. MARY’S COUNTY, MARY- LAND.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney 

Point Lighthouse, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. 

(6) PUG HOLE LAKE, MINNESOTA.—Project for emergency 

streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota. 

(7) MIDDLE FORK GRAND RIVER, GENTRY COUNTY, MIS- SOURI.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle 

Fork Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri. 

(8) PLATTE RIVER, PLATTE CITY, MISSOURI.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City, Missouri. 

(9) RUSH CREEK, PARKVILLE, MISSOURI.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri, 

including measures to address degradation of the creek bed. 

(10) DRY AND OTTER CREEKS, CORTLAND COUNTY, NEW

YORK.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Dry and 

Otter Creeks, Cortland County, New York. 

(11) KEUKA LAKE, HAMMONDSPORT, NEW YORK.—Project for 

emergency streambank protection, Keuka Lake, 

Hammondsport, New York. 

(12) KOWAWESE UNIQUE AREA AND HUDSON RIVER, NEW

WINDSOR, NEW YORK.—Project for emergency streambank 

protection, Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New 

Windsor, New York. 

(13) OWEGO CREEK, TIOGA COUNTY, NEW YORK.—Project 

for emergency streambank protection, Owego Creek, Tioga 

County, New York. 

(14) HOWARD ROAD OUTFALL, SHELBY COUNTY, TEN- NESSEE.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Howard 

Road outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee. 

(15) MITCH FARM DITCH AND LATERAL D, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—Project for emergency streambank protection, 

Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee. 

(16) WOLF RIVER TRIBUTARIES, SHELBY COUNTY, TEN- NESSEE.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf 

River tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee. 

(17) JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas. 

(18) WELLS RIVER, NEWBURY, VERMONT.—Project for emergency streambank protection, Wells River, Newbury, Vermont. 

SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study for each 

of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that 

a project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 107 

of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577): 

(1) BARROW HARBOR, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, Barrow Harbor, Alaska. 
H. R. 1495—22 

(2) COFFMAN COVE, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, 

Coffman Cove, Alaska. 

(3) KOTZEBUE HARBOR, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, 

Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska. 

(4) NOME HARBOR, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, Nome 

Harbor, Alaska. 

(5) OLD HARBOR, ALASKA.—Project for navigation, Old 

Harbor, Alaska. 

(6) LITTLE ROCK PORT, ARKANSAS.—Project for navigation, 

Little Rock Port, Arkansas River, Arkansas. 

(7) MISSISSIPPI RIVER SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA.—Project 

for navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana. 

(8) EAST BASIN, CAPE COD CANAL, SANDWICH, MASSACHU- SETTS.—Project for navigation, East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, 

Sandwich, Massachusetts. 

(9) LYNN HARBOR, LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for 

navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts. 

(10) MERRIMACK RIVER, HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS.— Project for navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts. 

(11) OAK BLUFFS HARBOR, OAK BLUFFS, MASSACHUSETTS.— Project for navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, 

Massachusetts. 

(12) WOODS HOLE GREAT HARBOR, FALMOUTH, MASSACHU- SETTS.—Project for navigation, Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, Massachusetts. 

(13) AU SABLE RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for navigation, 

Au Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan. 

(14) CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for navigation, 

Clinton River, Michigan. 

(15) ONTONAGON RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for navigation, 

Ontonagon River, Ontonagon, Michigan. 

(16) OUTER CHANNEL AND INNER HARBOR, MENOMINEE

HARBOR, MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN.—Project for navigation, 

Outer Channel and Inner Harbor, Menominee Harbor, Michigan 

and Wisconsin. 

(17) SEBEWAING RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for navigation, 

Sebewaing River, Michigan. 

(18) TRAVERSE CITY HARBOR, TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN.— 

Project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, 

Michigan. 

(19) TOWER HARBOR, TOWER, MINNESOTA.—Project for 

navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, Minnesota. 

(20) OLCOTT HARBOR, OLCOTT, NEW YORK.—Project for 

navigation, Olcott Harbor, Olcott, New York. 

(21) MILWAUKEE HARBOR, WISCONSIN.—Project for navigation, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

(b) SPECIAL RULES.— (1) TRAVERSE CITY HARBOR, TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN.— The Secretary shall review the locally prepared plan for the 

project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Michigan, referred 

to in subsection (a)(18), and, if the Secretary determines that 

the plan meets the evaluation and design standards of the 

Corps of Engineers and that the plan is feasible, the Secretary 

may use the plan to carry out the project and shall provide 

credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

for the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
H. R. 1495—23 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 

if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 

project. 

(2) TOWER HARBOR, TOWER MINNESOTA.—The Secretary 

shall carry out the project for navigation, Tower Harbor, Tower, 

Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a)(19) if the Secretary 

determines that the project is feasible. 

SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY 

OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 

projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 1135 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a): 

(1) BALLONA CREEK, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 

Ballona Creek, Los Angeles County, California. 

(2) BALLONA LAGOON TIDE GATES, MARINA DEL REY, CALI- FORNIA.—Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey, California. 

(3) FT. GEORGE INLET, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA.—Project 

for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ft. George 

Inlet, Duval County, Florida. 

(4) RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA.—Project for improvement of the 

quality of the environment, Rathbun Lake, Iowa. 

(5) SMITHVILLE LAKE, MISSOURI.—Project for improvement 

of the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri. 

(6) DELAWARE BAY, NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE.—Project 

for improvement of the quality of the environment, Delaware 

Bay, New Jersey and Delaware, for the purpose of oyster restoration. 

(7) TIOGA-HAMMOND LAKES, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for 

improvement of the quality of the environment, Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania. 

SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study for each 

of the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that 

a project is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 

206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330): 

(1) CYPRESS CREEK, MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cypress Creek, Montgomery, 

Alabama. 

(2) BLACK LAKE, ALASKA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, Black Lake, Alaska, at the head of the Chignik 

watershed. 

(3) BEN LOMOND DAM, SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ben Lomond Dam, Santa 

Cruz, California. 

(4) DOCKWEILER BLUFFS, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALI- FORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Dockweiler 

Bluffs, Los Angeles County, California. 

(5) SALT RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, Salt River, California. 

(6) SAN DIEGO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, California, including 

efforts to address aquatic nuisance species. 
H. R. 1495—24 

(7) SANTA ROSA CREEK, SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Santa Rosa Creek in the 

vicinity of the Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa, California. 

(8) STOCKTON DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL AND LOWER SAN

JOAQUIN RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San 

Joaquin River, California. 

(9) SUISUN MARSH, SAN PABLO BAY, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Suisun Marsh, San Pablo 

Bay, California. 

(10) SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater 

Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to 

address aquatic nuisance species. 

(11) BISCAYNE BAY, FLORIDA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida. 

(12) CLAM BAYOU AND DINKINS BAYOU, SANIBEL ISLAND, 

FLORIDA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clam 

Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida. 

(13) MOUNTAIN PARK, GEORGIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mountain Park, Georgia. 

(14) CHATTAHOOCHEE FALL LINE, GEORGIA AND ALABAMA.— 

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall 

Line, Georgia and Alabama. 

(15) LONGWOOD COVE, GAINESVILLE, GEORGIA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville, 

Georgia. 

(16) CITY PARK, UNIVERSITY LAKES, LOUISIANA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes, 

Louisiana. 

(17) LAWRENCE GATEWAY, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration at the Lawrence Gateway quadrant project along the Merrimack and Spicket Rivers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in accordance with the general conditions 

established by the project approval of the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region I, including filling abandoned drainage facilities and making improvements to the drainage system 

on the Lawrence Gateway to prevent continued migration of 

contaminated sediments into the river systems. 

(18) MILFORD POND, MILFORD, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Milford Pond, Milford, 

Massachusetts. 

(19) MILL POND, LITTLETON, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton, Massachusetts. 

(20) PINE TREE BROOK, MILTON, MASSACHUSETTS.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, 

Massachusetts. 

(21) CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clinton River, Michigan. 

(22) KALAMAZOO RIVER WATERSHED, BATTLE CREEK, 

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

(23) RUSH LAKE, MINNESOTA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota. 
H. R. 1495—25 

(24) SOUTH FORK OF THE CROW RIVER, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork 

of the Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota. 

(25) ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.—Project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, St. Louis, Missouri. 

(26) MOBLEY DAM, TONGUE RIVER, MONTANA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mobley Dam, Tongue River, 

Montana. 

(27) S AND H DAM, TONGUE RIVER, MONTANA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, S and H Dam, Tongue River, 

Montana. 

(28) VANDALIA DAM, MILK RIVER, MONTANA.—Project for 

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

(29) TRUCKEE RIVER, RENO, NEVADA.—Project for aquatic 

ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including 

features for fish passage in Washoe County. 

(30) GROVER’S MILL POND, NEW JERSEY.—Project for aquatic 

ecosystem restoration, Grover’s Mill Pond, New Jersey. 

(31) CALDWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Caldwell County, North Carolina. 

(32) MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mecklenburg County, North 

Carolina. 

(33) DUGWAY CREEK, BRATENAHL, OHIO.—Project for aquatic 

ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio. 

(34) JOHNSON CREEK, GRESHAM, OREGON.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, 

Oregon. 

(35) BEAVER CREEK, BEAVER AND SALEM, PENNSYLVANIA.— 

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver 

and Salem, Pennsylvania. 

(36) CEMENTON DAM, LEHIGH RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.— 

Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, 

Lehigh River, Pennsylvania. 

(37) INGHAM SPRING DAM, SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ingham 

Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania. 

(38) SAUCON CREEK, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon 

Creek, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. 

(39) STILLWATER LAKE DAM, MONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Stillwater 

Lake Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. 

(40) BLACKSTONE RIVER, RHODE ISLAND.—Project for aquatic 

ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island. 

(41) WILSON BRANCH, CHERAW, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Project 

for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, 

South Carolina. 

(42) WHITE RIVER, BETHEL, VERMONT.—Project for aquatic 

ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont. 

(43) COLLEGE LAKE, LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA.—Project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, College Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia. 

(b) SPECIAL RULES.— 
H. R. 1495—26 

(1) BLACK LAKE, ALASKA.—The Secretary shall carry out 

the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Black Lake, 

Alaska referred to in subsection (a)(2) if the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate. 

(2) TRUCKEE RIVER, RENO, NEVADA.—The maximum amount 

of Federal funds that may be expended for the project for 

aquatic ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, 

referred to in subsection (a)(29) shall be $6,000,000 and the 

Secretary shall carry out the project if the Secretary determines 

that the project is appropriate. 

(3) BLACKSTONE RIVER, RHODE ISLAND.—The Secretary shall 

carry out the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island, referred to in subsection (a)(40) 

if the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate. 

(4) COLLEGE LAKE, LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA.—The Secretary 

shall carry out the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 

College Lake, Lynchburg, Virginia, referred to in subsection 

(a)(43) if the Secretary determines that the project is appropriate. 

SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 

projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 

may carry out the project under section 3 of the Act entitled 

‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting 

the shores of publicly owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 

(33 U.S.C. 426g): 

(1) NELSON LAGOON, ALASKA.—Project for shoreline protection, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska. 

(2) NICHOLAS CANYON, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.—Project 

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

(3) SANIBEL ISLAND, FLORIDA.—Project for shoreline protection, Sanibel Island, Florida. 

(4) APRA HARBOR, GUAM.—Project for shoreline protection, 

Apra Harbor, Guam. 

(5) PITI, CABRAS ISLAND, GUAM.—Project for shoreline 

protection, Piti, Cabras Island, Guam. 

(6) NARROWS AND GRAVESEND BAY, UPPER NEW YORK BAY, 

BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.—Project for shoreline protection in the 

vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, 

Upper New York Bay, Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, 

New York. 

(7) DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA NAVAL SHIPYARD, 

PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for shoreline protection, Delaware 

River in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 

Pennsylvania. 

(8) PORT ARANSAS, TEXAS.—Project for shoreline protection, 

Port Aransas, Texas. 

SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT 

REMOVAL. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following project 

and, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the 

Secretary may carry out the project under section 2 of the Flood 

Control Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g): Project for removal 

of snags and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control, 
H. R. 1495—27 

Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New 

York. 

SEC. 1009. SMALL PROJECTS TO PREVENT OR MITIGATE DAMAGE 

CAUSED BY NAVIGATION PROJECTS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the following 

projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, 

may carry out the project under section 111 of the River and 

Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i): 

(1) Tybee Island, Georgia. 

(2) Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana. 

SEC. 1010. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out 

a project for aquatic nuisance plant control in the Republican River 

Basin, Nebraska, under section 104 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610). 

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—In carrying out the project under subsection 

(a), the Secretary may control and eradicate riverine nuisance 

plants. 

TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 2001. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS. 

Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2213) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(n) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.— ‘‘(1) PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF EXCESS CONTRIBU- TIONS.—The Secretary may not— 

‘‘(A) solicit contributions from non-Federal interests 

for costs of constructing authorized water resources projects 

or measures in excess of the non-Federal share assigned 

to the appropriate project purposes listed in subsections 

(a), (b), and (c); or 

‘‘(B) condition Federal participation in such projects 

or measures on the receipt of such contributions. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing 

in this subsection shall be construed to affect the Secretary’s 

authority under section 903(c).’’. 

SEC. 2002. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS. 

Section 214(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 119 Stat. 2169; 120 Stat. 

318; 120 Stat. 3197) is amended by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting 

‘‘2009’’. 

SEC. 2003. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘SEC. 221.’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘SEC. 221. WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT FOR WATER 

RESOURCES PROJECTS.’’; 

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

‘‘(a) COOPERATION OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—After December 31, 1970, the construction of any water resources project, or an acceptable separable 
H. R. 1495—28 

element thereof, by the Secretary of the Army, acting through 

the Chief of Engineers, or by a non-Federal interest where 

such interest will be reimbursed for such construction under 

any provision of law, shall not be commenced until each nonFederal interest has entered into a written partnership agreement with the Secretary (or, where appropriate, the district 

engineer for the district in which the project will be carried 

out) under which each party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and requirements for implementation or construction of 

the project or the appropriate element of the project, as the 

case may be; except that no such agreement shall be required 

if the Secretary determines that the administrative costs associated with negotiating, executing, or administering the agreement would exceed the amount of the contribution required 

from the non-Federal interest and are less than $25,000. 

‘‘(2) LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.—A partnership agreement 

described in paragraph (1) may include a provision for liquidated damages in the event of a failure of one or more 

parties to perform. 

‘‘(3) OBLIGATION OF FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS.—In any partnership agreement described in paragraph (1) and entered into 

by a State, or a body politic of the State which derives its 

powers from the State constitution, or a governmental entity 

created by the State legislature, the agreement may reflect 

that it does not obligate future appropriations for such performance and payment when obligating future appropriations would 

be inconsistent with constitutional or statutory limitations of 

the State or a political subdivision of the State. 

‘‘(4) CREDIT FOR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A partnership agreement described 

in paragraph (1) may provide with respect to a project 

that the Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project, including a project implemented without specific authorization in law, the value 

of in-kind contributions made by the non-Federal interest, 

including— 

‘‘(i) the costs of planning (including data collection), 

design, management, mitigation, construction, and 

construction services that are provided by the nonFederal interest for implementation of the project; 

‘‘(ii) the value of materials or services provided 

before execution of the partnership agreement, 

including efforts on constructed elements incorporated 

into the project; and 

‘‘(iii) the value of materials and services provided 

after execution of the partnership agreement. 

‘‘(B) CONDITION.—The Secretary may credit an in-kind 

contribution under subparagraph (A) only if the Secretary 

determines that the material or service provided as an 

in-kind contribution is integral to the project. 

‘‘(C) WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—In any case in which the non-Federal interest is 

to receive credit under subparagraph (A)(ii) for the cost 

of work carried out by the non-Federal interest and such 

work has not been carried out as of the date of enactment 

of this subparagraph, the Secretary and the non-Federal 

interest shall enter into an agreement under which the 
H. R. 1495—29 

non-Federal interest shall carry out such work, and only 

work carried out following the execution of the agreement 

shall be eligible for credit. 

‘‘(D) LIMITATIONS.—Credit authorized under this paragraph for a project— 

‘‘(i) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project; 

‘‘(ii) shall not alter any other requirement that 

a non-Federal interest provide lands, easements, 

relocations, rights-of-way, or areas for disposal of 

dredged material for the project; 

‘‘(iii) shall not alter any requirement that a nonFederal interest pay a portion of the costs of construction of the project under sections 101 and 103 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2211; 33 U.S.C. 2213); and 

‘‘(iv) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable 

costs of the materials, services, or other things provided 

by the non-Federal interest, as determined by the Secretary. 

‘‘(E) APPLICABILITY.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—This paragraph shall apply to 

water resources projects authorized after November 

16, 1986, including projects initiated after November 

16, 1986, without specific authorization in law. 

‘‘(ii) LIMITATION.—In any case in which a specific 

provision of law provides for a non-Federal interest 

to receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of a study for, or construction or operation and 

maintenance of, a water resources project, the specific 

provision of law shall apply instead of this paragraph.’’. 

(b) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—Section 221(b) of such Act is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) DEFINITION OF NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The term ‘nonFederal interest’ means— 

‘‘(1) a legally constituted public body (including a federally 

recognized Indian tribe); or 

‘‘(2) a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected 

local government, 

that has full authority and capability to perform the terms of 

its agreement and to pay damages, if necessary, in the event of 

failure to perform.’’. 

(c) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.—Section 221 of such Act is further amended— 

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

(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following: 

‘‘(e) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.—Not later than June 30, 2008, 

the Secretary shall issue policies and guidelines for partnership 

agreements that delegate to the district engineers, at a minimum— 

‘‘(1) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 

agreement that has appeared in an agreement previously 

approved by the Secretary; 

‘‘(2) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 

agreement the specific terms of which are dictated by law 

or by a final feasibility study, final environmental impact statement, or other final decision document for a water resources 

project; 
H. R. 1495—30 

‘‘(3) the authority to approve any partnership agreement 

that complies with the policies and guidelines issued by the 

Secretary; and 

‘‘(4) the authority to sign any partnership agreement for 

any water resources project unless, within 30 days of the date 

of authorization of the project, the Secretary notifies the district 

engineer in which the project will be carried out that the 

Secretary wishes to retain the prerogative to sign the partnership agreement for that project. 

‘‘(f) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the 

date of enactment of this subsection, and every year thereafter, 

the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report detailing the following: 

‘‘(1) The number of partnership agreements signed by district engineers and the number of partnership agreements 

signed by the Secretary. 

‘‘(2) For any partnership agreement signed by the Secretary, an explanation of why delegation to the district engineer 

was not appropriate. 

‘‘(g) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—Not later than 120 days after the 

date of enactment of this subsection, the Chief of Engineers shall— 

‘‘(1) ensure that each district engineer has made available 

to the public, including on the Internet, all partnership agreements entered into under this section within the preceding 

10 years and all partnership agreements for water resources 

projects currently being carried out in that district; and 

‘‘(2) make each partnership agreement entered into after 

such date of enactment available to the public, including on 

the Internet, not later than 7 days after the date on which 

such agreement is entered into.’’. 

(d) LOCAL COOPERATION.—Section 912(b) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (2)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ the first place it appears and 

inserting ‘‘may’’; and 

(B) by striking the last sentence; and 

(2) in paragraph (4)— 

(A) by inserting after ‘‘injunction, for’’ the following: 

‘‘payment of damages or, for’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘to collect a civil penalty imposed under 

this section,’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘any civil penalty imposed under this 

section,’’ and inserting ‘‘any damages,’’. 

(e) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by subsections (a), 

(b), and (d) only apply to partnership agreements entered into 

after the date of enactment of this Act; except that, at the request 

of a non-Federal interest for a project, the district engineer for 

the district in which the project is located may amend a project 

partnership agreement entered into on or before such date and 

under which construction on the project has not been initiated 

as of such date of enactment for the purpose of incorporating 

such amendments. 

(f) AGREEMENTS AND REFERENCES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—A goal of agreements entered into under 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b) shall be to further partnership and cooperation, and the 

agreements shall be referred to as ‘‘partnership agreements’’. 
H. R. 1495—31 

(2) REFERENCES TO COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.—Any reference in a law, regulation, document, or other paper of the 

United States to a ‘‘cooperation agreement’’ or ‘‘project cooperation agreement’’ shall be deemed to be a reference to a ‘‘partnership agreement’’ or a ‘‘project partnership agreement’’, respectively. 

(3) REFERENCES TO PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Any reference to a ‘‘partnership agreement’’ or ‘‘project partnership 

agreement’’ in this Act (other than this section) shall be deemed 

to be a reference to a ‘‘cooperation agreement’’ or a ‘‘project 

cooperation agreement’’, respectively. 

SEC. 2004. COMPILATION OF LAWS. 

(a) COMPILATION OF LAWS ENACTED AFTER NOVEMBER 8, 

1966.—The Secretary and the Chief of Engineers shall prepare 

a compilation of the laws of the United States relating to the 

improvement of rivers and harbors, flood damage reduction, beach 

and shoreline erosion, hurricane and storm damage reduction, ecosystem and environmental restoration, and other water resources 

development enacted after November 8, 1966, and before January 

1, 2008, and have such compilation printed for the use of the 

Department of the Army, Congress, and the general public. 

(b) REPRINT OF LAWS ENACTED BEFORE NOVEMBER 8, 1966.— 

The Secretary shall have the volumes containing the laws referred 

to in subsection (a) enacted before November 8, 1966, reprinted. 

(c) INDEX.—The Secretary shall include an index in each volume 

compiled, and each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section. 

(d) CONGRESSIONAL COPIES.—Not later than April 1, 2008, the 

Secretary shall transmit at least 25 copies of each volume compiled, 

and of each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section to each 

of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works of the Senate. 

(e) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary shall ensure that each volume 

compiled, and each volume reprinted, pursuant to this section are 

available through electronic means, including on the Internet. 

SEC. 2005. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL. 

Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(33 U.S.C. 2326a) is amended— 

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

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following: 

‘‘(c) DREDGED MATERIAL FACILITY.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter into a partnership agreement under section 221 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) with one or more non-Federal 

interests with respect to a water resources project, or group 

of water resources projects within a geographic region, if appropriate, for the acquisition, design, construction, management, 

or operation of a dredged material processing, treatment, 

contaminant reduction, or disposal facility (including any 

facility used to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged 

material, which may include effective sediment contaminant 

reduction technologies) using funds provided in whole or in 

part by the Federal Government. 

‘‘(2) PERFORMANCE.—One or more of the parties to a partnership agreement under this subsection may perform the 

acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of 
H. R. 1495—32 

a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or disposal facility. 

‘‘(3) MULTIPLE PROJECTS.—If appropriate, the Secretary 

may combine portions of separate water resources projects with 

appropriate combined cost-sharing among the various water 

resources projects in a partnership agreement for a facility 

under this subsection if the facility serves to manage dredged 

material from multiple water resources projects located in the 

geographic region of the facility. 

‘‘(4) SPECIFIED FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES AND COST

SHARING.— 

‘‘(A) SPECIFIED FEDERAL FUNDING.—A partnership 

agreement with respect to a facility under this subsection 

shall specify— 

‘‘(i) the Federal funding sources and combined costsharing when applicable to multiple water resources 

projects; and 

‘‘(ii) the responsibilities and risks of each of the 

parties relating to present and future dredged material 

managed by the facility. 

‘‘(B) MANAGEMENT OF SEDIMENTS.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—A partnership agreement under 

this subsection may include the management of sediments from the maintenance dredging of Federal water 

resources projects that do not have partnership agreements. 

‘‘(ii) PAYMENTS.—A partnership agreement under 

this subsection may allow the non-Federal interest to 

receive reimbursable payments from the Federal 

Government for commitments made by the non-Federal 

interest for disposal or placement capacity at dredged 

material processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, 

or disposal facilities. 

‘‘(C) CREDIT.—A partnership agreement under this subsection may allow costs incurred by the non-Federal 

interest before execution of the partnership agreement to 

be credited in accordance with section 221 of the Flood 

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

‘‘(5) CREDIT.— ‘‘(A) EFFECT ON EXISTING AGREEMENTS.—Nothing in 

this subsection supersedes or modifies an agreement in 

effect on the date of enactment of this paragraph between 

the Federal Government and any non-Federal interest for 

the cost-sharing, construction, and operation and maintenance of a water resources project. 

‘‘(B) CREDIT FOR FUNDS.—Subject to the approval of 

the Secretary and in accordance with law (including regulations and policies) in effect on the date of enactment of 

this paragraph, a non-Federal interest for a water resources 

project may receive credit for funds provided for the acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation of 

a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant 

reduction, or disposal facility to the extent the facility 

is used to manage dredged material from the project. 

‘‘(C) NON-FEDERAL INTEREST RESPONSIBILITIES.—A nonFederal interest entering into a partnership agreement 

under this subsection for a facility shall— 
H. R. 1495—33 

‘‘(i) be responsible for providing all necessary lands, 

easements, relocations, and rights-of-way associated 

with the facility; and 

‘‘(ii) receive credit toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project with respect to which the 

agreement is being entered into for those items.’’; and 

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

(A) by inserting ‘‘and maintenance’’ after ‘‘operation’’ 

each place it appears; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘processing, treatment, contaminant 

reduction, or’’ after ‘‘dredged material’’ the first place it 

appears in each of those paragraphs. 

SEC. 2006. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In conducting a study of harbor and navigation improvements, the Secretary may recommend a project without 

the need to demonstrate that the project is justified solely by 

national economic development benefits if the Secretary determines 

that— 

(1)(A) the community to be served by the project is at 

least 70 miles from the nearest surface accessible commercial 

port and has no direct rail or highway link to another community served by a surface accessible port or harbor; or 

(B) the project would be located in the State of Hawaii, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin 

Islands, or American Samoa; 

(2) the harbor is economically critical such that over 80 

percent of the goods transported through the harbor would 

be consumed within the community served by the harbor and 

navigation improvement; and 

(3) the long-term viability of the community would be 

threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement. 

(b) JUSTIFICATION.—In considering whether to recommend a 

project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the benefits of the project to— 

(1) public health and safety of the local community, 

including access to facilities designed to protect public health 

and safety; 

(2) access to natural resources for subsistence purposes; 

(3) local and regional economic opportunities; 

(4) welfare of the local population; and 

(5) social and cultural value to the community. 

SEC. 2007. USE OF OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS. 

The non-Federal interest for a water resources study or project 

may use, and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided by a 

Federal agency under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in 

whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the cost of the study 

or project if the Federal agency that provides the funds determines 

that the funds are authorized to be used to carry out the study 

or project. 

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 
H. R. 1495—34 

allocated for a water resources project or an increase in the total 

cost of a water resources project authorized to be carried out by 

the Secretary, the Secretary shall enter into a revised partnership 

agreement for the project to take into account the change in Federal 

participation in the project. 

(b) COST SHARING.—An increase in the maximum amount of 

Federal funds that may be allocated for a water resources project, 

or an increase in the total cost of a water resources project, authorized to be carried out by the Secretary shall not affect any costsharing requirement applicable to the project. 

(c) COST ESTIMATES.—The estimated Federal and non-Federal 

costs of water resources projects authorized to be carried out by 

the Secretary before, on, or after the date of enactment of this 

Act are for informational purposes only and shall not be interpreted 

as affecting the cost-sharing responsibilities established by law. 

SEC. 2009. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD DAMAGE 

REDUCTION. 

The Secretary shall expedite any authorized planning, design, 

and construction of any project for flood damage reduction for 

an area that, within the preceding 5 years, has been subject to 

flooding that resulted in the loss of life and caused damage of 

sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a declaration of a 

major disaster by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et 

seq.). 

SEC. 2010. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS. 

Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587–2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (d)— 

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

(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph 

(5) and inserting a semicolon; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio; 

‘‘(7) Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties, 

Washington; 

‘‘(8) Niagara River Basin, New York; 

‘‘(9) Genesee River Basin, New York; and 

‘‘(10) White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.’’; 

(2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the 

costs of an assessment carried out under this section on or 

after December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.’’; and 

(3) by striking subsection (g). 

SEC. 2011. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM. 

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

(1) in paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘carry out water-related 

planning activities and’’ after ‘‘the Secretary may’’; 

(2) in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting after ‘‘Code’’ the following: ‘‘, and including lands that are within the jurisdictional 

area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary 
H. R. 1495—35 

of the Interior as eligible for trust land status under part 

151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (2)— 

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

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

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following: 

‘‘(B) watershed assessments and planning activities; 

and’’. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 203(e) of such 

Act is amended by striking ‘‘2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

SEC. 2012. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING. 

Section 309 of Public Law 102–154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a–1; 105 

Stat. 1034) is amended by inserting ‘‘the Secretary of the Army,’’ 

after ‘‘the Secretary of Energy,’’. 

SEC. 2013. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. 

Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–16) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and 

inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) FEDERAL STATE COOPERATION.— ‘‘(1) COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.—The Secretary’’; 

(2) by inserting after the last sentence in subsection (a) 

the following: 

‘‘(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—At the request of a governmental 

agency or non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide, 

at Federal expense, technical assistance to such agency 

or non-Federal interest in managing water resources. 

‘‘(B) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—Technical assistance under 

this paragraph may include provision and integration of 

hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses.’’; 

(3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘this section’’ each place 

it appears and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(1)’’; 

(4) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ‘‘Up to 1⁄2 of the’’ and 

inserting ‘‘The’’; 

(5) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘(c) There is’’ and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— ‘‘(1) FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.—There is’’; 

(6) in subsection (c)(1) (as designated by paragraph (5))— 

(A) by striking ‘‘the provisions of this section’’ and 

inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(1),’’; and (B) by striking ‘‘$500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$2,000,000’’; 

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

‘‘(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—There is authorized to be 

appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection (a)(2), 

of which not more than $2,000,000 annually may be used 

by the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with 

nonprofit organizations to provide assistance to rural and small 

communities.’’; 

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

(9) by inserting after subsection (c) the following: 

‘‘(d) ANNUAL SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES.—Concurrent 

with the President’s submission to Congress of the President’s 
H. R. 1495—36 

request for appropriations for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal 

year, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 

report describing the individual activities proposed for funding 

under subsection (a)(1) for that fiscal year.’’. 

SEC. 2014. LAKES PROGRAM. 

Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at end of paragraph (18); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) 

and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of 

silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 

sedimentation; 

‘‘(21) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey, 

removal of silt and measures to address water quality; 

‘‘(22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, 

removal of silt and restoration of structural integrity; 

‘‘(23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal 

of silt and aquatic growth; 

‘‘(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal 

of silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural 

integrity; 

‘‘(25) Lake Sakakawea, North Dakota, removal of silt and 

aquatic growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; 

‘‘(26) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania; 

‘‘(27) Lake Fairlee, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic 

growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation; and 

‘‘(28) Lake Morley, Vermont, removal of silt and aquatic 

growth and measures to address excessive sedimentation.’’. 

SEC. 2015. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of expediting the cost-effective design and construction of wetlands restoration that is part 

of an authorized water resources project, the Secretary may enter 

into cooperative agreements under section 6305 of title 31, United 

States Code, with nonprofit organizations with expertise in wetlands 

restoration to carry out such design and construction on behalf 

of the Secretary. 

(b) LIMITATIONS.— (1) PER PROJECT LIMIT.—A cooperative agreement under 

this section may not obligate the Secretary to pay the nonprofit 

organization more than $1,000,000 for any single wetlands 

restoration project. 

(2) ANNUAL LIMIT.—The total value of work carried out 

under cooperative agreements under this section may not 

exceed $5,000,000 in any fiscal year. 

SEC. 2016. TRAINING FUNDS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may include individuals not 

employed by the Department of the Army in training classes and 

courses offered by the Corps of Engineers in any case in which 

the Secretary determines that it is in the best interest of the 

Federal Government to include those individuals as participants. 
H. R. 1495—37 

(b) EXPENSES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—An individual not employed by the 

Department of the Army attending a training class or course 

described in subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the training 

provided to the individual. 

(2) PAYMENTS.—Payments made by an individual for 

training received under paragraph (1), up to the actual cost 

of the training— 

(A) may be retained by the Secretary; 

(B) shall be credited to an appropriations account used 

for paying training costs; and 

(C) shall be available for use by the Secretary, without 

further appropriation, for training purposes. 

(3) EXCESS AMOUNTS.—Any payments received under paragraph (2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training 

provided shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the 

Treasury of the United States. 

SEC. 2017. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a program 

to provide public access to water resources and related water quality 

data in the custody of the Corps of Engineers. 

(b) DATA.—Public access under subsection (a) shall— 

(1) include, at a minimum, access to data generated in 

water resources project development and regulation under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

1344); and 

(2) appropriately employ geographic information system 

technology and linkages to water resource models and analytical 

techniques. 

(c) PARTNERSHIPS.—To the maximum extent practicable, in carrying out activities under this section, the Secretary shall develop 

partnerships, including cooperative agreements, with State, tribal, 

and local governments and other Federal agencies. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000 for each 

fiscal year. 

SEC. 2018. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 

(33 U.S.C. 426), and notwithstanding administrative actions, it 

is the policy of the United States to promote beach nourishment 

for the purposes of flood damage reduction and hurricane and 

storm damage reduction and related research that encourage the 

protection, restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches, 

including beach restoration and periodic beach renourishment for 

a period of 50 years, on a comprehensive and coordinated basis 

by the Federal Government, States, localities, and private enterprises. 

(b) PREFERENCE.—In carrying out the policy under subsection 

(a), preference shall be given to— 

(1) areas in which there has been a Federal investment 

of funds for the purposes described in subsection (a); and 

(2) areas with respect to which the need for prevention 

or mitigation of damage to shores and beaches is attributable 

to Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities. 

(c) APPLICABILITY.—The Secretary shall apply the policy under 

subsection (a) to each shore protection and beach renourishment 
H. R. 1495—38 

project (including shore protection and beach renourishment 

projects constructed before the date of enactment of this Act). 

SEC. 2019. ABILITY TO PAY. 

(a) CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES.—Section 103(m)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)(2)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘180 days after such date of enactment’’ and 

inserting ‘‘December 31, 2007’’. 

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

(1) ST. JOHNS BAYOU AND NEW MADRID FLOODWAY, MISSOURI.—The project for flood control, St. Johns Bayou and 

New Madrid Floodway, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 

4118). 

(2) LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.—The project for flood 

control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, authorized by section 

401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 

Stat. 4125). 

(3) WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA PROJECTS.—The 

projects for flood control authorized by section 581 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790–3791). 

SEC. 2020. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM AND ESTUARY RESTORATION. 

Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(33 U.S.C. 2330; 110 Stat. 3679) is amended— 

(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a project 

to restore and protect an aquatic ecosystem or estuary if the 

Secretary determines that the project— 

‘‘(A)(i) will improve the quality of the environment 

and is in the public interest; or 

‘‘(ii) will improve the elements and features of an 

estuary (as defined in section 103 of the Estuaries and 

Clean Waters Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2902)); and 

‘‘(B) is cost-effective. 

‘‘(2) DAM REMOVAL.—A project under this section may 

include removal of a dam.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (e) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$50,000,000’’. 

SEC. 2021. SMALL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS. 

Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) 

is amended by striking ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$55,000,000’’. 

SEC. 2022. SMALL RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. 

Section 107(b) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 

577(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘$4,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$7,000,000’’. 

SEC. 2023. PROTECTION OF HIGHWAYS, BRIDGE APPROACHES, PUBLIC 

WORKS, AND NONPROFIT PUBLIC SERVICES. 

Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) 

is amended by striking ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,500,000’’. 
H. R. 1495—39 

SEC. 2024. MODIFICATION OF PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE 

QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 

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

and inserting ‘‘$40,000,000’’. 

SEC. 2025. REMEDIATION OF ABANDONED MINE SITES. 

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

inserting ‘‘$20,000,000’’. 

SEC. 2026. LEASING AUTHORITY. 

Section 4 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, 

and other purposes’’, approved December 22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d), 

is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘federally recognized Indian tribes and’’ 

before ‘‘Federal’’ the first place it appears; 

(2) by inserting ‘‘Indian tribes or’’ after ‘‘considerations, 

to such’’; and 

(3) by inserting ‘‘federally recognized Indian tribe’’ after 

‘‘That in any such lease or license to a’’. 

SEC. 2027. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—On the third Tuesday of January of each 

year beginning January 2008, the Chief of Engineers shall submit 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives a report on— 

(1) the expenditures by the Corps for the preceding fiscal 

year and estimated expenditures by the Corps for the current 

fiscal year; and 

(2) for projects and activities that are not scheduled for 

completion in the current fiscal year, the estimated expenditures by the Corps necessary in the following fiscal year for 

each project or activity to maintain the same level of effort 

being achieved in the current fiscal year. 

(b) CONTENTS.—In addition to the information described in 

subsection (a), the report shall contain a detailed accounting of 

the following information: 

(1) With respect to activities carried out with funding provided under the Construction appropriations account for the 

Secretary, information on— 

(A) projects currently under construction, including— 

(i) allocations to date; 

(ii) the number of years remaining to complete 

construction; 

(iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain 

that construction schedule; and 

(iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects 

to complete during the current fiscal year; and 

(B) projects for which there is a signed partnership 

agreement and completed planning, engineering, and 

design, including— 

(i) the number of years the project is expected 

to require for completion; and 

(ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that 

construction schedule. 
H. R. 1495—40 

(2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland 

and intracoastal waterways identified by section 206 of the 

Inland Waterways Revenue Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1804)— 

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

(B) the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance of locks and dams to ensure navigation without 

interruption; and 

(C) the actual expenditures to maintain each waterway. 

(3) With respect to activities carried out with funding provided under the Investigations appropriations account for the 

Secretary— 

(A) the number of active studies; 

(B) the number of completed studies not yet authorized 

for construction; 

(C) the number of initiated studies; and 

(D) the number of studies expected to be completed 

during the fiscal year. 

(4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received 

for interagency and international support activities under section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(33 U.S.C. 2323a). 

(5) Recreation fees and lease payments. 

(6) Hydropower and water storage receipts. 

(7) Deposits into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and 

the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. 

(8) Other revenues and fees collected by the Corps of Engineers. 

(9) With respect to permit applications and notifications, 

a list of individual permit applications and nationwide permit 

notifications, including— 

(A) the date on which each permit application is filed; 

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

(C) the date on which any permit application is withdrawn; and 

(D) the date on which the Corps of Engineers grants 

or denies each permit. 

(10) With respect to projects that are authorized but for 

which construction is not complete, a list of such projects for 

which no funds have been allocated for the 5 preceding fiscal 

years, including, for each project— 

(A) the authorization date; 

(B) the last allocation date; 

(C) the percentage of construction completed; 

(D) the estimated cost remaining until completion of 

the project; and 

(E) a brief explanation of the reasons for the delay. 

SEC. 2028. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 2361 of title 10, 

United States Code, the Secretary may provide assistance through 

contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants to— 

(1) the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, for 

establishment and operation of the Southeastern Water 

Resources Institute to study sustainable development and utilization of water resources in the southeastern United States; 
H. R. 1495—41 

(2) Lewis and Clark Community College, Illinois, for the 

Great Rivers National Research and Education Center 

(including facilities that have been or will be constructed at 

one or more locations in the vicinity of the confluence of the 

Illinois River, the Missouri River, and the Mississippi River), 

a collaborative effort of Lewis and Clark Community College, 

the University of Illinois, the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Sciences, and other entities, for 

the study of river ecology, developing watershed and river 

management strategies, and educating students and the public 

on river issues; and 

(3) the University of Texas at Dallas for support and operation of the International Center for Decision and Risk Analysis 

to study risk analysis and control methods for transboundary 

water resources management in the southwestern United 

States and other international water resources management 

problems. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection (a)(1) 

$2,000,000, to carry out subsection (a)(2) $2,000,000, and to carry 

out subsection (a)(3) $5,000,000. 

SEC. 2029. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CRITERIA FOR OPERATION AND 

MAINTENANCE OF HARBOR DREDGING PROJECTS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

(1) Insufficient maintenance dredging results in inefficient 

water transportation and harmful economic consequences. 

(2) The estimated dredging backlog at commercial harbors 

in the Great Lakes alone is 16,000,000 cubic yards. 

(3) Approximately two-thirds of all shipping in the United 

States either starts or finishes at small harbors. 

(4) Small harbors often have a greater proportional impact 

on local economies than do larger harbors. 

(5) Performance metrics can be valuable tools in the budget 

process for water resources projects. 

(6) The use of a single performance metric for water 

resources projects can result in a budget biased against small 

and rural communities. 

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that 

the operations and maintenance budget of the Corps of Engineers 

should reflect the use of all available economic data, rather than 

a single performance metric. 

SEC. 2030. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AUTHORITY. 

Section 234 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(33 U.S.C. 2323a) is amended— 

(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may engage in activities 

(including contracting) in support of other Federal agencies, international organizations, or foreign governments to address problems 

of national significance to the United States.’’; 

(2) in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘Secretary of State’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Department of State’’; and 

(3) in subsection (d)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘$250,000 for fiscal year 2001’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008’’; and 
H. R. 1495—42 

(B) by striking ‘‘or international organizations’’ and 

inserting ‘‘, international organizations, or foreign governments’’. 

SEC. 2031. WATER RESOURCES PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES. 

(a) NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING POLICY.—It is the 

policy of the United States that all water resources projects should 

reflect national priorities, encourage economic development, and 

protect the environment by— 

(1) seeking to maximize sustainable economic development; 

(2) seeking to avoid the unwise use of floodplains and 

flood-prone areas and minimizing adverse impacts and 

vulnerabilities in any case in which a floodplain or flood-prone 

area must be used; and 

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

(b) PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES.— 

(1) PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘‘principles and guidelines’’ means the principles and guidelines contained in the document prepared by 

the Water Resources Council pursuant to section 103 of the 

Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a–2), entitled 

‘‘Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for 

Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies’’, 

and dated March 10, 1983. 

(2) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue revisions, 

consistent with paragraph (3), to the principles and guidelines 

for use by the Secretary in the formulation, evaluation, and 

implementation of water resources projects. 

(3) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing revisions to the principles and guidelines under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 

evaluate the consistency of the principles and guidelines with, 

and ensure that the principles and guidelines address, the 

following: 

(A) The use of best available economic principles and 

analytical techniques, including techniques in risk and 

uncertainty analysis. 

(B) The assessment and incorporation of public safety 

in the formulation of alternatives and recommended plans. 

(C) Assessment methods that reflect the value of 

projects for low-income communities and projects that use 

nonstructural approaches to water resources development 

and management. 

(D) The assessment and evaluation of the interaction 

of a project with other water resources projects and programs within a region or watershed. 

(E) The use of contemporary water resources paradigms, including integrated water resources management 

and adaptive management. 

(F) Evaluation methods that ensure that water 

resources projects are justified by public benefits. 

(4) CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In carrying 

out paragraph (2), the Secretary shall— 
H. R. 1495—43 

(A) consult with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary 

of Transportation, the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary 

of Homeland Security, the National Academy of Sciences, 

and the Council on Environmental Quality; and 

(B) solicit and consider public and expert comments. 

(5) PUBLICATION.—The Secretary shall— 

(A) submit to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives copies of— 

(i) the revisions to the principles and guidelines 

for use by the Secretary; and 

(ii) an explanation of the intent of each revision, 

how each revision is consistent with this section, and 

the probable impact of each revision on water resources 

projects carried out by the Secretary; and 

(B) make the revisions to the principles and guidelines 

for use by the Secretary available to the public, including 

on the Internet. 

(6) EFFECT.—Subject to the requirements of this subsection, 

the principles and guidelines as revised under this subsection 

shall apply to water resources projects carried out by the Secretary instead of the principles and guidelines for such projects 

in effect on the day before date of enactment of this Act. 

(7) APPLICABILITY.—After the date of issuance of the revisions to the principles and guidelines, the revisions shall 

apply— 

(A) to all water resources projects carried out by the 

Secretary, other than projects for which the Secretary has 

commenced a feasibility study before the date of such 

issuance; 

(B) at the request of a non-Federal interest, to a water 

resources project for which the Secretary has commenced 

a feasibility study before the date of such issuance; and 

(C) to the reevaluation or modification of a water 

resources project, other than a reevaluation or modification 

that has been commenced by the Secretary before the date 

of such issuance. 

(8) EXISTING STUDIES.—Revisions to the principles and 

guidelines issued under paragraph (2) shall not affect the 

validity of any completed study of a water resources project. 

(9) RECOMMENDATION.—Upon completion of the revisions 

to the principles and guidelines for use by the Secretary, the 

Secretary shall make a recommendation to Congress as to 

the advisability of repealing subsections (a) and (b) of section 

80 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 

1962d–17). 

SEC. 2032. WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES REPORT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress 

a report describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage 

from flooding, including— 

(1) the risk to human life; 
H. R. 1495—44 

(2) the risk to property; and 

(3) the comparative risks faced by different regions of the 

United States. 

(b) INCLUSIONS.—The report under subsection (a) shall 

include— 

(1) an assessment of the extent to which programs in 

the United States relating to flooding address flood risk reduction priorities; 

(2) the extent to which those programs may be encouraging 

development and economic activity in flood-prone areas; 

(3) recommendations for improving those programs with 

respect to reducing and responding to flood risks; and 

(4) proposals for implementing the recommendations. 

SEC. 2033. PLANNING. 

(a) MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED IN PLANNING.—Section 904 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281) 

is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘Enhancing’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Enhancing’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) ASSESSMENTS.—For all feasibility reports for water 

resources projects completed after December 31, 2007, the Secretary 

shall assess whether— 

‘‘(1) the water resources project and each separable element 

is cost-effective; and 

‘‘(2) the water resources project complies with Federal, 

State, and local laws (including regulations) and public policies.’’. 

(b) PLANNING PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.—The Chief of Engineers— 

(1) shall adopt a risk analysis approach to project cost 

estimates for water resources projects; and 

(2) not later than one year after the date of enactment 

of this Act, shall— 

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

(B) submit to Congress a report that includes any 

recommended amendments to section 902 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280). 

(c) BENCHMARKS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 12 months after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall establish 

benchmarks for determining the length of time it should take 

to conduct a feasibility study for a water resources project 

and its associated review process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Chief 

of Engineers shall use such benchmarks as a management 

tool to make the feasibility study process more efficient in 

all districts of the Corps of Engineers. 

(2) BENCHMARK GOALS.—The Chief of Engineers shall 

establish, to the extent practicable, under paragraph (1) benchmark goals for completion of feasibility studies for water 

resources projects generally within 2 years. In the case of 

feasibility studies that the Chief of Engineers determines may 

require additional time based on the project type, size, cost, 
H. R. 1495—45 

or complexity, the benchmark goal for completion shall be generally within 4 years. 

(d) CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE

REDUCTION PROJECTS.—A feasibility study for a project for flood 

damage reduction shall include, as part of the calculation of benefits 

and costs— 

(1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding following 

completion of the proposed project; 

(2) a calculation of the residual risk of loss of human 

life and residual risk to human safety following completion 

of the proposed project; 

(3) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts 

of the proposed project; and 

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

(e) CENTERS OF SPECIALIZED PLANNING EXPERTISE.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary may establish centers 

of expertise to provide specialized planning expertise for water 

resources projects to be carried out by the Secretary in order 

to enhance and supplement the capabilities of the districts 

of the Corps of Engineers. 

(2) DUTIES.—A center of expertise established under this 

subsection shall— 

(A) provide technical and managerial assistance to district commanders of the Corps of Engineers for project 

planning, development, and implementation; 

(B) provide agency peer reviews of new major scientific, 

engineering, or economic methods, models, or analyses that 

will be used to support decisions of the Secretary with 

respect to feasibility studies for water resources projects; 

(C) provide support for independent peer review panels 

under section 2034; and 

(D) carry out such other duties as are prescribed by 

the Secretary. 

(f) COMPLETION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS REPORTS.— 

(1) ALTERNATIVES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Feasibility and other studies and 

assessments for a water resources project shall include 

recommendations for alternatives— 

(i) that, as determined in coordination with the 

non-Federal interest for the project, promote integrated 

water resources management; and 

(ii) for which the non-Federal interest is willing 

to provide the non-Federal share for the studies or 

assessments. 

(B) CONSTRAINTS.—The alternatives contained in 

studies and assessments described in subparagraph (A) 

shall not be constrained by budgetary or other policy. 

(C) REPORTS OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS.—The reports 

of the Chief of Engineers shall identify any recommendation 

that is not the best technical solution to water resource 

needs and problems and the reason for the deviation. 

(2) REPORT COMPLETION.—The completion of a report of 

the Chief of Engineers for a water resources project— 
H. R. 1495—46 

(A) shall not be delayed while consideration is being 

given to potential changes in policy or priority for project 

consideration; and 

(B) shall be submitted, on completion, to— 

(i) the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works of the Senate; and 

(ii) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives. 

(g) COMPLETION REVIEW.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), not 

later than 120 days after the date of completion of a report 

of the Chief of Engineers that recommends to Congress a water 

resources project, the Secretary shall— 

(A) review the report; and 

(B) provide any recommendations of the Secretary 

regarding the water resources project to Congress. 

(2) PRIOR REPORTS.—Not later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, with respect to any report of 

the Chief of Engineers recommending a water resources project 

that is complete prior to the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary shall complete review of, and provide recommendations to Congress for, the report in accordance with 

paragraph (1). 

SEC. 2034. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW. 

(a) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Project studies shall be subject to a peer 

review by an independent panel of experts as determined under 

this section. 

(2) SCOPE.—The peer review may include a review of the 

economic and environmental assumptions and projections, 

project evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, 

methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in 

evaluation of economic or environmental impacts of proposed 

projects, and any biological opinions of the project study. 

(3) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO PEER REVIEW.— (A) MANDATORY.—A project study shall be subject to 

peer review under paragraph (1) if— 

(i) the project has an estimated total cost of more than $45,000,000, including mitigation costs, and is 

not determined by the Chief of Engineers to be exempt 

from peer review under paragraph (6); 

(ii) the Governor of an affected State requests a 

peer review by an independent panel of experts; or 

(iii) the Chief of Engineers determines that the 

project study is controversial considering the factors 

set forth in paragraph (4). 

(B) DISCRETIONARY.— 

(i) AGENCY REQUEST.—A project study shall be 

considered by the Chief of Engineers for peer review 

under this section if the head of a Federal or State 

agency charged with reviewing the project study determines that the project is likely to have a significant 

adverse impact on environmental, cultural, or other 

resources under the jurisdiction of the agency after 

implementation of proposed mitigation plans and 
H. R. 1495—47 

requests a peer review by an independent panel of 

experts. 

(ii) DEADLINE FOR DECISION.—A decision of the 

Chief of Engineers under this subparagraph whether 

to conduct a peer review shall be made within 21 

days of the date of receipt of the request by the head 

of the Federal or State agency under clause (i). 

(iii) REASONS FOR NOT CONDUCTING PEER REVIEW.— 

If the Chief of Engineers decides not to conduct a 

peer review following a request under clause (i), the 

Chief shall make publicly available, including on the 

Internet, the reasons for not conducting the peer 

review. 

(iv) APPEAL TO CHAIRMAN OF COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.—A decision by the Chief of Engineers 

not to conduct a peer review following a request under 

clause (i) shall be subject to appeal by a person referred 

to in clause (i) to the Chairman of the Council on 

Environmental Quality if such appeal is made within 

the 30-day period following the date of the decision 

being made available under clause (iii). A decision 

of the Chairman on an appeal under this clause shall 

be made within 30 days of the date of the appeal. 

(4) FACTORS TO CONSIDER.—In determining whether a 

project study is controversial under paragraph (3)(A)(iii), the 

Chief of Engineers shall consider if— 

(A) there is a significant public dispute as to the size, 

nature, or effects of the project; or 

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

(5) PROJECT STUDIES EXCLUDED FROM PEER REVIEW.—The 

Chief of Engineers may exclude a project study from peer 

review under paragraph (1)— 

(A) if the project study does not include an environmental impact statement and is a project study subject 

to peer review under paragraph (3)(A)(i) that the Chief 

of Engineers determines— 

(i) is not controversial; 

(ii) has no more than negligible adverse impacts 

on scarce or unique cultural, historic, or tribal 

resources; 

(iii) has no substantial adverse impacts on fish 

and wildlife species and their habitat prior to the 

implementation of mitigation measures; and 

(iv) has, before implementation of mitigation measures, no more than a negligible adverse impact on 

a species listed as endangered or threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) or the critical habitat of such species 

designated under such Act; 

(B) if the project study— 

(i) involves only the rehabilitation or replacement 

of existing hydropower turbines, lock structures, or 

flood control gates within the same footprint and for 

the same purpose as an existing water resources 

project; 
H. R. 1495—48 

(ii) is for an activity for which there is ample 

experience within the Corps of Engineers and industry 

to treat the activity as being routine; and 

(iii) has minimal life safety risk; or 

(C) if the project study does not include an environmental impact statement and is a project study pursued 

under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 

U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 

28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g), section 14 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), section 107(a) of the River 

and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), section 3 of 

the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation 

in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), section 

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

section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the 

construction, repair, and preservation of certain public 

works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, 

approved March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 1135 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2309a), or section 206 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330). 

(6) DETERMINATION OF TOTAL COST.—For purposes of determining the estimated total cost of a project under paragraph 

(3)(A), the total cost shall be based upon the reasonable estimates of the Chief of Engineers at the completion of the reconnaissance study for the project. If the reasonable estimate 

of total costs is subsequently determined to be in excess of 

the amount in paragraph (3)(A), the Chief of Engineers shall 

make a determination whether a project study is required to 

be reviewed under this section. 

(b) TIMING OF PEER REVIEW.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Chief of Engineers shall determine 

the timing of a peer review of a project study under subsection 

(a). In all cases, the peer review shall occur during the period 

beginning on the date of the signing of the feasibility costsharing agreement for the study and ending on the date established under subsection (e)(1)(A) for the peer review and shall 

be accomplished concurrent with the conducting of the project 

study. 

(2) FACTORS TO CONSIDER.—In any case in which the Chief 

of Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a project study, 

the Chief of Engineers shall consider, at a minimum, whether 

to initiate a peer review at the time that— 

(A) the without-project conditions are identified; 

(B) the array of alternatives to be considered are identified; and 

(C) the preferred alternative is identified. 

(3) LIMITATION ON MULTIPLE PEER REVIEW.—Nothing in 

this subsection shall be construed to require the Chief of Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a project study. 

(c) ESTABLISHMENT OF PANELS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For each project study subject to peer 

review under subsection (a), as soon as practicable after the 

Chief of Engineers determines that a project study will be 

subject to peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall contract 

with the National Academy of Sciences or a similar independent 
H. R. 1495—49 

scientific and technical advisory organization or an eligible 

organization to establish a panel of experts to conduct a peer 

review for the project study. 

(2) MEMBERSHIP.—A panel of experts established for a 

project study under this section shall be composed of independent experts who represent a balance of areas of expertise 

suitable for the review being conducted. 

(3) LIMITATION ON APPOINTMENTS.—The National Academy 

of Sciences or any other organization the Chief of Engineers 

contracts with under paragraph (1) to establish a panel of 

experts shall apply the National Academy of Science’s policy 

for selecting committee members to ensure that members 

selected for the panel of experts have no conflict with the 

project being reviewed. 

(4) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—Upon identification of 

a project study for peer review under this section, but prior 

to initiation of the review, the Chief of Engineers shall notify 

the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of Representatives of the review. 

(d) DUTIES OF PANELS.—A panel of experts established for 

a peer review for a project study under this section shall— 

(1) conduct the peer review for the project study; 

(2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic, 

engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses 

used by the Chief of Engineers; 

(3) receive from the Chief of Engineers the public written 

and oral comments provided to the Chief of Engineers; 

(4) provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief 

of Engineers throughout the development of the project study, 

as requested; and 

(5) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report containing the panel’s economic, engineering, and environmental 

analysis of the project study, including the panel’s assessment 

of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic, engineering, 

and environmental methods, models, and analyses used by 

the Chief of Engineers, to accompany the publication of the 

report of the Chief of Engineers for the project. 

(e) DURATION OF PROJECT STUDY PEER REVIEWS.— 

(1) DEADLINE.—A panel of experts established under this 

section shall— 

(A) complete its peer review under this section for 

a project study and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection (d)(5) not more than 60 days after 

the last day of the public comment period for the draft 

project study, or, if the Chief of Engineers determines 

that a longer period of time is necessary, such period of 

time determined necessary by the Chief of Engineers; and 

(B) terminate on the date of initiation of the State 

and agency review required by the first section of the 

Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887). 

(2) FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—If a panel of experts 

does not complete its peer review of a project study under 

this section and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers 

under subsection (d)(5) on or before the deadline established 

by paragraph (1) for the peer review, the Chief of Engineers 

shall complete the project study without delay. 
H. R. 1495—50 

(f) RECOMMENDATIONS OF PANEL.— 

(1) CONSIDERATION BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS.—After 

receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 

under this section and before entering a final record of decision 

for the project, the Chief of Engineers shall consider any recommendations contained in the report and prepare a written 

response for any recommendations adopted or not adopted. 

(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY AND TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.— 

After receiving a report on a project study from a panel of 

experts under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall— 

(A) make a copy of the report and any written response 

of the Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained 

in the report available to the public by electronic means, 

including the Internet; and 

(B) transmit to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a copy of the report, together with any such 

written response, on the date of a final report of the Chief 

of Engineers or other final decision document for the project 

study. 

(g) COSTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The costs of a panel of experts established 

for a peer review under this section— 

(A) shall be a Federal expense; and 

(B) shall not exceed $500,000. 

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

the Chief of Engineers determines appropriate. 

(h) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to— 

(1) project studies initiated during the 2-year period preceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the 

array of alternatives to be considered has not been identified; 

and 

(2) project studies initiated during the period beginning 

on such date of enactment and ending 7 years after such 

date of enactment. 

(i) REPORTS.— 

(1) INITIAL REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

of enactment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 

Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the 

implementation of this section. 

(2) ADDITIONAL REPORT.—Not later than 6 years after the 

date of enactment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall 

update the report under paragraph (1) taking into account 

any further information on implementation of this section and 

submit such updated report to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives. 

(j) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a peer review panel 

established under this section. 

(k) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section shall be construed 

to affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers to cause or conduct 
H. R. 1495—51 

a peer review of a water resources project existing on the date 

of enactment of this section. 

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

(1) PROJECT STUDY.—The term ‘‘project study’’ means— 

(A) a feasibility study or reevaluation study for a water 

resources project, including the environmental impact 

statement prepared for the study; and 

(B) any other study associated with a modification 

of a water resources project that includes an environmental 

impact statement, including the environmental impact 

statement prepared for the study. 

(2) AFFECTED STATE.—The term ‘‘affected State’’, as used 

with respect to a water resources project, means a State all 

or a portion of which is within the drainage basin in which 

the project is or would be located and would be economically 

or environmentally affected as a consequence of the project. 

(3) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘‘eligible organization’’ means an organization that— 

(A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt from 

Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986; 

(B) is independent; 

(C) is free from conflicts of interest; 

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

(E) has experience in establishing and administering 

peer review panels. 

(4) TOTAL COST.—The term ‘‘total cost’’, as used with respect 

to a water resources project, means the cost of construction 

(including planning and designing) of the project. In the case 

of a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction or flood 

damage reduction that includes periodic nourishment over the 

life of the project, the term includes the total cost of the 

nourishment. 

SEC. 2035. SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW. 

(a) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.—The 

Chief of Engineers shall ensure that the design and construction 

activities for hurricane and storm damage reduction and flood damage reduction projects are reviewed by independent experts under 

this section if the Chief of Engineers determines that a review 

by independent experts is necessary to assure public health, safety, 

and welfare. 

(b) FACTORS.—In determining whether a review of design and 

construction of a project is necessary under this section, the Chief 

of Engineers shall consider whether— 

(1) the failure of the project would pose a significant threat 

to human life; 

(2) the project involves the use of innovative materials 

or techniques; 

(3) the project design lacks redundancy; or 

(4) the project has a unique construction sequencing or 

a reduced or overlapping design construction schedule. 

(c) SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.— (1) INITIATION OF REVIEW.—At the appropriate point in 

the development of detailed engineering and design specifications for each water resources project subject to review under 
H. R. 1495—52 

this section, the Chief of Engineers shall initiate a safety assurance review by independent experts on the design and construction activities for the project. 

(2) SELECTION OF REVIEWERS.—A safety assurance review 

under this section shall include participation by experts selected 

by the Chief of Engineers from among individuals who are 

distinguished experts in engineering, hydrology, or other appropriate disciplines. The Chief of Engineers shall apply the 

National Academy of Science’s policy for selecting reviewers 

to ensure that reviewers have no conflict of interest with the 

project being reviewed. 

(3) COMPENSATION.—An individual serving as an independent reviewer under this section shall be compensated at 

a rate of pay to be determined by the Secretary and shall 

be allowed travel expenses. 

(d) SCOPE OF SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEWS.—A safety assurance 

review under this section shall include a review of the design 

and construction activities prior to the initiation of physical 

construction and periodically thereafter until construction activities 

are completed on a regular schedule sufficient to inform the Chief 

of Engineers on the adequacy, appropriateness, and acceptability 

of the design and construction activities for the purpose of assuring 

public health, safety, and welfare. The Chief of Engineers shall 

ensure that reviews under this section do not create any unnecessary delays in design and construction activities. 

(e) SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW RECORD.—The written recommendations of a reviewer or panel of reviewers under this section 

and the responses of the Chief of Engineers shall be available 

to the public, including through electronic means on the Internet. 

(f) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to any project in 

design or under construction on the date of enactment of this 

Act and to any project with respect to which design or construction 

is initiated during the period beginning on the date of enactment 

of this Act and ending 7 years after such date of enactment. 

SEC. 2036. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND WETLANDS 

LOSSES. 

(a) MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.—Section 906(d) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) 

is amended— 

(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘to 

the Congress’’ and inserting ‘‘to Congress in any report, and 

shall not select a project alternative in any report,’’; 

(2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) by inserting 

‘‘, and other habitat types are mitigated to not less than inkind conditions’’ after ‘‘mitigated in-kind’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—To mitigate losses to flood damage 

reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from 

a water resources project, the Secretary shall ensure that 

the mitigation plan for each water resources project complies with the mitigation standards and policies established 

pursuant to the regulatory programs administered by the 

Secretary. 
H. R. 1495—53 

‘‘(B) INCLUSIONS.—A specific mitigation plan for a 

water resources project under paragraph (1) shall include, 

at a minimum— 

‘‘(i) a plan for monitoring the implementation and 

ecological success of each mitigation measure, including 

the cost and duration of any monitoring, and, to the 

extent practicable, a designation of the entities that 

will be responsible for the monitoring; 

‘‘(ii) the criteria for ecological success by which 

the mitigation will be evaluated and determined to 

be successful based on replacement of lost functions 

and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and 

vegetative characteristics; 

‘‘(iii) a description of the land and interests in 

land to be acquired for the mitigation plan and the 

basis for a determination that the land and interests 

are available for acquisition; 

‘‘(iv) a description of— 

‘‘(I) the types and amount of restoration activities to be conducted; 

‘‘(II) the physical action to be undertaken to 

achieve the mitigation objectives within the watershed in which such losses occur and, in any case 

in which the mitigation will occur outside the 

watershed, a detailed explanation for undertaking 

the mitigation outside the watershed; and 

‘‘(III) the functions and values that will result 

from the mitigation plan; and 

‘‘(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions 

in cases in which monitoring demonstrates that mitigation measures are not achieving ecological success in 

accordance with criteria under clause (ii). 

‘‘(C) RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING.—In any case in 

which it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan 

for a water resources project the entity responsible for 

monitoring at the time of a final report of the Chief of 

Engineers or other final decision document for the project, 

such entity shall be identified in the partnership agreement 

entered into with the non-Federal interest under section 

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

‘‘(4) DETERMINATION OF SUCCESS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A mitigation plan under this subsection shall be considered to be successful at the time 

at which the criteria under paragraph (3)(B)(ii) are 

achieved under the plan, as determined by monitoring 

under paragraph (3)(B)(i). 

‘‘(B) CONSULTATION.—In determining whether a mitigation plan is successful under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consult annually with appropriate Federal 

agencies and each State in which the applicable project 

is located on at least the following: 

‘‘(i) The ecological success of the mitigation as of 

the date on which the report is submitted. 

‘‘(ii) The likelihood that the mitigation will achieve 

ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan. 

‘‘(iii) The projected timeline for achieving that success. 
H. R. 1495—54 

‘‘(iv) Any recommendations for improving the likelihood of success. 

‘‘(5) MONITORING.—Mitigation monitoring shall continue 

until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation has met 

the ecological success criteria.’’. 

(b) STATUS REPORT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Concurrent with the President’s submission to Congress of the President’s request for appropriations 

for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary 

shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on 

the status of construction of projects that require mitigation 

under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283), the status of such mitigation, and 

the results of the consultation under subsection (d)(4)(B) of 

such section. 

(2) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—The status report shall include 

the status of— 

(A) all projects that are under construction as of the 

date of the report; 

(B) all projects for which the President requests 

funding for the next fiscal year; and 

(C) all projects that have undergone or completed 

construction, but have not completed the mitigation 

required under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. 

(3) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.—The Secretary shall 

make information contained in the status report available to 

the public, including on the Internet. 

(c) WETLANDS MITIGATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out a water resources project 

that involves wetlands mitigation and that has impacts that 

occur within the service area of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, where appropriate, shall first consider the use of the 

mitigation bank if the bank contains sufficient available credits 

to offset the impact and the bank is approved in accordance 

with the Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and 

Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605) or other 

applicable Federal law (including regulations). 

(2) SERVICE AREA.—To the maximum extent practicable, 

the service area of the mitigation bank under paragraph (1) 

shall be in the same watershed as the affected habitat. 

(3) RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Purchase of credits from a mitigation 

bank for a water resources project relieves the Secretary 

and the non-Federal interest from responsibility for monitoring or demonstrating mitigation success. 

(B) APPLICABILITY.—The relief of responsibility under 

subparagraph (A) applies only in any case in which the 

Secretary determines that monitoring of mitigation success 

is being conducted by the Secretary or by the owner or 

operator of the mitigation bank. 

SEC. 2037. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended to read as follows: 
H. R. 1495—55 

‘‘SEC. 204. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.— ‘‘(1) SEDIMENT USE.—For sediment obtained through the 

construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources project, the Secretary shall develop, at 

Federal expense, regional sediment management plans and 

carry out projects at locations identified in plans developed 

under this section, or identified jointly by the non-Federal 

interest and the Secretary, for use in the construction, repair, 

modification, or rehabilitation of projects associated with Federal water resources projects for purposes listed in paragraph 

(3). 

‘‘(2) COOPERATION.—The Secretary shall develop plans 

under this subsection in cooperation with the appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. 

‘‘(3) PURPOSES FOR SEDIMENT USE IN PROJECTS.—The purposes of using sediment for the construction, repair, modification, or rehabilitation of Federal water resources projects are— 

‘‘(A) to reduce storm damage to property; 

‘‘(B) to protect, restore, and create aquatic and ecologically related habitats, including wetlands; and 

‘‘(C) to transport and place suitable sediment. 

‘‘(b) SECRETARIAL FINDINGS.—Subject to subsection (c), projects 

carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out in any case 

in which the Secretary finds that— 

‘‘(1) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of 

the project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify the cost 

of the project; and 

‘‘(2) the project will not result in environmental degradation. 

‘‘(c) DETERMINATION OF PROJECT COSTS.— 

‘‘(1) COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Costs associated with construction 

of a project under this section or identified in a regional 

sediment management plan shall be limited solely to 

construction costs that are in excess of the costs necessary 

to carry out the dredging for construction, operation, or 

maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources 

project in the most cost-effective way, consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental criteria. 

‘‘(B) COST SHARING.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause 

(ii), the non-Federal share of the construction cost of 

a project under this section shall be determined as 

provided in subsections (a) through (d) of section 103 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2213). 

‘‘(ii) SPECIAL RULE.—Construction of a project 

under this section for one or more of the purposes 

of protection, restoration, or creation of aquatic and 

ecologically related habitat, the cost of which does not 

exceed $750,000 and which is located in a disadvantaged community as determined by the Secretary, may 

be carried out at Federal expense. 

‘‘(C) TOTAL COST.—The total Federal costs associated 

with construction of a project under this section may not 

exceed $5,000,000. 
H. R. 1495—56 

‘‘(2) OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND

REHABILITATION COSTS.—Operation, maintenance, replacement, 

and rehabilitation costs associated with a project under this 

section are the responsibility of the non-Federal interest. 

‘‘(d) SELECTION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL METHOD FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In developing and carrying out a Federal 

water resources project involving the disposal of dredged material, the Secretary may select, with the consent of the nonFederal interest, a disposal method that is not the least cost 

option if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs 

of the disposal method are reasonable in relation to the environmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the creation of wetlands and control 

of shoreline erosion. 

‘‘(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined in accordance with subsection 

(c). 

‘‘(e) STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS.—The Secretary may— 

‘‘(1) cooperate with any State in the preparation of a comprehensive State or regional sediment management plan within 

the boundaries of the State; 

‘‘(2) encourage State participation in the implementation 

of the plan; and 

‘‘(3) submit to Congress reports and recommendations with 

respect to appropriate Federal participation in carrying out 

the plan. 

‘‘(f) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary 

shall give priority to a regional sediment management project in 

the vicinity of each of the following: 

‘‘(1) Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas. 

‘‘(2) Fletcher Cove, California. 

‘‘(3) Egmont Key, Florida. 

‘‘(4) Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana. 

‘‘(5) Delaware River Estuary, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(6) Fire Island Inlet, Suffolk County, New York. 

‘‘(7) Smith Point Park Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 

Memorial, Brookhaven, New York. 

‘‘(8) Morehead City, North Carolina. 

‘‘(9) Toledo Harbor, Lucas County, Ohio. 

‘‘(10) Galveston Bay, Texas. 

‘‘(11) Benson Beach, Washington. 

‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 per fiscal 

year, of which not more than $5,000,000 per fiscal year may be 

used for the development of regional sediment management plans 

authorized by subsection (e) and of which not more than $3,000,000 

per fiscal year may be used for construction of projects to which 

subsection (c)(1)(B)(ii) applies. Such funds shall remain available 

until expended.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING REPEAL.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 145 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed. 

(2) EXISTING PROJECTS.—The Secretary may complete any 

project being carried out under section 145 of the Water 
H. R. 1495—57 

Resources Development Act of 1976 on the day before the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 2038. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT 

PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores 

of publicly owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 

426g), is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 3. STORM AND HURRICANE RESTORATION AND IMPACT MINIMIZATION PROGRAM. 

‘‘(a) CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL SHORE AND BEACH RESTORATION

AND PROTECTION PROJECTS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a program 

for the construction of small shore and beach restoration and 

protection projects not specifically authorized by Congress that 

otherwise comply with the first section of this Act if the Secretary determines that such construction is advisable. 

‘‘(2) LOCAL COOPERATION.—The local cooperation requirement of the first section of this Act shall apply to a project 

under this section. 

‘‘(3) COMPLETENESS.—A project under this subsection— 

‘‘(A) shall be complete; and 

‘‘(B) shall not commit the United States to any additional improvement to ensure the successful operation of 

the project; except for participation in periodic beach 

nourishment in accordance with— 

‘‘(i) the first section of this Act; and 

‘‘(ii) the procedure for projects authorized after 

submission of a survey report. 

‘‘(b) NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT

AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct under the 

program authorized by subsection (a) a national shoreline erosion control development and demonstration program (referred 

to in this section as the ‘demonstration program’). 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The demonstration program shall 

include provisions for— 

‘‘(i) projects consisting of planning, design, 

construction, and monitoring of prototype engineered 

and native and naturalized vegetative shoreline erosion 

control devices and methods; 

‘‘(ii) monitoring of the applicable prototypes; 

‘‘(iii) detailed engineering and environmental 

reports on the results of each project carried out under 

the demonstraton program; and 

‘‘(iv) technology transfers, as appropriate, to private property owners, State and local entities, nonprofit educational institutions, and nongovernmental 

organizations. 

‘‘(B) DETERMINATION OF FEASIBILITY.—A project under 

the demonstration program shall not be carried out until 

the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

‘‘(C) EMPHASIS.—A project under the demonstration 

program shall emphasize, to the maximum extent practicable— 
H. R. 1495—58 

‘‘(i) the development and demonstration of innovative technologies; 

‘‘(ii) efficient designs to prevent erosion at a shoreline site, taking into account the lifecycle cost of the 

design, including cleanup, maintenance, and amortization; 

‘‘(iii) new and enhanced shore protection project 

design and project formulation tools the purposes of 

which are to improve the physical performance, and 

lower the lifecycle costs, of the projects; 

‘‘(iv) natural designs, including the use of native 

and naturalized vegetation or temporary structures 

that minimize permanent structural alterations to the 

shoreline; 

‘‘(v) the avoidance of negative impacts to adjacent 

shorefront communities; 

‘‘(vi) in areas with substantial residential or 

commercial interests located adjacent to the shoreline, 

designs that do not impair the aesthetic appeal of 

the interests; 

‘‘(vii) the potential for long-term protection 

afforded by the technology; and 

‘‘(viii) recommendations developed from evaluations of the program established under the Shoreline 

Erosion Control Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 

1962–5 note), including— 

‘‘(I) adequate consideration of the subgrade; 

‘‘(II) proper filtration; 

‘‘(III) durable components; 

‘‘(IV) adequate connection between units; and 

‘‘(V) consideration of additional relevant 

information. 

‘‘(D) SITES.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Each project under the demonstration program may be carried out at— 

‘‘(I) a privately owned site with substantial 

public access; or 

‘‘(II) a publicly owned site on open coast or 

in tidal waters. 

‘‘(ii) SELECTION.—The Secretary shall develop criteria for the selection of sites for projects under the 

demonstration program, including criteria based on— 

‘‘(I) a variety of geographic and climatic conditions; 

‘‘(II) the size of the population that is 

dependent on the beaches for recreation or the 

protection of private property or public infrastructure; 

‘‘(III) the rate of erosion; 

‘‘(IV) significant natural resources or habitats 

and environmentally sensitive areas; and 

‘‘(V) significant threatened historic structures 

or landmarks. 

‘‘(3) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall carry out the 

demonstration program in consultation with— 
H. R. 1495—59 

‘‘(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, particularly with 

respect to native and naturalized vegetative means of preventing and controlling shoreline erosion; 

‘‘(B) Federal, State, and local agencies; 

‘‘(C) private organizations; 

‘‘(D) the Coastal Engineering Research Center established by the first section of Public Law 88–172 (33 U.S.C. 

426–1); and 

‘‘(E) applicable university research facilities. 

‘‘(4) COMPLETION OF DEMONSTRATION.—After carrying out 

the initial construction and evaluation of the performance and 

cost of a project under the demonstration program, the Secretary may— 

‘‘(A) amend, at the request of a non-Federal interest 

of the project, the partnership agreement for a federally 

authorized shore protection project in existence on the date 

on which initial construction of the project under the demonstration program is complete to incorporate the project 

constructed under the demonstration program as a feature 

of the shore protection project, with the future cost sharing 

of the project constructed under the demonstration program 

to be determined by the project purposes of the shore 

protection project; or 

‘‘(B) transfer all interest in and responsibility for the 

completed project constructed under the demonstration program to a non-Federal interest or another Federal agency. 

‘‘(5) AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may enter into a partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest or a cooperative 

agreement with the head of another Federal agency under 

the demonstration program— 

‘‘(A) to share the costs of construction, operation, 

maintenance, and monitoring of a project under the demonstration program; 

‘‘(B) to share the costs of removing the project, or 

element of the project if the Secretary determines that 

the project or element of the project is detrimental to 

public or private property, public infrastructure, or public 

safety; or 

‘‘(C) to specify ownership of the completed project if 

the Secretary determines that the completed project will 

not be part of a Corps of Engineers project. 

‘‘(6) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2008, and every 

3 years thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and submit 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 

Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report describing— 

‘‘(A) the activities carried out and accomplishments 

made under the demonstration program since the previous 

report under this paragraph; and 

‘‘(B) any recommendations of the Secretary relating 

to the program. 

‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 

may expend, from any appropriations made available to the 

Secretary for the purpose of carrying out civil works, not more 

than $30,000,000 during any fiscal year to pay the Federal 

share of the costs of construction of small shore and beach 
H. R. 1495—60 

restoration and protection projects or small projects under this 

section. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—The total amount expended for a project 

under this section shall— 

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

by the Secretary; and 

‘‘(B) be not more than $5,000,000.’’. 

(b) REPEAL.—Section 5 the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing 

Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly 

owned property’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h), is 

repealed. 

SEC. 2039. MONITORING ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In conducting a feasibility study for a project 

(or a component of a project) for ecosystem restoration, the Secretary 

shall ensure that the recommended project includes, as an integral 

part of the project, a plan for monitoring the success of the ecosystem restoration. 

(b) MONITORING PLAN.—The monitoring plan shall— 

(1) include a description of the monitoring activities to 

be carried out, the criteria for ecosystem restoration success, 

and the estimated cost and duration of the monitoring; and 

(2) specify that the monitoring shall continue until such 

time as the Secretary determines that the criteria for ecosystem 

restoration success will be met. 

(c) COST SHARE.—For a period of 10 years from completion 

of construction of a project (or a component of a project) for ecosystem restoration, the Secretary shall consider the cost of carrying 

out the monitoring as a project cost. If the monitoring plan under 

subsection (b) requires monitoring beyond the 10-year period, the 

cost of monitoring shall be a non-Federal responsibility. 

SEC. 2040. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement a program 

to allow electronic submission of permit applications for permits 

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary. 

(b) LIMITATIONS.—This section does not preclude the submission 

of a physical copy. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

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

SEC. 2041. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION. 

(a) PROJECT TRACKING.—The Secretary shall assign a unique 

tracking number to each water resources project under the jurisdiction of the Secretary to be used by each Federal agency throughout 

the life of the project. 

(b) REPORT REPOSITORY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide to the Library 

of Congress a copy of each final feasibility study, final environmental impact statement, final reevaluation report, record of 

decision, and report to Congress prepared by the Corps of 

Engineers. 

(2) AVAILABILITY TO PUBLIC.—Each document described in 

paragraph (1) shall be made available to the public, and an 
H. R. 1495—61 

electronic copy of each document shall be made permanently 

available to the public through the Internet. 

SEC. 2042. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. 

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

2252–2254), are repealed. 

SEC. 2043. STUDIES AND REPORTS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS. 

(a) STUDIES.— (1) COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—Section 105(a) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) DETAILED PROJECT REPORTS.—The requirements of this 

subsection that apply to a feasibility study also shall apply 

to a study that results in a detailed project report, except 

that— 

‘‘(A) the first $100,000 of the costs of a study that 

results in a detailed project report shall be a Federal 

expense; and 

‘‘(B) paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply to such a 

study.’’. 

(2) PLANNING AND ENGINEERING.—Section 105(b) of such 

Act (33 U.S.C. 2215(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘authorized 

by this Act’’. 

(3) DEFINITIONS.—Section 105 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2215) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 

apply: 

‘‘(1) DETAILED PROJECT REPORT.—The term ‘detailed project 

report’ means a report for a project not specifically authorized 

by Congress in law or otherwise that determines the feasibility 

of the project with a level of detail appropriate to the scope 

and complexity of the recommended solution and sufficient 

to proceed directly to the preparation of contract plans and 

specifications. The term includes any associated environmental 

impact statement and mitigation plan. For a project for which 

the Federal cost does not exceed $1,000,000, the term includes 

a planning and design analysis document. 

‘‘(2) FEASIBILITY STUDY.—The term ‘feasibility study’ means 

a study that results in a feasibility report under section 905, 

and any associated environmental impact statement and mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water 

resources project. The term includes a study that results in 

a project implementation report prepared under title VI of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680– 

2694), a general reevaluation report, and a limited reevaluation 

report.’’. 

(b) REPORTS.— (1) PREPARATION.—Section 905(a) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a)) is amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘(a) In the case of any’’ and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(a) PREPARATION OF REPORTS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘the Secretary, the Secretary shall’’ 

and inserting ‘‘the Secretary that results in recommendations concerning a project or the operation of a project 
H. R. 1495—62 

and that requires specific authorization by Congress in 

law or otherwise, the Secretary shall perform a reconnaissance study and’’; 

(C) by striking ‘‘Such feasibility report’’ and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(2) CONTENTS OF FEASIBILITY REPORTS.—A feasibility 

report’’; 

(D) by striking ‘‘The feasibility report’’ and inserting 

‘‘A feasibility report’’; and 

(E) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 

following: 

‘‘(3) APPLICABILITY.—This subsection shall not apply to— 

‘‘(A) any study with respect to which a report has 

been submitted to Congress before the date of enactment 

of this Act; 

‘‘(B) any study for a project, which project is authorized 

for construction by this Act and is not subject to section 

903(b); 

‘‘(C) any study for a project which does not require 

specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise; 

and 

‘‘(D) general studies not intended to lead to recommendation of a specific water resources project. 

‘‘(4) FEASIBILITY REPORT DEFINED.—In this subsection, the 

term ‘feasibility report’ means each feasibility report, and any 

associated environmental impact statement and mitigation 

plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources 

project. The term includes a project implementation report prepared under title VI of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680–2694), a general reevaluation report, 

and a limited reevaluation report.’’. 

(2) PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.—Section 905 of such Act is further amended— 

(A) in subsection (b) by inserting ‘‘RECONNAISSANCE

STUDIES.—’’ before ‘‘Before initiating’’; 

(B) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as 

subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively; 

(C) by inserting after subsection (b) the following: 

‘‘(c) PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.— 

In the case of any water resources project-related study authorized 

to be undertaken by the Secretary without specific authorization 

by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary shall prepare a 

detailed project report.’’; 

(D) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated) by inserting 

‘‘INDIAN TRIBES.—’’ before ‘‘For purposes of’’; and 

(E) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated) by inserting 

‘‘STANDARD AND UNIFORM PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES.— 

’’ before ‘‘The Secretary shall’’. 

SEC. 2044. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND 

LOCAL ACTIONS. 

(a) NOTICE OF INTENT.—Upon request of the non-Federal 

interest in the form of a written notice of intent to construct 

or modify a non-Federal water supply, wastewater infrastructure, 
H. R. 1495—63 

flood damage reduction, storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, or navigation project that requires the approval of the Secretary, the Secretary shall initiate, subject to subsection (c), procedures to establish a schedule for consolidating Federal, State, and 

local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project 

reviews, and issuance of all permits for the construction or modification of the project. All States and Indian tribes having jurisdiction 

over the proposed project shall be invited by the Secretary, but 

shall not be required, to participate in carrying out this section 

with respect to the project. 

(b) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall seek, to the extent 

practicable, to consolidate hearing and comment periods, procedures 

for data collection and report preparation, and the environmental 

review and permitting processes associated with the project and 

related activities. The Secretary shall notify, to the extent possible, 

the non-Federal interest of its responsibilities for data development 

and information that may be necessary to process each permit 

required for the project, including a schedule when the information 

and data should be provided to the appropriate Federal, State, 

or local agency or Indian tribe. 

(c) COSTS OF COORDINATION.—The costs incurred by the Secretary to establish and carry out a schedule to consolidate Federal, 

State, and local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, project reviews, and permit issuance for a project under 

this section shall be paid by the non-Federal interest. 

(d) REPORT ON TIMESAVINGS METHODS.—Not later than 3 years 

after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 

prepare and transmit to Congress a report estimating the time 

required for the issuance of all Federal, State, local, and tribal 

permits for the construction of non-Federal projects for water 

supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood damage reduction, storm 

damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and navigation. 

SEC. 2045. PROJECT STREAMLINING. 

(a) POLICY.—The benefits of water resources projects are important to the Nation’s economy and environment, and recommendations to Congress regarding such projects should not be delayed 

due to uncoordinated or inefficient reviews or the failure to timely 

resolve disputes during the development of water resources projects. 

(b) SCOPE.—This section shall apply to each study initiated 

after the date of enactment of this Act to develop a feasibility 

report under section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), or a reevaluation report, for a water 

resources project if the Secretary determines that such study 

requires an environmental impact statement under the National 

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

(c) WATER RESOURCES PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS.—The Secretary shall develop and implement a coordinated review process 

for the development of water resources projects. 

(d) COORDINATED REVIEWS.—The coordinated review process 

under this section may provide that all reviews, analyses, opinions, 

permits, licenses, and approvals that must be issued or made by 

a Federal, State, or local government agency or Indian tribe for 

the development of a water resources project described in subsection 
H. R. 1495—64 

(b) will be conducted, to the maximum extent practicable, concurrently and completed within a time period established by the Secretary in cooperation with the agencies identified under subsection 

(e) with respect to the project. 

(e) IDENTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL AGENCIES.—With respect 

to the development of each water resources project, the Secretary 

shall identify, as soon as practicable, all Federal, State, and local 

government agencies and Indian tribes that may— 

(1) have jurisdiction over the project; 

(2) be required by law to conduct or issue a review, analysis, 

or opinion for the project; or 

(3) be required to make a determination on issuing a 

permit, license, or approval for the project. 

(f) STATE AUTHORITY.—If the coordinated review process is 

being implemented under this section by the Secretary with respect 

to the development of a water resources project described in subsection (b) within the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent 

with State law, may choose to participate in the process and to 

make subject to the process all State agencies that— 

(1) have jurisdiction over the project; 

(2) are required to conduct or issue a review, analysis, 

or opinion for the project; or 

(3) are required to make a determination on issuing a 

permit, license, or approval for the project. 

(g) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The coordinated review 

process developed under this section may be incorporated into a 

memorandum of understanding for a water resources project 

between the Secretary, the heads of Federal, State, and local government agencies, Indian tribes identified under subsection (e), and 

the non-Federal interest for the project. 

(h) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.— 

(1) NOTIFICATION.—If the Secretary determines that a Federal, State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or 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. 

(2) AGENCY REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the 

date of receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, 

State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal 

interest involved may submit a report to the Secretary, 

explaining why the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest 

did not meet the deadline and what actions it intends to take 

to complete or issue the required review, analysis, or opinion 

or determination on issuing a permit, license, or approval. 

(3) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after 

the date of receipt of a report under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall compile and submit a report to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

of the Senate, and the Council on Environmental Quality, 

describing any deadlines identified in paragraph (1), and any 

information provided to the Secretary by the Federal, State, 
H. R. 1495—65 

or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal 

interest involved under paragraph (2). 

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

(1) any statutory requirement for seeking public comment; 

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

State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal 

interest has with respect to carrying out a water resources 

project; or 

(3) any obligation to comply with the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the regulations 

issued by the Council on Environmental Quality to carry out 

such Act. 

SEC. 2046. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION. 

Section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is amended— 

(1) in the first sentence— 

(A) by striking ‘‘two years’’ and inserting ‘‘year’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘7’’ and inserting ‘‘5’’; 

(2) in the last sentence by striking ‘‘30 months after the 

date’’ and inserting ‘‘the last date of the fiscal year following 

the fiscal year in which’’; and 

(3) in the last sentence by striking ‘‘such 30 month period’’ 

and inserting ‘‘such period’’. 

SEC. 2047. FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGES. 

(a) HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND.—Section 563 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3784) is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 563. HOPPER DREDGE MCFARLAND. 

‘‘(a) PLACEMENT IN READY RESERVE STATUS.—Not before 

October 1, 2009, and not after December 31, 2009, the Secretary 

shall— 

‘‘(1) place the Federal hopper dredge McFarland (referred 

to in this section as the ‘vessel’) in a ready reserve status; 

and 

‘‘(2) use the vessel solely for urgent and emergency purposes 

in accordance with existing emergency response protocols. 

‘‘(b) ROUTINE TESTS AND MAINTENANCE.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall periodically perform 

routine underway dredging tests of the equipment (not to exceed 

70 days per year) of the vessel in a ready reserve status 

to ensure the ability of the vessel to perform urgent and emergency work. 

‘‘(2) MAINTENANCE.—The Secretary— 

‘‘(A) shall not assign any scheduled hopper dredging 

work to the vessel other than dredging tests in the Delaware River and Bay; but 

‘‘(B) shall perform any repairs, including any asbestos 

abatement, necessary to maintain the vessel in a ready 

reserve fully operational condition. 

‘‘(c) ACTIVE STATUS FOR DREDGING.—The Secretary, in consultation with affected stakeholders, shall place the vessel in active 

status in order to perform dredging work if the Secretary determines 

that private industry has failed— 
H. R. 1495—66 

‘‘(1) to submit a responsive and responsible bid for work 

advertised by the Secretary; or 

‘‘(2) to carry out a project as required pursuant to a contract 

between the industry and the Secretary.’’. 

(b) HOPPER DREDGES ESSAYONS AND YAQUINA.—Section 

3(c)(7)(B) of the Act of August 11, 1888 (33 U.S.C. 622; 25 Stat. 

423), is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘This subparagraph shall not apply to the Federal hopper dredges Essayons 

and Yaquina of the Corps of Engineers.’’. 

TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED 

PROVISIONS 

SEC. 3001. BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, ALABAMA. 

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

‘‘SEC. 111. BLACK WARRIOR-TOMBIGBEE RIVERS, ALABAMA. 

‘‘(a) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES.— 

‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the following definitions apply: 

‘‘(A) EXISTING FACILITY.—The term ‘existing facility’ 

means the administrative and maintenance facility for the 

project for Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama, 

authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 

Appropriations Act of July 5, 1884 (24 Stat. 141), in existence on the date of enactment of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2007. 

‘‘(B) PARCEL.—The term ‘Parcel’ means the land owned 

by the Corps of Engineers serving as the operations and 

maintenance facility of the Corps of Engineers in the city 

of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in existence on the date of enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. 

‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION.—In carrying out the project for Black 

Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama, the Secretary is authorized, at Federal expense— 

‘‘(A) to purchase land on which the Secretary may 

construct a new maintenance facility for the project, to 

be located— 

‘‘(i) at a different location from the existing facility; 

and 

‘‘(ii) in the vicinity of the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama; 

‘‘(B) at any time during or after the completion of 

(and relocation to) the new maintenance facility, to 

demolish the existing facility; and 

‘‘(C) to construct on the Parcel a new administrative 

facility for the project. 

‘‘(b) ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY.—The Secretary— 

‘‘(1) may acquire any real property necessary for the 

construction of the new maintenance facility under subsection 

(a)(2)(A); and 

‘‘(2) shall convey to the city of Tuscaloosa fee simple title 

in and to any portion of the Parcel not required for construction 
H. R. 1495—67 

of the new administrative facility under subsection (a)(2)(C) 

through— 

‘‘(A) sale at fair market value; 

‘‘(B) exchange for city of Tuscaloosa owned land on 

an acre-for-acre basis; or 

‘‘(C) any combination of a sale under subparagraph 

(A) and an exchange under subparagraph (B). 

‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $32,000,000.’’. 

SEC. 3002. COOK INLET, ALASKA. 

Section 118(a)(3) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (title I of division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005; 118 Stat. 2945) is amended by inserting ‘‘as 

part of the operation and maintenance of such project modification’’ 

after ‘‘by the Secretary’’. 

SEC. 3003. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project for navigation, King Cove Harbor, Alaska, being 

carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $8,000,000. 

SEC. 3004. SEWARD HARBOR, ALASKA. 

The project for navigation, Seward Harbor, Alaska, authorized 

by section 101(a)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 274), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 

extend the existing breakwater by approximately 215 feet, at a 

total cost of $3,333,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$2,666,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $667,000. 

SEC. 3005. SITKA, ALASKA. 

The Sitka, Alaska, element of the project for navigation, Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, authorized by section 101(1) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4801), 

is modified to direct the Secretary to take such action as is necessary 

to correct design deficiencies in the Sitka Harbor Breakwater at 

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

SEC. 3006. TATITLEK, ALASKA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project for navigation, Tatitlek, Alaska, being carried out 

under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 

577), shall be $10,000,000. 

SEC. 3007. RIO DE FLAG, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Rio De Flag, Flagstaff, 

Arizona, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is modified to authorize 

the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $54,100,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $35,000,000 and a non-Federal 

cost of $19,100,000. 

SEC. 3008. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES FLOOD CONTROL 

PROJECT, ARIZONA. 

The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and tributaries, 

Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by section 

303 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
H. R. 1495—68 

3711) and section 302 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2000 (114 Stat. 2600), is modified to authorize the Secretary 

to construct the project at a total cost of $25,410,000, with an 

estimated Federal cost of $22,930,000 and an estimated non-Federal 

cost of $2,480,000. 

SEC. 3009. TUCSON DRAINAGE AREA, ARIZONA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation, Tucson drainage area, Arizona, authorized 

by section 101(a)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 274), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 

construct the project at a total cost of $66,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $43,350,000 and an estimated non-Federal 

cost of $23,350,000. 

SEC. 3010. OSCEOLA HARBOR, ARKANSAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Osceola Harbor, 

Arkansas, constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to allow non-Federal 

interests to construct a mooring facility within the existing authorized harbor channel, subject to all necessary permits, certifications, 

and other requirements. 

(b) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

section shall be construed as affecting the responsibility of the 

Secretary to maintain the general navigation features of the project 

at a bottom width of 250 feet. 

SEC. 3011. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI. 

The project for flood control, St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas 

and Missouri, authorized by the Act of June 15, 1936 (49 Stat. 

1508), is modified to authorize the Secretary to undertake channel 

stabilization and sediment removal measures on the St. Francis 

River and tributaries as a nonseparable element of the original 

project. 

SEC. 3012. PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, ARKANSAS. 

The Pine Mountain Dam feature of the project for flood protection, Lee Creek, Arkansas and Oklahoma, authorized by section 

204 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078), is modified— 

(1) to add environmental restoration as a project purpose; 

and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project, including treatment and distributions 

components, over a 30-year period in accordance with section 

103(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2213(k)). 

SEC. 3013. RED-OUACHITA RIVER BASIN LEVEES, ARKANSAS AND LOUISIANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1950 

(64 Stat. 173) is amended in the matter under the heading ‘‘REDOUACHITA RIVER BASIN’’ by striking ‘‘improvements at Calion, 

Arkansas’’ and inserting ‘‘improvements at Calion, Arkansas 

(including authorization for the comprehensive flood-control project 

for Ouachita River and tributaries, incorporating in the project 

all flood control, drainage, and power improvements in the basin 

above the lower end of the left bank Ouachita River levee)’’. 
H. R. 1495—69 

(b) MODIFICATION.—Section 3 of the Flood Control Act of August 

18, 1941 (55 Stat. 642), is amended in the second sentence of 

subsection (a) in the matter under the heading ‘‘LOWER MISSISSIPPI

RIVER’’ by inserting before the period at the end the following: 

‘‘; except that the Ouachita River Levees, Louisiana, authorized 

by the first section of the Mississippi River Flood Control Act 

of May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 534), shall remain as a component 

of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project and afforded operation and maintenance responsibilities as provided under section 

3 of that Act (45 Stat. 535)’’. 

SEC. 3014. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Cache Creek 

Basin, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4112), is modified 

to direct the Secretary to mitigate the impacts of the new south 

levee of the Cache Creek settling basin on the storm drainage 

system of the city of Woodland, including all appurtenant features, 

erosion control measures, and environmental protection features. 

(b) OBJECTIVES.—Mitigation under subsection (a) shall restore 

the preproject capacity of the city of Woodland to release 1,360 

cubic feet per second of water to the Yolo Bypass and shall include— 

(1) channel improvements; 

(2) an outlet work through the west levee of the Yolo 

Bypass; and 

(3) a new low flow cross channel to handle city and county 

storm drainage and settling basin flows (1,760 cubic feet per 

second) when the Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condition. 

SEC. 3015. CALFED STABILITY PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. 

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

is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘within the Delta (as 

defined in Cal. Water Code §12220)’’; 

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

‘‘(C) JUSTIFICATION.— ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 209 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962–2), 

in carrying out levee stability programs and projects 

pursuant to this paragraph, the Secretary of the Army 

may determine that the programs and projects are 

justified by the benefits of the project purposes 

described in subparagraph (A), and the programs and 

projects shall require no additional economic justification if the Secretary of the Army further determines 

that the programs and projects are cost effective. 

‘‘(ii) APPLICABILITY.—Clause (i) shall not apply to 

any separable element intended to produce benefits 

that are predominantly unrelated to the project purposes described in subparagraph (A).’’; and 

(3) in subparagraph (D)(i) by inserting ‘‘as described in 

the Record of Decision’’ after ‘‘Public Law 84–99 standard)’’. 

(b) ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to funds made available pursuant to the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act (Public Law 108– 

361) to carry out section 103(f)(3)(D) of that Act (118 Stat. 1696), 
H. R. 1495—70 

there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out projects described 

in that section $106,000,000, to remain available until expended. 

SEC. 3016. COMPTON CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

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

restoration and recreation as project purposes. 

SEC. 3017. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER’S CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson Creek/ 

Murderer’s Creek, California, being carried out under section 206 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), 

is modified— 

(1) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for 

the project; and 

(2) to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest 

in the project. 

SEC. 3018. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton Airfield, 

California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is modified to direct 

the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance 

with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 19, 2004, 

at a total cost of $228,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $171,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $57,000,000. 

SEC. 3019. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCKTON SHIP 

CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, California, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) is modified— 

(1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of 

the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel 

element of the project may be provided in the form of inkind services and materials; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of such element 

the cost of planning and design work carried out by the nonFederal interest for such element before the date of an agreement for such planning and design. 

SEC. 3020. KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood control, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, 

California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3658), is modified to direct 

the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project, or provide reimbursement not 

to exceed $800,000, for the costs of any work carried out by the 
H. R. 1495—71 

non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the project 

partnership agreement. 

SEC. 3021. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, 

California, authorized by section 601(d) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is modified to direct 

the Secretary to determine whether maintenance of the project 

is feasible, and if the Secretary determines that maintenance of 

the project is feasible, to carry out such maintenance. 

SEC. 3022. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, 

Llagas Creek, California, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), is modified 

to direct the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost 

of $105,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $65,000,000 

and an estimated non-Federal cost of $40,000,000. 

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—In evaluating and implementing the project, 

the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate 

in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) 

if the detailed project report evaluation indicates that applying 

such section is necessary to implement the project. 

SEC. 3023. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for Magpie Creek, California, 

authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 

(33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to direct the Secretary to apply the 

cost-sharing requirements of section 103(b) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085) for the portion of the 

project consisting of land acquisition to preserve and enhance 

existing floodwater storage. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement 

for the project. 

(c) COST.—The maximum amount of Federal funds that may 

be expended for the project referred to in subsection (a) shall 

be $10,000,000. 

SEC. 3024. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific Flyway 

Center, Sacramento, California, being carried out under section 

206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330), is modified to authorize the Secretary to expend $2,000,000 

to enhance public access to the project. 

SEC. 3025. PETALUMA RIVER, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Petaluma River, 

Petaluma, California, authorized by section 112 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2587), is modified 

to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at a total cost 

of $41,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $26,975,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,525,000. 
H. R. 1495—72 

SEC. 3026. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 

Pinole Creek Phase I, California, being carried out under section 

1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3027. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA. 

Upon completion of the modifications to the Prado Dam element 

of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113), the Memorandum of Agreement 

for the Operation for Prado Dam for Seasonal Additional Water 

Conservation between the Department of the Army and the Orange 

County Water District (including all the conditions and stipulations 

in the memorandum) shall remain in effect for volumes of water 

made available prior to such modifications. 

SEC. 3028. REDWOOD CITY NAVIGATION CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary may dredge the Redwood City Navigation 

Channel, California, on an annual basis, to maintain the authorized 

depth of –30 feet mean lower low water. 

SEC. 3029. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL, 

CALIFORNIA. 

(a) NATOMAS LEVEE FEATURES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control and recreation, Sacramento and American Rivers, California (Natomas 

Levee features), authorized by section 9159 of the Department 

of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1944), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit $20,503,000 to the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency for the nonreimbursed 

Federal share of costs incurred by the Agency in connection 

with the project. 

(2) ALLOCATION OF CREDIT.—The Secretary shall allocate 

the amount to be credited pursuant to paragraph (1) toward 

the non-Federal share of such projects as are requested by 

the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. 

(b) JOINT FEDERAL PROJECT AT FOLSOM DAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, American 

and Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section 

101(a)(6)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 274) and modified by section 128 of the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 

2259), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the 

auxiliary spillway generally in accordance with the Post 

Authorization Change Report, American River Watershed 

Project (Folsom Dam Modification and Folsom Dam Raise 

Projects), dated March 2007, at a total cost of $683,000,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $444,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $239,000,000. 

(2) DAM SAFETY.—Nothing in this subsection limits the 

authority of the Secretary of the Interior to carry out dam 

safety activities in connection with the auxiliary spillway in 
H. R. 1495—73 

accordance with the Bureau of Reclamation safety of dams 

program. 

(3) TRANSFER OF FUNDS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary and the Secretary of 

the Interior are authorized to transfer between the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior 

appropriated amounts and other available funds (including 

funds contributed by non-Federal interests) for the purpose 

of planning, design, and construction of the auxiliary spillway. 

(B) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Any transfer made 

pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to such terms 

and conditions as may be agreed on by the Secretary and 

the Secretary of the Interior. 

SEC. 3030. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship 

Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), is modified 

to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 

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

the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 

and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the 

project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3031. SACRAMENTO RIVER BANK PROTECTION, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 202 of the River Basin Monetary Authorization Act 

of 1974 (88 Stat. 49) is amended by striking ‘‘and the monetary 

authorization’’ and all that follows through the period at the end 

and inserting ‘‘; except that the lineal feet in the second phase 

shall be increased from 405,000 lineal feet to 485,000 lineal feet.’’. 

SEC. 3032. SALTON SEA RESTORATION, CALIFORNIA. 

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

apply: 

(1) SALTON SEA AUTHORITY.—The term ‘‘Salton Sea 

Authority’’ means the joint powers authority established under 

the laws of the State by a joint power agreement signed on 

June 2, 1993. 

(2) SALTON SEA SCIENCE OFFICE.—The term ‘‘Salton Sea 

Science Office’’ means the office established by the United 

States Geological Survey and located on the date of enactment 

of this Act in La Quinta, California. 

(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State of California. 

(b) PILOT PROJECTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.— (A) REVIEW.—The Secretary shall review the plan 

approved by the State, entitled the ‘‘Salton Sea Ecosystem 

Restoration Program Preferred Alternative Report and 

Funding Plan’’, and dated May 2007 to determine whether 

the pilot projects described in the plan are feasible. 

(B) IMPLEMENTATION.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), if the Secretary determines that the pilot projects referred to 

in subparagraph (A) meet the requirements described 

in that subparagraph, the Secretary may— 

(I) enter into an agreement with the State; 

and 
H. R. 1495—74 

(II) in consultation with the Salton Sea 

Authority and the Salton Sea Science Office, carry 

out pilot projects for improvement of the environment in the area of the Salton Sea. 

(ii) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall be a party 

to each contract for construction entered into under 

this subparagraph. 

(2) LOCAL PARTICIPATION.—In prioritizing pilot projects 

under this section, the Secretary shall— 

(A) consult with the State, the Salton Sea Authority, 

and the Salton Sea Science Office; and 

(B) take into consideration the priorities of the State 

and the Salton Sea Authority. 

(3) COST SHARING.—Before carrying out a pilot project 

under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a written 

agreement with the State that requires the non-Federal interest 

for the pilot project to pay 35 percent of the total costs of 

the pilot project. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $30,000,000, of which 

not more than $5,000,000 shall be used for any one pilot project 

under this section. 

SEC. 3033. SANTA ANA RIVER MAINSTEM, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood control, Santa Ana River Mainstem 

(including Santiago Creek, California), authorized by section 401(a) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113) 

and modified by section 104 of the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriation Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329–111) and section 309 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3713), 

is further modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the 

project at a total cost of $1,800,000,000 and to clarify that the 

Santa Ana River Interceptor Line is an element of the project. 

SEC. 3034. SANTA BARBARA STREAMS, LOWER MISSION CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara streams, 

Lower Mission Creek, California, authorized by section 101(b)(8) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), 

is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at 

a total cost of $30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 

$15,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,000,000. 

SEC. 3035. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for navigation, Santa Cruz Harbor, California, 

authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 

(72 Stat. 300) and modified by section 809 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4168) and section 526 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 346), is modified to direct the Secretary— 

(1) to renegotiate the memorandum of agreement with the 

non-Federal interest to increase the annual payment to reflect 

the updated cost of operation and maintenance that is the 

Federal and non-Federal share as provided by law based on 

the project purpose; and 

(2) to revise the memorandum of agreement to include 

terms that revise such payments for inflation. 
H. R. 1495—75 

SEC. 3036. SEVEN OAKS DAM, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood control, Santa Ana Mainstem, authorized 

by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4113) and modified by section 104 of the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329–11), 

section 102(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 

(104 Stat. 4611), and section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3713), is modified to direct the Secretary— 

(1) to include ecosystem restoration benefits in the calculation of benefits for the Seven Oaks Dam, California, portion 

of the project; and 

(2) to conduct a study of water conservation and water 

quality at the Seven Oaks Dam. 

SEC. 3037. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Upper 

Guadalupe River, California, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project generally 

in accordance with the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Damage 

Reduction, San Jose, California, Limited Reevaluation Report, dated 

March 2004, at a total cost of $256,000,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $136,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $119,300,000. 

SEC. 3038. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut Creek 

Channel, California, being carried out under section 206 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is 

modified— 

(1) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for 

the project; and 

(2) to authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest 

in the project. 

SEC. 3039. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 

Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, being carried out 

under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to 

credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the nonFederal interest for the project before the date of the partnership 

agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3040. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/San 

Pablo Creek Phase II, California, being carried out under section 

206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 
H. R. 1495—76 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project and 

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

SEC. 3041. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, 

California, authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified— 

(1) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at 

a total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$37,700,000; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for 

the project. 

SEC. 3042. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. 

Section 808 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(100 Stat. 4168) is amended by striking ‘‘agriculture,’’ and inserting 

‘‘agriculture, environmental restoration,’’. 

SEC. 3043. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND. 

The project for navigation, Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware 

River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by 

the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30, 

1935 (49 Stat. 1030), and section 101 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249), is modified to add recreation as a 

project purpose. 

SEC. 3044. ST. GEORGE’S BRIDGE, DELAWARE. 

Section 102(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1990 (104 Stat. 4612) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘The Secretary shall assume ownership responsibility for the 

replacement bridge not later than the date on which the construction of the bridge is completed and the contractors are released 

of their responsibility by the State. In addition, the Secretary may 

not carry out any action to close or remove the St. George’s Bridge, 

Delaware, without specific congressional authorization.’’. 

SEC. 3045. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. 

(a) SHORELINE.—The project for shoreline protection, Brevard 

County, Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(7) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), is modified 

to authorize the Secretary to include the mid-reach as an element 

of the project from the Florida department of environmental protection monuments 75.4 to 118.3, a distance of approximately 7.6 

miles. The restoration work shall only be undertaken upon a determination by the Secretary, following completion of the general 

reevaluation report authorized by section 418 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637), that the 

shoreline protection is feasible. 
H. R. 1495—77 

(b) CREDIT.—Section 310 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301) is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(d) CREDIT.—After completion of the study, the Secretary may 

credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project for shore protection the cost of nourishment 

and renourishment associated with the project for shore protection 

incurred by the non-Federal interest to respond to damages to 

Brevard County beaches that are the result of a Federal navigation 

project, as determined in the final report for the study.’’. 

SEC. 3046. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA. 

The project for shore protection, Broward County and Hillsboro 

Inlet, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), and modified by section 311 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 

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

the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of mitigation 

construction and derelict erosion control structure removal carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3047. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA. 

In carrying out the project for navigation, Canaveral Harbor, 

Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174), the Secretary shall construct a sediment 

trap if the Secretary determines construction of the sediment trap 

is feasible. 

SEC. 3048. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA. 

The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero Island 

segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized by section 201 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073), by Senate Resolution 

dated December 17, 1970, and by House Resolution dated December 

15, 1970, and modified by section 309 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2602), is modified to direct 

the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by 

the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3049. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for shore protection, Lido Key 

Beach, Sarasota, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River 

and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819), deauthorized under section 

1001(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

579a(b)), and reauthorized by section 364(2)(A) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 313), is modified 

to direct the Secretary to construct the project substantially in 

accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers dated 

December 22, 2004, at a total cost of $15,190,000, with an estimated 

Federal cost of $9,320,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$5,870,000, and at an estimated total cost of $65,000,000 for periodic 

nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated 
H. R. 1495—78 

Federal cost of $30,550,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 

of $34,450,000. 

(b) CONSTRUCTION OF SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECTS BY

NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—The Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest in accordance with 

section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 

U.S.C. 426i–1) for the modified project. 

SEC. 3050. PEANUT ISLAND, FLORIDA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 

Peanut Island, Palm Beach County, Florida, being carried out under 

section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be $9,750,000. 

SEC. 3051. PORT SUTTON, FLORIDA. 

The project for navigation, Port Sutton, Florida, authorized 

by section 101(b)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to authorize the Secretary to 

carry out the project at a total cost of $12,900,000. 

SEC. 3052. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA. 

The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, 

Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276) is modified to direct 

the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, and 

construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the 

project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3053. TAMPA HARBOR CUT B, FLORIDA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, 

Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to authorize the Secretary 

to construct passing lanes in an area approximately 3.5 miles long 

and centered on Tampa Harbor Cut B if the Secretary determines 

that such improvements are necessary for navigation safety. 

(b) GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT.—The non-Federal share 

of the cost of the general reevaluation report for Tampa Harbor, 

Florida, being conducted on June 1, 2005, shall be the same percentage as the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the 

project. 

(c) AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall enter into a new partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost 

sharing required by subsection (b). 

SEC. 3054. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA. 

(a) LAND EXCHANGE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may exchange land above 

863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified 

in the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile 

district engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 1996, 

for land on the north side of Allatoona Lake that is required 

for wildlife management and protection of the water quality 

and overall environment of Allatoona Lake. 
H. R. 1495—79 

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The basis for all land 

exchanges under this subsection shall be a fair market 

appraisal to ensure that land exchanged is of equal value. 

(b) DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION OF LAND, ALLATOONA LAKE, 

GEORGIA.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may— 

(A) sell land above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona 

Lake, Georgia, identified in the memorandum referred to 

in subsection (a)(1); and 

(B) use the proceeds of the sale, without further appropriation, to pay costs associated with the purchase of land 

required for wildlife management and protection of the 

water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake. 

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.— 

(A) WILLING SELLERS.—Land acquired under this subsection shall be by negotiated purchase from willing sellers 

only. 

(B) BASIS.—The basis for all transactions under this 

subsection shall be a fair market value appraisal acceptable 

to the Secretary. 

(C) SHARING OF COSTS.—Each purchaser of land under 

this subsection shall share in the associated costs of the 

purchase, including surveys and associated fees in accordance with the memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1). 

(D) OTHER CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may impose 

on the sale and purchase of land under this subsection 

such other conditions as the Secretary determines to be 

appropriate. 

(c) REPEAL.—Section 325 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed. 

SEC. 3055. LATHAM RIVER, GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 

Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia, being carried out under 

section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be $6,175,000. 

SEC. 3056. DWORSHAK RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out additional general construction measures to allow for operation at lower pool 

levels to satisfy the recreation mission at Dworshak Dam, Idaho. 

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

(1) facilities that are operated by the Corps of Engineers; 

and 

(2) facilities that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, 

are leased, permitted, or licensed for use by others. 

(c) COST SHARING.—The Secretary shall carry out this section 

through a cost-sharing program with Idaho State parks and recreation department at a total estimated project cost of $5,300,000. 

Notwithstanding section 103 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2313), the Federal share of such cost shall 

be 75 percent. 
H. R. 1495—80 

SEC. 3057. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Gooding, Idaho, 

constructed under the emergency conservation work program established under the Act of March 31, 1933 (16 U.S.C. 585 et seq.), 

is modified— 

(1) to direct the Secretary to rehabilitate the Gooding 

Channel project for the purposes of flood control and ecosystem 

restoration if the Secretary determines that such rehabilitation 

is not required as a result of improper operation and maintenance of the project by the non-Federal interest and that the 

rehabilitation and ecosystem restoration is feasible; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to plan, design, and construct 

the project at a total cost of $9,000,000. 

(b) COST SHARING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Costs for reconstruction of a project under 

this section shall be shared by the Secretary and the nonFederal interest in the same percentages as the costs of 

construction of the original project were shared. 

(2) OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR COSTS.—The 

costs of operation, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of 

a project carried out under this section shall be a non-Federal 

responsibility. 

(c) ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION.—Reconstruction efforts and 

activities carried out under this section shall not require economic 

justification. 

SEC. 3058. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN, 

ILLINOIS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Muscooten Bay, 

Illinois River, Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, 

Illinois, constructed under section 107 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified— 

(1) to include the channel between the harbor and the 

Illinois River; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to enter into a partnership 

agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the local 

cooperation agreement dated August 18, 1983, with the 

Beardstown Community Park District. 

(b) TERMS OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The partnership 

agreement referred to in subsection (a) shall include the same 

rights and responsibilities as the local cooperation agreement dated 

August 18, 1983, changing only the identity of the non-Federal 

sponsor. 

(c) MAINTENANCE.—Following execution of the partnership 

agreement referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary may carry 

out maintenance of the project referred to in subsection (a) on 

an annual basis. 

SEC. 3059. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS. 

The Cache River Levee constructed for flood control at the 

Cache River, Illinois, and authorized by the Act of June 28, 1938 

(52 Stat. 1217), is modified to add environmental restoration as 

a project purpose. 

SEC. 3060. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS. 

The Federal navigation channel for the North Branch Channel 

portion of the Chicago River authorized by section 22 of the Act 
H. R. 1495—81 

of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1156), extending from 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet upstream of the 

Division Street Bridge, Chicago, Illinois, shall be no wider than 

66 feet. 

SEC. 3061. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIERS 

PROJECT, ILLINOIS. 

(a) TREATMENT AS SINGLE PROJECT.—The Chicago Sanitary 

and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Project (in this section referred 

to as ‘‘Barrier I’’), as in existence on the date of enactment of 

this Act and constructed as a demonstration project under section 

1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 

Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)), and the project relating 

to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, authorized by section 345 of the District of Columbia Appropriations 

Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–335; 118 Stat. 1352) (in this section 

referred to as ‘‘Barrier II’’) shall be considered to constitute a 

single project. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, at Federal expense, 

shall— 

(A) upgrade and make permanent Barrier I; 

(B) construct Barrier II, notwithstanding the project 

cooperation agreement with the State of Illinois dated June 

14, 2005; 

(C) operate and maintain Barrier I and Barrier II 

as a system to optimize effectiveness; 

(D) conduct, in consultation with appropriate Federal, 

State, local, and nongovernmental entities, a study of a 

range of options and technologies for reducing impacts 

of hazards that may reduce the efficacy of the Barriers; 

and 

(E) provide to each State a credit in an amount equal 

to the amount of funds contributed by the State toward 

Barrier II. 

(2) USE OF CREDIT.—A State may apply a credit provided 

to the State under paragraph (1)(E) to any cost sharing responsibility for an existing or future Federal project carried out 

by the Secretary in the State. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 345 of the District of 

Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–335; 118 Stat. 

1352) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 345. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL DISPERSAL BARRIER, 

ILLINOIS. 

‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 

be necessary to carry out the Barrier II element of the project 

for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier, Illinois, 

initiated pursuant to section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2294 note; 100 Stat. 4251).’’. 

(d) FEASIBILITY STUDY.—The Secretary, in consultation with 

appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental entities, 

shall conduct, at Federal expense, a feasibility study of the range 

of options and technologies available to prevent the spread of 

aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi 

River Basins through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and 

other aquatic pathways. 
H. R. 1495—82 

SEC. 3062. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS. 

(a) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The maximum amount of Federal 

funds that may be expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem 

restoration, Emiquon, Illinois, being carried out under section 206 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), 

shall be $7,500,000. 

(b) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 

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

public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 

purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n). 

SEC. 3063. LASALLE, ILLINOIS. 

In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639–4640), the Secretary shall give priority 

to work in the vicinity of LaSalle, Illinois, on the Illinois and 

Michigan Canal. 

SEC. 3064. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS. 

(a) PROJECT PURPOSE.—The project for flood control, Spunky 

Bottoms, Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control 

Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1583), is modified to add environmental restoration as a project purpose. 

(b) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—The maximum amount of Federal 

funds that may be expended for the project for improvement of 

the quality of the environment, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, being 

carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be $7,500,000. 

(c) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section shall affect the eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance under section 

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

public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 

purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n). 

(d) POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT.—Of 

the Federal funds expended under subsection (b), not less than 

$500,000 shall remain available for a period of 5 years after the 

date of completion of construction of the modifications for use in 

carrying out post construction monitoring and adaptive management. 

SEC. 3065. CEDAR LAKE, INDIANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, 

and construct an aquatic ecosystem restoration project at Cedar 

Lake, Indiana. 

(b) COMPLETE FEASIBILITY REPORT.—In planning the project 

authorized by subsection (a), the Secretary shall expedite completion 

of the feasibility report for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection, Cedar Lake, Indiana, initiated pursuant to 

section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 1996 (33 

U.S.C. 2330). 

(c) AUTHORIZATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

$11,050,000 to carry out the activities authorized by this section. 

(2) OTHER.—The Secretary is authorized to use funds previously appropriated for the project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection, Cedar Lake, Indiana, under section 
H. R. 1495—83 

206 of the Water Resources Development Act 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330) to carry out the activities authorized by this section. 

SEC. 3066. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Koontz Lake, 

Indiana, being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) and modified by section 

520 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 

2655), is modified to direct the Secretary to seek to reduce the 

cost of the project by using innovative technologies and cost reduction measures determined from a review of non-Federal lake 

dredging projects in the vicinity of Koontz Lake. 

SEC. 3067. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA. 

The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of 

White River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Act entitled 

‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on 

rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes’’, 

approved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586), and modified by section 

323 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3716) and section 322 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1999 (113 Stat. 303), is modified— 

(1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the ecosystem 

restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components 

described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept Plan, 

dated February 1994, and revised by the Master Plan Revision 

Central Indianapolis Waterfront, dated April 2004, at a total 

cost of $28,545,000; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3068. DES MOINES RIVER AND GREENBELT, IOWA. 

The project for the Des Moines Recreational River and Greenbelt, Iowa, authorized by Public Law 99–88 and modified by section 

604 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 

4153), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out ecosystem 

restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components of 

the project, at a Federal cost of $10,000,000. 

SEC. 3069. PERRY CREEK, IOWA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—On making a determination described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall increase the Federal contribution 

by up to $4,000,000 for the project for flood control, Perry Creek, 

Iowa, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4116) and modified by section 151 

of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 

(117 Stat. 1844). 

(b) DETERMINATION.—A determination referred to in subsection 

(a) is a determination that a modification to the project described 

in subsection (a) is necessary for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to certify that the project provides flood damage 

reduction benefits to at least a 100-year level of flood protection. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $4,000,000. 
H. R. 1495—84 

SEC. 3070. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA. 

(a) RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.—The Secretary shall provide, 

in accordance with the recommendations in the Rathbun Lake 

Reallocation Report approved by the Chief of Engineers on July 

22, 1985, the Rathbun Regional Water Association with the right 

of first refusal to contract for or purchase any increment of the 

remaining allocation of 8,320 acre-feet of water supply storage 

in Rathbun Lake, Iowa. 

(b) PAYMENT OF COST.—The Rathbun Regional Water Association shall pay the cost of any water supply storage allocation 

provided under subsection (a). 

SEC. 3071. HICKMAN BLUFF STABILIZATION, KENTUCKY. 

The project for Hickman Bluff, Kentucky, authorized by chapter 

II of title II of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and 

Rescissions for the Department of Defense to Preserve and Enhance 

Military Readiness Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 85), is modified to 

authorize the Secretary to repair and restore the project, at Federal 

expense, with no further economic studies or analyses, at a total 

cost of not more than $250,000. 

SEC. 3072. MCALPINE LOCK AND DAM, KENTUCKY AND INDIANA. 

Section 101(a)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) is amended by striking ‘‘$219,600,000’’ 

each place it appears and inserting ‘‘$430,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3073. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY. 

The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project for flood 

control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland 

Rivers, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, authorized by section 

202(a) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 

1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modified to direct the Secretary to take 

measures to provide a 100-year level of flood protection for the 

city of Prestonsburg. 

SEC. 3074. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON 

ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED. 

The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, Amite 

River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish Watershed, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 277) and modified by section 

116 of division D of Public Law 108–7 (117 Stat. 140), is further 

modified— 

(1) to direct the Secretary to carry out the project with 

the cost sharing for the project determined in accordance with 

section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effect on October 11, 1996; 

(2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at 

a total cost of $187,000,000; and 

(3) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for 

the project. 
H. R. 1495—85 

SEC. 3075. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA. 

(a) ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.—The public access feature of the project for flood control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway 

System, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is modified 

to authorize the Secretary to acquire from willing sellers the fee 

interest (exclusive of oil, gas, and minerals) of an additional 20,000 

acres of land in the Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for such 

feature. 

(b) MODIFICATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), effective 

November 17, 1986, the $32,000,000 limitation on the maximum 

Federal expenditure for the first costs of the public access 

feature referred to in subsection (a) shall not apply. 

(2) COST.—The modification under paragraph (1) shall not 

increase the total authorized cost of the project referred to 

in subsection (a). 

(c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 315(a)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603) is amended 

by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘and shall 

consider Eagle Point Park, Jeanerette, Louisiana, and the town 

of Melville, Louisiana, as site alternatives for such recreation features’’. 

SEC. 3076. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, REGIONAL VISITOR CENTER, LOUISIANA. 

(a) PROJECT FOR FLOOD CONTROL.—Notwithstanding paragraph 

(3) of the report of the Chief of Engineers dated February 28, 

1983 (relating to recreational development in the Lower Atchafalaya 

Basin Floodway), the Secretary shall carry out the project for flood 

control, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana, authorized 

by chapter IV of title I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 

1985 (99 Stat. 313) and section 601(a) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142). 

(b) VISITORS CENTER.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

State of Louisiana, shall study, design, and construct a type 

A regional visitors center in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana. 

(2) COST SHARING.— 

(A) COST OF TYPE B VISITORS CENTER.—The cost of 

construction of the visitors center up to the cost of construction of a type B visitors center shall be shared in accordance 

with the recreation cost-sharing requirement of section 

103(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2213(c)). 

(B) COST OF UPGRADING.—The non-Federal share of 

the cost of upgrading the visitors center from a type B 

to type A regional visitors center shall be 100 percent. 

(C) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The cost of operation and maintenance of the visitors center shall be a 

Federal responsibility. 

(3) DONATIONS.—In carrying out the project under this 

subsection, the Mississippi River Commission may accept the 

donation of cash or other funds, land, materials, and services 

from any non-Federal government entity or nonprofit corporation, as the Commission determines to be appropriate. 
H. R. 1495—86 

SEC. 3077. ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF, AND 

BLACK, LOUISIANA. 

The project for navigation, Atchafalaya River and Bayous 

Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 

of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), is modified 

to authorize the Secretary to deepen up to a 1000-foot section 

of the area on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway west of the Bayou 

Boeuf Lock and east of the intersection of the Atchafalaya River, 

at a cost not to exceed $200,000, to provide for ingress and egress 

to the port of Morgan City at a depth not to exceed 20 feet. 

SEC. 3078. BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA. 

The project for the improvement of the quality of the environment, Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, being carried out under section 

1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

2309a), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3079. CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS, LOUISIANA. 

The project for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 

481), is modified to authorize the Secretary to provide $3,000,000 

for each fiscal year, in a total amount of $15,000,000, for such 

rock bank protection of the Calcasieu River from mile 5 to mile 

16 as the Secretary determines to be advisable to reduce maintenance dredging needs and facilitate protection of disposal areas 

for the Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana, if the Secretary determines that the rock bank protection is feasible. 

SEC. 3080. RED RIVER (J. BENNETT JOHNSTON) WATERWAY, LOUISIANA. 

The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red River 

Waterway, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and modified 

by section 4(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 

(102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 301(b)(7) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), and section 

316 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 

2604), is modified— 

(1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project 

at a total cost of $33,912,000; 

(2) to authorize the purchase and reforestation of lands 

that have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses (in 

addition to the purchase of bottomland hardwood); and 

(3) to incorporate wildlife and forestry management practices to improve species diversity on mitigation land that meets 

habitat goals and objectives of the United States and the State 

of Louisiana. 

SEC. 3081. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA. 

The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, authorized 

as part of the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 

1965 (79 Stat. 1077) and modified by section 365 of the Water 
H. R. 1495—87 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3739), is modified 

to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 

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

the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the costs of relocating 

oyster beds in the Davis Pond project area. 

SEC. 3082. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, LOUISIANA. 

(a) PORT FACILITIES RELOCATION.— 

(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Assistant Secretary for Economic 

Development (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Assistant Secretary’’) $75,000,000, to remain available until expended, to 

support the relocation of Port of New Orleans deep draft facilities from the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (referred to in this 

section as the ‘‘Outlet’’), the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and 

the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to the Mississippi River. 

(2) ADMINISTRATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Amounts appropriated pursuant to 

paragraph (1) shall be administered by the Assistant Secretary pursuant to sections 209(c)(2) and 703 of the Public 

Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 

3149(c)(2), 3233). 

(B) REQUIREMENT.—The Assistant Secretary shall 

make amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) 

available to the Port of New Orleans to relocate to the 

Mississippi River within the State of Louisiana the portowned facilities that are occupied by businesses in the 

vicinity that may be impacted due to the treatment of 

the Outlet under title VII of this Act. 

(b) REVOLVING LOAN FUND GRANTS.—There is authorized to 

be appropriated to the Assistant Secretary $85,000,000, to remain 

available until expended, to provide assistance pursuant to sections 

209(c)(2) and 703 of the Public Works and Economic Development 

Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2), 3233) to one or more eligible 

recipients under such Act to establish revolving loan funds to make 

loans for terms up to 20 years at or below market interest rates 

(including interest-free loans) to private businesses within the Port 

of New Orleans that may need to relocate to the Mississippi River 

within the State of Louisiana due to the treatment of the Outlet 

under title VII of this Act. 

(c) REQUIREMENTS.—In selecting one or more recipients under 

subsection (b), the Assistant Secretary shall ensure that each 

recipient has established procedures to target lending to businesses 

that will be directly and substantially impacted by the treatment 

of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet under title VII of this Act. 

(d) COORDINATION WITH SECRETARY.—The Assistant Secretary 

shall ensure that the programs described in subsections (a) and 

(b) are coordinated with the Secretary to ensure that facilities 

are relocated in a manner that is consistent with the analysis 

and design of comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by 

title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 

2006 (119 Stat. 2247). 

(e) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—The Assistant Secretary may 

use up to 2 percent of the amounts made available under subsections (a) and (b) for administrative expenses. 
H. R. 1495—88 

SEC. 3083. VIOLET, LOUISIANA. 

(a) VIOLET DIVERSION PROJECT.—The Secretary shall design 

and implement a project for a diversion of freshwater at or near 

Violet, Louisiana, for the purposes of reducing salinity in the 

western Mississippi Sound, enhancing oyster production, and promoting the sustainability of coastal wetlands. 

(b) SALINITY LEVELS.—The project shall be designed to meet, 

or maximize the ability to meet, the salinity levels identified in 

the feasibility study of the Corps of Engineers entitled ‘‘Mississippi 

and Louisiana Estuarine Areas: Freshwater Diversion to Lake Pontchartrain Basin and Mississippi Sound’’ and dated 1984. 

(c) ADDITIONAL MEASURES.— 

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS.—If the Secretary determines that 

the diversion of freshwater at or near Violet, Louisiana, will 

not restore salinity levels to meet the requirements of subsection (b), the Secretary shall recommend additional measures 

for freshwater diversions sufficient to meet those levels. 

(2) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary shall implement 

measures included in the recommendations developed under 

paragraph (1) beginning 60 days after the date on which a 

report containing the recommendations is provided to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives. 

(d) NON-FEDERAL FINANCING REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) ESTIMATES.—Before October 1 of each fiscal year, the 

Secretary shall notify the States of Louisiana and Mississippi 

of each State’s respective estimated costs for that fiscal year 

for the activities authorized under this section. 

(2) ESCROW.—The States of Louisiana and Mississippi shall 

provide the funds described in paragraph (1) by making a 

deposit into an escrow account, or such other account, of the 

Treasury as the Secretary determines to be acceptable within 

30 days after the date of receipt of the notification from the 

Secretary under paragraph (1). 

(3) DEPOSITS BY LOUISIANA.— 

(A) USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS.—The State of Louisiana 

may use funds available to the State under the coastal 

impact assistance program authorized under section 31 

of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1356a) 

in meeting its cost-sharing responsibilities under this section. 

(B) FAILURE TO PROVIDE FUNDS.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—If the State of Louisiana does 

not provide the funds under paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Interior, using funds to be disbursed 

to the State under the program referred to in subparagraph (A) or under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 

Act of 2006 (title I of Division C of Public Law 109– 

432; (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; 120 Stat. 3000)), shall 

deposit such funds as are necessary to meet the 

requirements for the State under paragraph (2). 

(ii) DEADLINE FOR DEPOSIT.—Any deposit required 

under clause (i) shall be made prior to any other 

disbursements made to the State of Louisiana under 

the programs referred to in clause (i). 
H. R. 1495—89 

(C) EXCEPTION.—The State of Louisiana shall not be 

required to make a deposit of its share in any fiscal year 

in which the State of Mississippi does not make its deposit 

following a notification under paragraph (1) or the State 

of Mississippi notifies the Secretary that it does not intend 

to make a deposit in that fiscal year. 

(4) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

for the costs of design work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(5) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of the 

project authorized by subsection (a) shall be 75 percent. 

(e) SCHEDULE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall complete the design of the project 

not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 

Act and shall complete the construction of the project by not 

later than September 30, 2012. 

(2) MISSED DEADLINE.—If the Secretary does not complete 

the design or construction of the project in accordance with 

paragraph (1), the Secretary shall complete the design or 

construction as expeditiously as possible. 

SEC. 3084. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY 

CANAL), LOUISIANA. 

Section 328 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 304–305) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘operation and maintenance’’ and 

inserting ‘‘operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, 

and replacement’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Algiers Channel’’ and inserting ‘‘Algiers 

Canal Levees’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of the 

project shall be 35 percent.’’. 

SEC. 3085. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project being carried out under section 111 of the River 

and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the mitigation of 

shore damages attributable to the project for navigation, Camp 

Ellis, Saco, Maine, shall be $26,900,000. 

SEC. 3086. CUMBERLAND, MARYLAND. 

Section 580(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 375) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$25,750,000’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘$9,750,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$16,738,000’’; 

and 

(3) by striking ‘‘$5,250,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$9,012,000’’. 

SEC. 3087. POPLAR ISLAND, MARYLAND. 

The project for navigation and environmental restoration 

through the beneficial use of dredged material, Poplar Island, Maryland, authorized by section 537 of the Water Resources Development 
H. R. 1495—90 

Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3776) and modified by section 318 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2604), is 

modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the expansion 

of the project in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers 

dated March 31, 2006, at an additional total cost of $260,000,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $195,000,000 and an estimated 

non-Federal cost of $65,000,000. 

SEC. 3088. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for emergency streambank and 

shoreline protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan, 

being carried out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 

1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), is modified to include measures to enhance 

public access. 

(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The maximum amount 

of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 

$3,000,000. 

SEC. 3089. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN. 

Section 426 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 326) is amended to read as follows: 

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

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

apply: 

‘‘(1) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘management plan’ 

means the management plan for the St. Clair River and Lake 

St. Clair, Michigan, that is in effect as of the date of enactment 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. 

‘‘(2) PARTNERSHIP.—The term ‘Partnership’ means the partnership established by the Secretary under subsection (b)(1). 

‘‘(b) PARTNERSHIP.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish and lead 

a partnership of appropriate Federal agencies (including the 

Environmental Protection Agency) and the State of Michigan 

(including political subdivisions of the State)— 

‘‘(A) to promote cooperation among the Federal Government, State and local governments, and other involved 

parties in the management of the St. Clair River and 

Lake St. Clair watersheds; and 

‘‘(B) to develop and implement projects consistent with 

the management plan. 

‘‘(2) COORDINATION WITH ACTIONS UNDER OTHER LAW.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Actions taken under this section 

by the Partnership shall be coordinated with actions to 

restore and conserve the St. Clair River and Lake St. 

Clair and watersheds taken under other provisions of Federal and State law. 

‘‘(B) NO EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—Nothing in this section alters, modifies, or affects any other provision of Federal or State law. 

‘‘(c) IMPLEMENTATION OF ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR

MANAGEMENT PLAN.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— 

‘‘(A) develop a St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair strategic implementation plan in accordance with the management plan; 
H. R. 1495—91 

‘‘(B) provide technical, planning, and engineering 

assistance to non-Federal interests for developing and 

implementing activities consistent with the management 

plan; 

‘‘(C) plan, design, and implement projects consistent 

with the management plan; and 

‘‘(D) provide, in coordination with the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency, financial and technical assistance, including grants, to the State of Michigan 

(including political subdivisions of the State) and interested 

nonprofit entities for the Federal share of the cost of planning, design, and implementation of projects to restore, 

conserve, manage, and sustain the St. Clair River, Lake 

St. Clair, and associated watersheds. 

‘‘(2) SPECIFIC MEASURES.—Financial and technical assistance provided under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph 

(1) may be used in support of non-Federal activities consistent 

with the management plan. 

‘‘(d) SUPPLEMENTS TO MANAGEMENT PLAN AND STRATEGIC

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—In consultation with the Partnership and 

after providing an opportunity for public review and comment, 

the Secretary shall develop information to supplement— 

‘‘(1) the management plan; and 

‘‘(2) the strategic implementation plan developed under 

subsection (c)(1)(A). 

‘‘(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.’’. 

SEC. 3090. ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall expedite development of the dredged material management plan for the project for navigation, St. Joseph 

Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the River and 

Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299). 

SEC. 3091. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The text of section 1149 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘The Secretary shall construct, at Federal expense, a second 

lock, of a width not less than 110 feet and a length not less 

than 1,200 feet, adjacent to the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie, 

Michigan, generally in accordance with the report of the Board 

of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, dated May 19, 1986, and 

the limited reevaluation report dated February 2004 at a total 

cost of $341,714,000.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING REPEALS.—The following provisions are 

repealed: 

(1) Section 107(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4620). 

(2) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717). 

(3) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1999 (113 Stat. 305). 

SEC. 3092. ADA, MINNESOTA. 

In carrying out the project for flood damage reduction, Wild 

Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, under section 205 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), the Secretary shall allow the non- 
H. R. 1495—92 

Federal interest to participate in the financing of the project in 

accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) if the detailed project report evaluation 

indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement 

the project. 

SEC. 3093. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, 

McQuade Road, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 

of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and modified 

by section 321 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2605), is modified to direct the Secretary to provide 

public access and recreational facilities as generally described in 

the Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment, 

McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge, Duluth, Minnesota, dated August 

1999. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 

the costs of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 

for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for 

the project. 

(c) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The maximum amount 

of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 

$9,000,000. 

SEC. 3094. GRAND MARAIS, MINNESOTA. 

The project for navigation, Grand Marais, Minnesota, carried 

out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 

U.S.C. 577) is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 

1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of design work carried out for the project before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3095. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA. 

The Secretary shall provide credit in accordance with section 

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

non-Federal share of the cost of the navigation project for Grand 

Portage Harbor, Minnesota, carried out under section 107 of the 

River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), for the costs of 

design work carried out for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3096. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is directed to implement the 

locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction, Granite Falls, 

Minnesota, at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $8,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,000,000. 

In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent 

practicable, the existing detailed project report dated 2002 for the 

project prepared under the authority of section 205 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(b) PROJECT FINANCING.—In evaluating and implementing the 

project under this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal 

interests to participate in the financing of the project in accordance 

with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (100 Stat. 4184) if the detailed project report evaluation 
H. R. 1495—93 

indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement 

the project. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the project the cost of design 

and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of execution of a partnership agreement 

for the project. 

(d) MAXIMUM FUNDING.—The maximum amount of Federal 

funds that may be expended for the flood damage reduction shall 

be $8,000,000. 

SEC. 3097. KNIFE RIVER HARBOR, MINNESOTA. 

The project for navigation, Harbor at Knife River, Minnesota, 

authorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 

2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), is modified to direct the Secretary to develop 

a final design and prepare plans and specifications to correct the 

harbor entrance and mooring conditions at the project. 

SEC. 3098. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA. 

The project for flood control, Red Lake River, Crookston, Minnesota, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is modified to include 

flood protection for the adjacent and interconnected areas generally 

known as the Sampson and Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance with the feasibility report supplement for local flood protection, 

Crookston, Minnesota, at a total cost of $25,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal 

cost of $8,750,000. 

SEC. 3099. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA. 

The project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, authorized 

by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 2, 1945 

(59 Stat. 19), is modified to include operation and maintenance 

of the general navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility. 

SEC. 3100. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA. 

The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Minnesota, carried 

out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 

U.S.C. 577), is modified to include operation and maintenance of 

the general navigation facilities as a Federal responsibility. 

SEC. 3101. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the requirements of section 

107(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), 

the project for navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota, being carried 

out under such authority, is justified on the basis of navigation 

safety. 

(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURES.—The maximum amount 

of Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 

$7,000,000. 

SEC. 3102. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. 

The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island, Harrison 

County, Mississippi, being carried out under section 204 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), is 

modified to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
H. R. 1495—94 

1962d–5b), any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of 

the project in the form of in-kind services and materials. 

SEC. 3103. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. 

(a) MODIFICATION.—Section 331 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 305) is amended by striking 

‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$9,000,000’’. 

(b) APPLICABILITY OF CREDIT.—The credit provided by section 

331 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 

305) (as amended by subsection (a) of this section) shall apply 

to costs incurred by the Jackson County Board of Supervisors 

during the period beginning on February 8, 1994, and ending on 

the date of enactment of this Act for projects authorized by section 

219(c)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 

Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 1494). 

SEC. 3104. PEARL RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, Pearl 

River Basin, including Shoccoe, Mississippi, authorized by section 

401(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 

Stat. 4132), is modified to authorize the Secretary, subject to subsection (c), to construct the project generally in accordance with 

the plan described in the ‘‘Pearl River Watershed, Mississippi, 

Feasibility Study Main Report, Preliminary Draft’’, dated February 

2007, at a total cost of $205,800,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $133,770,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$72,030,000. 

(b) COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.—Before initiating construction of the project, the Secretary shall compare the level of flood 

damage reduction provided by the plan that maximizes national 

economic development benefits of the project and the locally preferred plan, referred to as the LeFleur Lakes plan, to that portion 

of Jackson, Mississippi and vicinity, located below the Ross Barnett 

Reservoir Dam. 

(c) IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN.— (1) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary determines under subsection (b) that the locally preferred plan provides a level 

of flood damage reduction that is equal to or greater than 

the level of flood damage reduction provided by the national 

economic development plan and that the locally preferred plan 

is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible, the Secretary may construct the project identified as the national 

economic development plan, or the locally preferred plan, or 

some combination thereof. 

(2) CONSTRUCTION BY NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS.—The nonFederal interest may carry out the project under section 211 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

701b–13). 

(d) PROJECT FINANCING.—In evaluating and implementing the 

project under this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal 

interests to participate in the financing of the project in accordance 

with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (100 Stat. 4184) if the detailed project report evaluation 

indicates that applying such section is necessary to implement 

the project. 

(e) NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE.—If the locally preferred plan 

is selected for construction of the project, the Federal share of 

the cost of the project shall be limited to the share as provided 
H. R. 1495—95 

by law for the elements of the national economic development 

plan. 

SEC. 3105. FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI. 

Section 102(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 282) is amended by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$13,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3106. L–15 LEVEE, MISSOURI. 

The portion of the L–15 levee system that is under the jurisdiction of the Consolidated North County Levee District and situated 

along the right descending bank of the Mississippi River from 

the confluence of that river with the Missouri River and running 

upstream approximately 14 miles shall be considered to be a Federal 

levee for purposes of cost sharing under section 5 of the Act of 

August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n). 

SEC. 3107. MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Monarch-Chesterfield, 

Missouri, authorized by section 101(b)(18) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified to direct 

the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project the cost of the planning, design, 

and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project. 

SEC. 3108. RIVER DES PERES, MISSOURI. 

The projects for flood control, River Des Peres, Missouri, authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and section 102(13) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3668), are each 

modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 

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

the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3109. LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT, MONTANA. 

The Secretary may use funds appropriated to carry out the 

Missouri River recovery and mitigation program to assist the 

Bureau of Reclamation in the design and construction of the Lower 

Yellowstone project of the Bureau, Intake, Montana, for the purpose 

of ecosystem restoration. 

SEC. 3110. YELLOWSTONE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MONTANA AND 

NORTH DAKOTA. 

(a) DEFINITION OF RESTORATION PROJECT.—In this section, the 

term ‘‘restoration project’’ means a project that will produce, in 

accordance with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, 

substantial ecosystem restoration and related benefits, as determined by the Secretary. 

(b) PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall carry out, in accordance 

with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, restoration 

projects in the watershed of the Yellowstone River and tributaries 

in Montana, and in North Dakota, to produce immediate and 

substantial ecosystem restoration and recreation benefits. 
H. R. 1495—96 

(c) LOCAL PARTICIPATION.—In carrying out subsection (b), the 

Secretary shall— 

(1) consult with, and consider the activities being carried 

out by— 

(A) other Federal agencies; 

(B) Indian tribes; 

(C) conservation districts; and 

(D) the Yellowstone River Conservation District 

Council; and 

(2) seek the participation of the State of Montana. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

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

SEC. 3111. ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA. 

The project for flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, Lincoln, 

Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(19) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified— 

(1) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of design and construction work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project; and 

(2) to allow the non-Federal interest for the project to 

use, and to direct the Secretary to accept, funds provided under 

any other Federal program to satisfy, in whole or in part, 

the non-Federal share of the project if the Federal agency 

that provides such funds determines that the funds are authorized to be used to carry out the project. 

SEC. 3112. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA. 

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

(114 Stat. 2578), is modified— 

(1) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

or reimbursement for the costs of any work performed by the 

non-Federal interest for the project before the approval of the 

project partnership agreement, including work performed by 

the non-Federal interest in connection with the design and 

construction of 7 upstream detention storage structures; 

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

(3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance funds from 

the non-Federal interest as needed to maintain the project 

schedule. 

SEC. 3113. WESTERN SARPY AND CLEAR CREEK, NEBRASKA. 

The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Western Sarpy and Clear Creek, Nebraska, authorized by 

section 101(b)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2578), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct 

the project at a total cost of $21,664,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $14,082,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $7,582,000. 
H. R. 1495—97 

SEC. 3114. LOWER TRUCKEE RIVER, MCCARRAN RANCH, NEVADA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project being carried out, as of the date of enactment 

of this Act, under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) for environmental restoration of 

McCarran Ranch, Nevada, shall be $5,775,000. 

SEC. 3115. LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NEW 

JERSEY. 

The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem restoration, 

shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Lower 

Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey, authorized by 

section 101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 278), is modified to incorporate the project for shoreline 

erosion control, Cape May Point, New Jersey, carried out under 

section 5 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property’’, 

approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h), if the Secretary determines that such incorporation is feasible. 

SEC. 3116. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY. 

The project for flood control, Passaic River, New Jersey and 

New York, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and modified by section 

327 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 

2607), is modified to direct the Secretary to include the benefits 

and costs of preserving natural flood storage in any future economic 

analysis of the project. 

SEC. 3117. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, NEW MEXICO. 

The Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with 

any Indian tribe any land of which is located in the State of 

New Mexico and occupied by a flood control project that is owned 

and operated by the Corps of Engineers to assist in carrying out 

any operation or maintenance activity associated with the flood 

control project. 

SEC. 3118. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION, NEW MEXICO. 

(a) RESTORATION PROJECTS DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘restoration project’’ means a project that will produce, consistent 

with other Federal programs, projects, and activities, immediate 

and substantial ecosystem restoration and recreation benefits. 

(b) PROJECT SELECTION.—The Secretary shall select and shall 

carry out restoration projects in the Middle Rio Grande from Cochiti 

Dam to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir in the State 

of New Mexico. 

(c) LOCAL PARTICIPATION.—In carrying out subsection (b), the 

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

(1) the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program; and 

(2) the Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio 

Grande Bosque Initiative. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section. 
H. R. 1495—98 

SEC. 3119. BUFFALO HARBOR, NEW YORK. 

The project for navigation, Buffalo Harbor, New York, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 

1176), is modified to include measures to enhance public access, 

at Federal cost of $500,000. 

SEC. 3120. LONG ISLAND SOUND OYSTER RESTORATION, NEW YORK 

AND CONNECTICUT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct projects to increase aquatic habitats within Long Island 

Sound and adjacent waters, including the construction and restoration of oyster beds and related shellfish habitat. 

(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under this section shall be 25 percent and may 

be provided through in-kind services and materials. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 3121. MAMARONECK AND SHELDRAKE RIVERS WATERSHED 

MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK. 

(a) WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

State of New York and local entities, shall develop watershed 

management plans for the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake River 

watershed for the purposes of evaluating existing and new 

flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration. 

(2) EXISTING PLANS.—In developing the watershed management plans, the Secretary shall use existing studies and plans, 

as appropriate. 

(b) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in any 

eligible critical restoration project in the Mamaroneck and 

Sheldrake Rivers watershed in accordance with the watershed 

management plans developed under subsection (a). 

(2) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A critical restoration project shall 

be eligible for assistance under this section if the project— 

(A) meets the purposes described in the watershed 

management plans developed under subsection (a); and 

(B) with respect to the Mamaroneck and Sheldrake 

Rivers watershed in New York, consists of flood damage 

reduction or ecosystem restoration through— 

(i) bank stabilization of the mainstem, tributaries, 

and streams; 

(ii) wetland restoration; 

(iii) soil and water conservation; 

(iv) restoration of natural flows; 

(v) restoration of stream stability; 

(vi) structural and nonstructural flood damage 

reduction measures; or 

(vii) any other project or activity the Secretary 

determines to be appropriate. 

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out this section, 

the Secretary may enter into one or more cooperative agreements 

to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, or 

local governments or nonprofit agencies, including assistance for 

the implementation of projects to be carried out under subsection 

(b). 
H. R. 1495—99 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000, to remain 

available until expended. 

SEC. 3122. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK. 

Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ‘‘maximum Federal cost 

of $5,200,000’’ and inserting ‘‘total cost of $20,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3123. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND 

NEW JERSEY. 

The navigation project, Port of New York and New Jersey, 

New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(2) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), is 

modified— 

(1) to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal 

interest to construct a temporary dredged material storage 

facility to receive dredged material from the project if— 

(A) the non-Federal interest submits, in writing, a 

list of potential sites for the temporary storage facility 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, and the Secretary 

at least 180 days before the selection of the final site; 

and 

(B) at least 70 percent of the dredged material generated in connection with the project suitable for beneficial 

reuse will be used at sites in the State of New Jersey 

to the extent that there are sufficient sites available; and 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of construction of the temporary storage facility for 

the project. 

SEC. 3124. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM. 

Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3781) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(c) NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM DEFINED.—In this section, 

the term ‘New York State Canal System’ means the 524 miles 

of navigable canal that comprise the New York State Canal System, 

including the Erie, Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and Champlain Canals 

and the historic alignments of these canals, including the cities 

of Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo.’’. 

SEC. 3125. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AND UPPER DELAWARE RIVER 

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK. 

(a) WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

State of New York, the Delaware or Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission, as appropriate, and local entities, shall develop 

watershed management plans for the Susquehanna River 

watershed in New York State and the Upper Delaware River 

watershed for the purposes of evaluating existing and new 

flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration. 

(2) EXISTING PLANS.—In developing the watershed management plans, the Secretary shall use existing studies and plans, 

as appropriate. 
H. R. 1495—100 

(b) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in any 

eligible critical restoration project in the Susquehanna River 

or Upper Delaware Rivers in accordance with the watershed 

management plans developed under subsection (a). 

(2) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A critical restoration project shall 

be eligible for assistance under this section if the project— 

(A) meets the purposes described in the watershed 

management plans developed under subsection (a); and 

(B) with respect to the Susquehanna River or Upper 

Delaware River watershed in New York, consists of flood 

damage reduction or ecosystem restoration through— 

(i) bank stabilization of the mainstem, tributaries, 

and streams; 

(ii) wetland restoration; 

(iii) soil and water conservation; 

(iv) restoration of natural flows; 

(v) restoration of stream stability; 

(vi) structural and nonstructural flood damage 

reduction measures; or 

(vii) any other project or activity the Secretary 

determines to be appropriate. 

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out this section, 

the Secretary may enter into 1 or more cooperative agreements 

to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, or 

local governments or nonprofit agencies, including assistance for 

the implementation of projects to be carried out under subsection 

(b). 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000, to remain 

available until expended. 

SEC. 3126. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, NORTH DAKOTA. 

Section 707(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (114 Stat. 2699) is amended in the first sentence by striking 

‘‘$5,000,000’’ and all that follows through ‘‘2005’’ and inserting 

‘‘$25,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3127. WAHPETON, NORTH DAKOTA. 

The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be allotted 

for the project for flood damage reduction, Wahpeton, North Dakota, 

being carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 

1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $12,000,000. 

SEC. 3128. OHIO. 

Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 381) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 

(g) and (h), respectively; and 

(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following: 

‘‘(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), a non-Federal 

interest for any project carried out under this section may include 

a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected local government.’’. 
H. R. 1495—101 

SEC. 3129. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, GIRARD, OHIO. 

Section 507 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3758) is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before ‘‘The Secretary’’; 

(2) in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) (as designated by 

paragraph (1) of this subsection)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘Repair and rehabilitation’’ and all that 

follows through ‘‘Ohio’’ and inserting ‘‘Correction of structural deficiencies of the Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, 

Ohio, and the appurtenant features to meet the dam safety 

standards of the State of Ohio’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘$2,500,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$16,000,000’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) SPECIAL RULES.—The project for Lower Girard Lake Dam, 

Girard, Ohio, authorized by subsection (a)(1) is justified on the 

basis of public safety.’’. 

SEC. 3130. MAHONING RIVER, OHIO. 

In carrying out the project for environmental dredging, authorized by section 312(f)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)(4)), the Secretary is directed to credit, 

in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement 

for the project. 

SEC. 3131. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA. 

Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the Secretary in October 1999 of all costs associated with present and 

future water storage costs at Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma, under 

Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract Number DACW56–79–C– 

0072 shall satisfy the obligations of the city under that contract. 

SEC. 3132. ARKANSAS RIVER CORRIDOR, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to participate 

in the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction 

components of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan dated 

October 2005. The Secretary shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity of Tulsa, Oklahoma, including representatives of Tulsa County and surrounding communities and the Indian 

Nations Council of Governments. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 3133. LAKE EUFAULA, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) PROJECT GOAL.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The goal for operation of Lake Eufaula, 

Oklahoma, shall be to maximize the use of available storage 

in a balanced approach that incorporates advice from representatives from all the project purposes to ensure that the full 

value of the reservoir is realized by the United States. 

(2) RECOGNITION OF PURPOSE.—To achieve the goal 

described in paragraph (1), recreation is recognized as a project 

purpose at Lake Eufaula, pursuant to section 4 of the Flood 

Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 889). 

(b) LAKE EUFAULA ADVISORY COMMITTEE.— 
H. R. 1495—102 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), the Secretary shall establish 

an advisory committee for the Lake Eufaula, Canadian River, 

Oklahoma project authorized by the first section of the River 

and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 635). 

(2) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the committee shall be 

advisory only. 

(3) DUTIES.—The committee shall provide information and 

recommendations to the Corps of Engineers regarding the operations of Lake Eufaula for the project purposes for Lake 

Eufaula. 

(4) COMPOSITION.—The Committee shall be composed of 

members that equally represent the project purposes for Lake 

Eufaula. 

(c) REALLOCATION STUDY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the appropriation of funds, 

the Secretary shall perform a reallocation study, at Federal 

expense, to develop and present recommendations concerning 

the best value, while minimizing ecological damages, for current 

and future use of the Lake Eufaula storage capacity for the 

authorized project purposes of flood control, water supply, 

hydroelectric power, navigation, fish and wildlife, and recreation. 

(2) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—The reallocation study 

shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Lake 

Eufaula Advisory Committee. 

(d) POOL MANAGEMENT PLAN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date 

of enactment of this Act, to the extent feasible within available 

project funds and subject to the completion and approval of 

the reallocation study under subsection (c), the Tulsa district 

engineer, taking into consideration recommendations of the 

Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee, shall develop an interim 

management plan that accommodates all project purposes for 

Lake Eufaula. 

(2) MODIFICATIONS.—A modification of the plan under paragraph (1) shall not cause significant adverse impacts on any 

existing permit, lease, license, contract, public law, or project 

purpose, including flood control operation, relating to Lake 

Eufaula. 

SEC. 3134. OKLAHOMA LAKES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM.—Not later than one year 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall implement an innovative program at the lakes located primarily in the 

State of Oklahoma that are a part of an authorized civil works 

project under the administrative jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers for the purpose of demonstrating the benefits of enhanced 

recreation facilities and activities at those lakes. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In implementing the program under subsection (a), the Secretary, consistent with authorized project purposes, shall— 

(1) pursue strategies that will enhance, to the maximum 

extent practicable, recreation experiences at the lakes included 

in the program; 
H. R. 1495—103 

(2) use creative management strategies that optimize recreational activities; and 

(3) ensure continued public access to recreation areas 

located on or associated with the civil works project. 

(c) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue guidelines for 

the implementation of this section, to be developed in coordination 

with the State of Oklahoma. 

(d) REPORT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of Representatives a report describing the results 

of the program under subsection (a). 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The report under paragraph (1) shall 

include a description of the projects undertaken under the 

program, including— 

(A) an estimate of the change in any related recreational opportunities; 

(B) a description of any leases entered into, including 

the parties involved; and 

(C) the financial conditions that the Corps of Engineers 

used to justify those leases. 

(3) AVAILABILITY TO PUBLIC.—The Secretary shall make 

the report available to the public in electronic and written 

formats. 

(e) TERMINATION.—The authority provided by this section shall 

terminate on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

SEC. 3135. OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

$30,000,000 for the purposes set forth in subsection (b). 

(b) PURPOSES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

funds appropriated under subsection (a) may be used for the purpose 

of— 

(1) the buyout of properties and permanently relocating 

residents and businesses in or near Picher, Cardin, and 

Hockerville, Oklahoma, from areas determined by the State 

of Oklahoma to be at risk of damage caused by land subsidence 

and remaining properties; and 

(2) providing funding to the State of Oklahoma to buyout 

properties and permanently relocate residents and businesses 

of Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville, Oklahoma, from areas determined by the State of Oklahoma to be at risk of damage 

caused by land subsidence and remaining properties. 

(c) LIMITATION.—The use of funds in accordance with subsection 

(b) shall not be considered to be part of a federally assisted program 

or project for purposes of Public Law 91–646 (42 U.S.C. 4601 

et seq.), consistent with section 2301 of Public Law 109–234 (120 

Stat. 455). 

(d) CONSISTENCY WITH STATE PROGRAM.—Any actions taken 

under subsection (b) shall be consistent with the relocation program 

in the State of Oklahoma under 27A O.S. Supp. 2006, sections 

2201 et seq. 
H. R. 1495—104 

(e) CONSIDERATION OF REMEDIAL ACTION.—The Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency shall consider, without 

delay, a remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 

et seq.) for the Tar Creek, Oklahoma, National Priorities List site 

that includes permanent relocation of residents consistent with 

the program currently being administered by the State of Oklahoma. Such relocation shall not be subject to the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 4601 et seq.). 

(f) ESTIMATING COSTS.—In estimating and comparing the cost 

of a remedial alternative for the Tar Creek Oklahoma, National 

Priorities List site that includes the permanent relocation of residents, the Administrator shall not include the cost of compliance 

with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.). 

(g) EFFECT OF CERTAIN REMEDIES.—Inclusion of subsidence 

remedies, such as permanent relocation within any remedial action, 

shall not preempt, alter, or delay the right of any sovereign entity, 

including any State or tribal government, to seek remedies, 

including abatement, for land subsidence and subsidence risks 

under State law. 

(h) AMENDMENT.—Section 111 of Public Law 108–137 (117 Stat. 

1835) is amended— 

(1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: 

‘‘Such activities also may include the provision of financial 

assistance to facilitate the buy out of properties located in 

areas identified by the State as areas that are or will be 

at risk of damage caused by land subsidence and associated 

properties otherwise identified by the State. Any buyout of 

such properties shall not be considered to be part of a federally 

assisted program or project for purposes of Public Law 91– 

646 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.), consistent with section 2301 of 

Public Law 109–234 (120 Stat. 455–456).’’; and 

(2) by striking the first sentence of subsection (d) and 

inserting the following: ‘‘Non-Federal interests shall be responsible for operating and maintaining any restoration alternatives 

constructed or carried out pursuant to this section.’’. 

SEC. 3136. RED RIVER CHLORIDE CONTROL, OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS. 

The project for water quality control in the Arkansas and 

Red River Basin, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, authorized by 

section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1420) and 

modified by section 1107(a) of the Water Resources Development 

A of 1986 (100 Stat. 4229) is further modified to direct the Secretary 

to provide operation and maintenance for the Red River Chloride 

Control project, Oklahoma and Texas, at Federal expense. 

SEC. 3137. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA. 

The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master 

Conservancy District payable to the United States Government 

in the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules— 

(1) is set at the amounts, rates of interest, and payment 

schedules that existed on June 3, 1986, with respect to the 

project for Waurika Lake, Oklahoma; and 

(2) may not be adjusted, altered, or changed without a 

specific, separate, and written agreement between the District 

and the United States. 
H. R. 1495—105 

SEC. 3138. UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, OREGON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct studies and ecosystem restoration projects for the upper Willamette River watershed from Albany, Oregon, to the headwaters of the Willamette 

River and tributaries. 

(b) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall carry out ecosystem 

restoration projects under this section for the Upper Willamette 

River watershed in consultation with the Governor of the State 

of Oregon, the heads of appropriate Indian tribes, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management, the Forest Service, and local entities. 

(c) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—In carrying out ecosystem restoration projects under this section, the Secretary shall undertake activities necessary to protect, monitor, and restore fish and wildlife 

habitat. 

(d) PRIORITY.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall 

give priority to a project to restore the millrace in Eugene, Oregon, 

and shall include noneconomic benefits associated with the historical significance of the millrace and associated with preservation 

and enhancement of resources in evaluating the benefits of the 

project. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000. 

SEC. 3139. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND DELAWARE. 

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

Philadelphia to the Sea. 

SEC. 3140. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary, 

including construction of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline erosion 

between .07 and 2.7 miles south of Pennsylvania State Route 994 

on the east shore of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 

SEC. 3141. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS CREEK, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sheraden Park 

Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 

being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), up to $400,000 toward the nonFederal share of the cost of the project for planning and design 

work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project before 

the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3142. SOLOMON’S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania, 

authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is modified to include as a project 

element the project for flood control for Solomon’s Creek, WilkesBarre, Pennsylvania. 
H. R. 1495—106 

SEC. 3143. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 310; 

117 Stat. 142) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ‘‘$180,000,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$200,000,000’’; and 

(2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ‘‘Allegheny, Armstrong, 

Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, 

Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin, Somerset, 

Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, 

Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties’’. 

SEC. 3144. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, 

Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), the Secretary shall 

coordinate with non-Federal interests to review opportunities for 

increased public access. 

SEC. 3145. NARRAGANSETT BAY, RHODE ISLAND. 

The Secretary may use amounts in the Environmental Restoration Account, Formerly Used Defense Sites, under section 2703(a)(5) 

of title 10, United States Code, for the removal of abandoned 

marine camels at any formerly used defense site under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense that is undergoing (or is scheduled to undergo) environmental remediation under chapter 160 

of title 10, United States Code (and other provisions of law), in 

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, in accordance with the Corps 

of Engineers prioritization process under the Formerly Used 

Defense Sites program. 

SEC. 3146. MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA. 

(a) MEMBERSHIP.—Section 904(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2708) is amended— 

(1) in clause (vii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) by redesignating clause (viii) as clause (ix); and 

(3) by inserting after clause (vii) the following: 

‘‘(viii) rural water systems; and’’. 

(b) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 907(a) of such Act (114 Stat. 

2712) is amended in the first sentence by striking ‘‘2005’’ and 

inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

SEC. 3147. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS. 

(a) CREDIT FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN.—The project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, Texas, reauthorized by section 349(a)(2) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632), is 

modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 

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

the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 

and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the 

project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(b) COST SHARING.—Cost sharing for construction and operation 

and maintenance of the project shall be determined in accordance 

with section 101 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2211). 
H. R. 1495—107 

(c) PROJECT FOR NAVIGATION.—Section 349(a)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632) is amended 

by striking ‘‘12 feet deep by 125 feet wide’’ and inserting ‘‘that 

is 10 feet deep by 100 feet wide’’. 

SEC. 3148. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Freeport Harbor, 

Texas, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to provide that— 

(1) all project costs incurred as a result of the discovery 

of the sunken vessel COMSTOCK of the Corps of Engineers 

are a Federal responsibility; and 

(2) the Secretary shall not seek further obligation or responsibility for removal of the vessel COMSTOCK, or costs associated with a delay due to the discovery of the sunken vessel 

COMSTOCK, from the Port of Freeport. 

(b) COST SHARING.—This section does not affect the authorized 

cost sharing for the balance of the project described in subsection 

(a). 

SEC. 3149. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not take any legal or 

administrative action seeking to remove a Lake Kemp improvement 

before the earlier of January 1, 2020, or the date of any transfer 

of ownership of the improvement occurring after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.—The United States, or any of 

its officers, agents, or assignees, shall not be liable for any injury, 

loss, or damage accruing to the owners of a Lake Kemp improvement, their lessees, or occupants as a result of any flooding or 

inundation of such improvements by the waters of the Lake Kemp 

reservoir, or for such injury, loss, or damage as may occur through 

the operation and maintenance of the Lake Kemp dam and reservoir 

in any manner. 

(c) LAKE KEMP IMPROVEMENT DEFINED.—In this section, the 

term ‘‘Lake Kemp improvement’’ means an improvement (including 

dwellings) located within the flowage easement of Lake Kemp, 

Texas, below elevation 1159 feet mean sea level. 

SEC. 3150. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS. 

The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, 

authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is modified— 

(1) to include as part of the project flood protection works 

to reroute drainage to Raymondville Drain constructed by the 

non-Federal interests in Hidalgo County in the vicinity of Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that such work is 

feasible; 

(2) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project; and 

(3) to direct the Secretary in calculating the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the project, to make a determination, 

within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, under 

section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
H. R. 1495—108 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest’s ability 

to pay. 

SEC. 3151. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS. 

The project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, authorized 

by section 556 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 353), is modified to include recreation as a project purpose. 

SEC. 3152. PAT MAYSE LAKE, TEXAS. 

The Secretary is directed to accept from the city of Paris, Texas, $3,461,432 as payment in full of monies owed to the United 

States for water supply storage space in Pat Mayse Lake, Texas, 

under contract number DA–34–066–CIVENG–65–1272, including 

accrued interest. 

SEC. 3153. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS. 

The Secretary is authorized to purchase fee simple title to 

all properties located within the boundaries, and necessary for 

the operation, of the Proctor Lake project, Texas, authorized by 

section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259). 

SEC. 3154. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS. 

The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, Texas, 

authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 

Stat. 1259) as part of the comprehensive plan for flood protection 

on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers in Texas and modified 

by section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 

(90 Stat. 2921) and section 335 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is modified to authorize the Secretary 

to credit, in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project the cost of design and construction work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project. 

SEC. 3155. CONNECTICUT RIVER RESTORATION, VERMONT. 

Notwithstanding section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), as in effect on August 5, 2005, with respect 

to the study entitled ‘‘Connecticut River Restoration Authority’’, 

dated May 23, 2001, a nonprofit entity may act as the non-Federal 

interest for purposes of carrying out the activities described in 

the agreement executed between The Nature Conservancy and the 

Department of the Army on August 5, 2005. 

SEC. 3156. DAM REMEDIATION, VERMONT. 

Section 543 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2673) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking the period at the end 

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

(3) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: 

‘‘(4) may carry out measures to restore, protect, and preserve an ecosystem affected by a dam described in subsection 

(b).’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following: 

‘‘(11) Camp Wapanacki, Hardwick. 

‘‘(12) Star Lake Dam, Mt. Holly. 

‘‘(13) Curtis Pond, Calais. 
H. R. 1495—109 

‘‘(14) Weathersfield Reservoir, Springfield. 

‘‘(15) Burr Pond, Sudbury. 

‘‘(16) Maidstone Lake, Guildhall. 

‘‘(17) Upper and Lower Hurricane Dam. 

‘‘(18) Lake Fairlee. 

‘‘(19) West Charleston Dam. 

‘‘(20) White River, Sharon.’’. 

SEC. 3157. LAKE CHAMPLAIN EURASIAN MILFOIL, WATER CHESTNUT, 

AND OTHER NONNATIVE PLANT CONTROL, VERMONT. 

Under authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary may revise the existing 

General Design Memorandum to permit the use of chemical means 

of control, when appropriate, of Eurasian milfoil, water chestnuts, 

and other nonnative plants in the Lake Champlain basin, Vermont. 

SEC. 3158. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN WETLAND RESTORATION, VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the States 

of Vermont and New Hampshire, shall carry out a study and 

develop a strategy for the use of wetland restoration, soil and 

water conservation practices, and nonstructural measures to reduce 

flood damage, improve water quality, and create wildlife habitat 

in the Upper Connecticut River watershed. 

(b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In conducting the study and 

developing the strategy under this section, the Secretary may enter 

into one or more cooperative agreements to provide technical assistance to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and nonprofit 

organizations with wetland restoration experience. Such assistance 

may include assistance for the implementation of wetland restoration projects and soil and water conservation measures. 

(c) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary shall carry out development and implementation of the strategy under this section in 

cooperation with local landowners and local government officials. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000, to remain 

available until expended. 

SEC. 3159. UPPER CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, VERMONT AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

(a) GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the 

Secretary of Agriculture and in consultation with the States 

of Vermont and New Hampshire and the Connecticut River 

Joint Commission, shall conduct a study and develop a general 

management plan for ecosystem restoration of the Upper Connecticut River ecosystem for the purposes of— 

(A) habitat protection and restoration; 

(B) streambank stabilization; 

(C) restoration of stream stability; 

(D) water quality improvement; 

(E) aquatic nuisance species control; 

(F) wetland restoration; 

(G) fish passage; and 

(H) natural flow restoration. 

(2) EXISTING PLANS.—In developing the general management plan, the Secretary shall depend heavily on existing plans 

for the restoration of the Upper Connecticut River. 
H. R. 1495—110 

(b) CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in any 

critical restoration project in the Upper Connecticut River basin 

in accordance with the general management plan developed 

under subsection (a). 

(2) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A critical restoration project shall 

be eligible for assistance under this section if the project— 

(A) meets the purposes described in the general 

management plan developed under subsection (a); and 

(B) with respect to the Upper Connecticut River and 

Upper Connecticut River watershed, consists of— 

(i) bank stabilization of the main stem, tributaries, 

and streams; 

(ii) wetland restoration and migratory bird habitat 

restoration; 

(iii) soil and water conservation; 

(iv) restoration of natural flows; 

(v) restoration of stream stability; 

(vi) implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for coordinating ecosystem restoration, fish passage installation, streambank stabilization, wetland 

restoration, habitat protection and restoration, or natural flow restoration; 

(vii) water quality improvement; 

(viii) aquatic nuisance species control; 

(ix) improvements in fish migration; and 

(x) conduct of any other project or activity determined to be appropriate by the Secretary. 

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out this section, 

the Secretary may enter into one or more cooperative agreements 

to provide financial assistance to appropriate Federal, State, or 

local governments or nonprofit agencies. Such assistance may 

include assistance for the implementation of projects to be carried 

out under subsection (b). 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000. Such 

sums shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 3160. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK. 

Section 542 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2671) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b)(2)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (D); 

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (G); and 

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following: 

‘‘(E) river corridor assessment, protection, management, and restoration for the purposes of ecosystem restoration; 

‘‘(F) geographic mapping conducted by the Secretary 

using existing technical capacity to produce a high-resolution, multispectral satellite imagery-based land use and 

cover data set; or’’; 

(2) in subsection (e)(2)(A)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘The non-Federal’’ and inserting the 

following: 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal’’; and 
H. R. 1495—111 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(ii) APPROVAL OF DISTRICT ENGINEER.—Approval 

of credit for design work of less than $100,000 shall 

be determined by the appropriate district engineer.’’; 

(3) in subsection (e)(2)(C) by striking ‘‘up to 50 percent 

of’’; and 

(4) in subsection (g) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$32,000,000’’. 

SEC. 3161. SANDBRIDGE BEACH, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA. 

The project for beach erosion control and hurricane protection, 

Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia, authorized by section 

101(22) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 

Stat. 4804) and modified by section 338 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2612), is modified to authorize 

the Secretary to review the project to determine whether any additional Federal interest exists with respect to the project, taking 

into consideration conditions and development levels relating to 

the project in existence on the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 3162. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA. 

Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended by striking ‘‘at a total cost 

of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $900,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.’’ and inserting ‘‘at a 

total cost of $3,600,000.’’. 

SEC. 3163. DUWAMISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON. 

The project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(26) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2579), is modified— 

(1) to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for 

the project; and 

(2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any 

portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

in the form of in-kind services and materials. 

SEC. 3164. MCNARY LOCK AND DAM, MCNARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO. 

(a) TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION.—Administrative jurisdiction over the land acquired for the McNary Lock and 

Dam project and managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service under cooperative agreement number DACW68–4–00–13 

with the Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, is transferred 

from the Secretary to the Secretary of the Interior. 

(b) EASEMENTS.—The transfer of administrative jurisdiction 

under paragraph (1) shall be subject to easements in existence 

as of the date of enactment of this Act on land subject to the 

transfer. 

(c) RIGHTS OF SECRETARY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 

the Secretary shall retain rights described in subparagraph 

(B) with respect to the land for which administrative jurisdiction is transferred under paragraph (1). 
H. R. 1495—112 

(2) RIGHTS.—The rights of the Secretary referred to in 

paragraph (1) are the rights— 

(A) to flood land described in subsection (a) to the 

standard project flood elevation; 

(B) to manipulate the level of the McNary project pool; 

(C) to access land described in subsection (a) as may 

be required to install, maintain, and inspect sediment 

ranges and carry out similar activities; 

(D) to construct and develop wetland, riparian habitat, 

or other environmental restoration features authorized by 

section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) and section 206 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330); 

(E) to dredge and deposit fill materials; and 

(F) to carry out management actions for the purpose 

of reducing the take of juvenile salmonids by avian colonies 

that inhabit, before, on, or after the date of enactment 

of this Act, any island included in the land described in 

subsection (a). 

(3) COORDINATION.—Before exercising a right described in 

any of subparagraphs (C) through (F) of paragraph (2), the 

Secretary shall coordinate the exercise with the Director of 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

(d) MANAGEMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The land described in subsection (a) shall 

be managed by the Secretary of the Interior as part of the 

McNary National Wildlife Refuge. 

(2) CUMMINS PROPERTY.— (A) RETENTION OF CREDITS.—Habitat unit credits 

described in the memorandum entitled ‘‘Design Memorandum No. 6, LOWER SNAKE RIVER FISH AND WILDLIFE COMPENSATION PLAN, Wildlife Compensation and 

Fishing Access Site Selection, Letter Supplement No. 15, 

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WALLULA HMU’’ 

provided for the Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife 

Compensation Plan through development of the parcel of 

land formerly known as the ‘‘Cummins property’’ shall be 

retained by the Secretary despite any changes in management of the parcel on or after the date of enactment of 

this Act. 

(B) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.—The Director shall 

obtain prior approval of the Washington State department 

of fish and wildlife for any change to the previously 

approved site development plan for the parcel of land formerly known as the ‘‘Cummins property’’. 

(3) MADAME DORIAN RECREATION AREA.—The Director shall 

continue operation of the Madame Dorian Recreation Area for 

public use and boater access. 

(e) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The Director shall be responsible 

for all survey, environmental compliance, and other administrative 

costs required to implement the transfer of administrative jurisdiction under subsection (a). 

SEC. 3165. SNAKE RIVER PROJECT, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The fish and wildlife compensation plan for 

the Lower Snake River, Washington and Idaho, as authorized by 

section 102 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 
H. R. 1495—113 

Stat. 2921), is amended to authorize the Secretary to conduct 

studies and implement aquatic and riparian ecosystem restorations 

and improvements specifically for fisheries and wildlife. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 3166. YAKIMA RIVER, PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WASHINGTON. 

The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Yakima River, 

Port of Sunnyside, Washington, being carried out under section 

206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 3167. BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 102(ff) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1992 (106 Stat. 4810, 110 Stat. 3726, 113 Stat. 312) is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘(ff) BLUESTONE LAKE, OHIO RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Bluestone 

Lake, Ohio River Basin, West Virginia, authorized by section 

4 of the Flood Control Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1217) is modified 

to direct the Secretary to implement Plan C/G, as defined 

in the Evaluation Report of the District Engineer dated 

December 1996, to prohibit the release of drift and debris 

into waters downstream of the project (other than organic 

matter necessary to maintain and enhance the biological 

resources of such waters and such nonobtrusive items of debris 

as may not be economically feasible to prevent being released 

through such project), including measures to prevent the 

accumulation of drift and debris at the project, the collection 

and removal of drift and debris on the segment of the New 

River upstream of the project, and the removal (through use 

of temporary or permanent systems) and disposal of accumulated drift and debris at Bluestone Dam. 

‘‘(2) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—In carrying out the downstream cleanup under the plan referred to in paragraph (1), 

the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with 

the West Virginia department of environmental protection for 

the department to carry out the cleanup, including contracting 

and procurement services, contract administration and management, transportation and disposal of collected materials, and 

disposal fees. 

‘‘(3) INITIAL CLEANUP.—The Secretary may provide the West 

Virginia department of environmental protection up to $150,000 

from funds previously appropriated for this purpose for the 

Federal share of the costs of the initial cleanup under the 

plan.’’. 

SEC. 3168. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking ‘‘$47,000,000’’ 

and inserting ‘‘$99,000,000’’. 
H. R. 1495—114 

SEC. 3169. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 30(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 

(102 Stat. 4030; 114 Stat. 2678) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(d) HISTORIC STRUCTURE.—The Secretary shall ensure the 

preservation and restoration of the structure known as the ‘Jenkins 

House’ and the reconstruction of associated buildings and landscape 

features of such structure located within the Lesage/Greenbottom 

Swamp in accordance with the standards of the Department of 

the Interior for the treatment of historic properties. Amounts made 

available for expenditure for the project authorized by section 301(a) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110) 

shall be available for the purposes of this subsection.’’. 

SEC. 3170. LOWER MUD RIVER, MILTON, WEST VIRGINIA. 

The project for flood control at Milton, West Virginia, authorized 

by section 580 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3790) and modified by section 340 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2612), is modified to authorize 

the Secretary to construct the project substantially in accordance 

with the draft report of the Corps of Engineers dated May 2004, 

at an estimated total cost of $57,100,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $42,825,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$14,275,000. 

SEC. 3171. MCDOWELL COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. 

The McDowell County nonstructural component of the project 

for flood control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and Cumberland Rivers, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, authorized 

by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is modified to direct the Secretary 

to take measures to provide protection, throughout McDowell 

County, West Virginia, from the reoccurrence of the greater of— 

(1) the April 1977 flood; 

(2) the July 2001 flood; 

(3) the May 2002 flood; or 

(4) the 100-year frequency event. 

SEC. 3172. PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA. 

The Secretary is authorized to carry out the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood control components of the report of the 

Corps of Engineers, entitled ‘‘Parkersburg/Vienna Riverfront Park 

Feasibility Study’’, dated June 1998, as amended by the limited 

reevaluation report of the Corps of Engineers, dated March 2004, 

at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost 

of $6,000,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of $6,000,000. 

SEC. 3173. GREEN BAY HARBOR, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN. 

The portion of the inner harbor of the Federal navigation 

channel of the Green Bay Harbor project, authorized by the first 

section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the 

construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on 

rivers and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved July 5, 1884 

(23 Stat. 136), from Station 190+00 to Station 378+00 is authorized 

to a width of 75 feet and a depth of 6 feet. 

SEC. 3174. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN. 

The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, 

authorized by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852 (10 
H. R. 1495—115 

Stat. 58), is modified to direct the Secretary to deepen the upstream 

reach of the navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a 

total cost of $405,000. 

SEC. 3175. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS. 

Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 

(102 Stat. 4027) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘1276.42’’ and inserting ‘‘1278.42’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘1218.31’’ and inserting ‘‘1221.31’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘1234.82’’ and inserting ‘‘1235.30’’; and 

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

‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary may operate the headwaters 

reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water levels 

established in subsection (a) in accordance with water control regulation manuals (or revisions thereto) developed by the Secretary, 

after consultation with the Governor of Minnesota and affected 

tribal governments, landowners, and commercial and recreational 

users. The water control regulation manuals (and any revisions 

thereto) shall be effective when the Secretary transmits them to 

Congress. The Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14 days 

before operating any such headwaters reservoir below the minimum 

or above the maximum water level limits specified in subsection 

(a); except that notification is not required for operations necessary 

to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety of the dam 

or if the drawdown of lake levels is in anticipation of flood control 

operations.’’. 

SEC. 3176. UPPER BASIN OF MISSOURI RIVER. 

(a) USE OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103), funds 

made available for recovery or mitigation activities in the lower 

basin of the Missouri River may be used for recovery or mitigation 

activities in the upper basin of the Missouri River, including the 

States of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The matter under the heading 

‘‘MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION, MISSOURI, KANSAS, IOWA, AND

NEBRASKA’’ of section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143), as modified by section 334 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 306), is 

amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary may 

carry out any recovery or mitigation activities in the upper basin 

of the Missouri River, including the States of Montana, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota, using funds made available under 

this paragraph in accordance with the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and consistent with the project 

purposes of the Missouri River Mainstem System as authorized 

by section 10 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 

Stat. 897).’’. 

SEC. 3177. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL 

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 

Section 1103(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting 

before the period at the end the following: ‘‘, including research 

on water quality issues affecting the Mississippi River (including 

elevated nutrient levels) and the development of remediation strategies’’. 
H. R. 1495—116 

SEC. 3178. UPPER OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES NAVIGATION SYSTEM 

NEW TECHNOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM. 

(a) UPPER OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES NAVIGATION SYSTEM

DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system’’ means the Allegheny, Kanawha, 

Monongahela, and Ohio Rivers. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot program to evaluate new technologies applicable to the Upper 

Ohio River and Tributaries navigation system. 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The program may include the design, 

construction, or implementation of innovative technologies and 

solutions for the Upper Ohio River and Tributaries navigation 

system, including projects for— 

(A) improved navigation; 

(B) environmental stewardship; 

(C) increased navigation reliability; and 

(D) reduced navigation costs. 

(3) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the program shall be— 

(A) to increase the reliability and availability of federally owned and federally operated navigation facilities; 

(B) to decrease system operational risks; and 

(C) to improve— 

(i) vessel traffic management; 

(ii) access; and 

(iii) Federal asset management. 

(c) FEDERAL OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may 

provide assistance for a project under this section only if the project 

is federally owned. 

(d) LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter into local 

cooperation agreements with non-Federal interests to provide 

for the design, construction, installation, and operation of the 

projects to be carried out under the program. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each local cooperation agreement 

entered into under this subsection shall include the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a 

navigation improvement project, including appropriate 

engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project. 

(3) COST SHARING.—Total project costs under each local 

cooperation agreement shall be cost-shared in accordance with 

the formula relating to the applicable original construction 

project. 

(4) EXPENDITURES.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Expenditures under the program 

may include, for establishment at federally owned property, 

such as locks, dams, and bridges— 

(i) transmitters; 

(ii) responders; 

(iii) hardware; 

(iv) software; and 

(v) wireless networks. 
H. R. 1495—117 

(B) EXCLUSIONS.—Transmitters, responders, hardware, 

software, and wireless networks and other equipment 

installed on privately owned vessels or equipment shall 

not be eligible under the program. 

(e) REPORT.—Not later than December 31, 2008, the Secretary 

shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program 

carried out under this section, together with recommendations concerning whether the program or any component of the program 

should be implemented on a national basis. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,100,000. Such sums 

shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 3179. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), 

the following projects shall remain authorized to be carried out 

by the Secretary: 

(1) The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water 

Ship Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092). 

(2) The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam, 

authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127). 

(3) The project for navigation, Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia, authorized by section 101 of the 

River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818). 

(4) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1968 (82 Stat. 731); except that the authorized depth of 

that portion of the project extending riverward of the Charles 

M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and Somerset, 

Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet. 

(5) The project for flood control, Ecorse Creek, Wayne 

County, Michigan, authorized by section 101(a)(14) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607). 

(b) LIMITATION.—A project described in subsection (a) shall 

not be authorized for construction after the last day of the 5- 

year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, unless, 

during such period, funds have been obligated for the construction 

(including planning and design) of the project. 

SEC. 3180. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS. 

Each of the following projects may be carried out by the Secretary and no construction on any such project may be initiated 

until the Secretary determines that the project is feasible: 

(1) MENOMINEE HARBOR AND RIVER, MICHIGAN AND WIS- CONSIN.—The project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and 

River, Michigan and Wisconsin, authorized by section 101 of 

the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized on April 15, 2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

579a(b)(2)). 

(2) HEARDING ISLAND INLET, DULUTH HARBOR, MINNESOTA.— The project for dredging, Hearding Island Inlet, Duluth Harbor, 

Minnesota, authorized by section 22 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4027). 
H. R. 1495—118 

(3) MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.—That portion of the 

project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 

30, 1852 (10 Stat. 58), consisting of the channel in the south 

part of the outer harbor, deauthorized by section 101 of the 

River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176). 

SEC. 3181. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The following projects are not authorized 

after the date of enactment of this Act: 

(1) BRIDGEPORT HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The portion of the 

project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of July 

3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot channel in 

Yellow Mill River and described as follows: Beginning at a 

point along the eastern limit of the existing project, 

N123,649.75, E481,920.54, thence running northwesterly about 

52.64 feet to a point N123,683.03, E481,879.75, thence running 

northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet to a point N125,030.08, 

E482,394.96, thence running northeasterly about 139.52 feet 

to a point along the eastern limit of the existing channel, 

N125,133.87, E482,488.19, thence running southwesterly about 

1,588.98 feet to the point of origin. 

(2) MYSTIC RIVER, CONNECTICUT.—The portion of the project 

for navigation, Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized by the 

first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 

September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 436) consisting of a 12-foot-deep 

channel, approximately 7,554 square feet in area, starting at 

a point N193,086.51, E815,092.78, thence running north 59 

degrees 21 minutes 46.63 seconds west about 138.05 feet to 

a point N193,156.86, E814,974.00, thence running north 51 

degrees 04 minutes 39.00 seconds west about 166.57 feet to 

a point N193,261.51, E814,844.41, thence running north 43 

degrees 01 minutes 34.90 seconds west about 86.23 feet to 

a point N193,324.55, E814,785.57, thence running north 06 

degrees 42 minutes 03.86 seconds west about 156.57 feet to 

a point N193,480.05, E814,767.30, thence running south 21 

degrees 21 minutes 17.94 seconds east about 231.42 feet to 

a point N193,264.52, E814,851.57, thence running south 53 

degrees 34 minutes 23.28 seconds east about 299.78 feet to 

the point of origin. 

(3) NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The portions of a 10-foot channel 

of the project for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, 

authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 

1919 (40 Stat. 1276) and described in subparagraph (B). 

(B) DESCRIPTION OF PORTIONS.—The portions of the 

channel referred to in subparagraph (A) are as follows: 

(i) RECTANGULAR PORTION.—An approximately 

rectangular-shaped section along the northwesterly terminus of the channel. The section is 35-feet wide and 

about 460-feet long and is further described as commencing at a point N104,165.85, E417,662.71, thence 

running south 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds east 

395.00 feet to a point N103,805.32, E417,824.10, thence 

running south 00 degrees 38 minutes 06 seconds east 

87.84 feet to a point N103,717.49, E417,825.07, thence 
H. R. 1495—119 

running north 24 degrees 06 minutes 55 seconds west 

480.00 feet, to a point N104,155.59, E417,628.96, 

thence running north 73 degrees 05 minutes 25 seconds 

east 35.28 feet to the point of origin. 

(ii) PARALLELOGRAM-SHAPED PORTION.—An area 

having the approximate shape of a parallelogram along 

the northeasterly portion of the channel, southeast of 

the area described in clause (i), approximately 20 feet 

wide and 260 feet long, and further described as commencing at a point N103,855.48, E417,849.99, thence 

running south 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds east 

133.40 feet to a point N103,743.76, E417,922.89, thence 

running south 24 degrees 07 minutes 04 seconds east 

127.75 feet to a point N103,627.16, E417,975.09, thence 

running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds west 

190.00 feet to a point N103,786.28, E417,871.26, thence 

running north 17 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds west 

72.39 feet to the point of origin. 

(C) EXCLUSION.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

of this paragraph, the Secretary shall realign the 10-foot 

channel potion of the project referred to in subparagraph 

(A) to include, immediately north of the area described 

in subparagraph (B)(ii), a triangular section described as 

commencing at a point N103,968.35, E417,815.29, thence 

running south 17 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds east 

118.09 feet to a point N103,855.48, E417,849.99, thence 

running north 33 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds west 

36.76 feet to a point N103,886.27, E417,829.90, thence 

running north 10 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds west 

83.37 feet to the point of origin. 

(4) ROCKLAND HARBOR, MAINE.—The portion of the project 

for navigation, Rockland Harbor, Maine, authorized by the 

Act of June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 202), consisting of a 14-foot 

channel located in Lermond Cove and beginning at a point 

with coordinates N99,977.37, E340,290.02, thence running easterly about 200.00 feet to a point with coordinates N99,978.49, 

E340,490.02, thence running northerly about 138.00 feet to 

a point with coordinates N100,116.49, E340,289.25, thence running westerly about 200.00 feet to a point with coordinates 

N100,115.37, E340,289.25, thence running southerly about 

138.00 feet to the point of origin. 

(5) ROCKPORT HARBOR, MAINE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project for navigation, Rockport Harbor, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 11, 1888 (25 Stat. 400), located 

within the 12-foot anchorage described in subparagraph 

(B). 

(B) DESCRIPTION OF ANCHORAGE.—The anchorage 

referred to in subparagraph (A) is more particularly 

described as— 

(i) beginning at the westernmost point of the 

anchorage at N128800.00, E349311.00; 

(ii) thence running north 12 degrees, 52 minutes, 

37.2 seconds east 127.08 feet to a point N128923.88, 

E349339.32; 
H. R. 1495—120 

(iii) thence running north 17 degrees, 40 minutes, 

13.0 seconds east 338.61 feet to a point N129246.51, 

E349442.10; 

(iv) thence running south 89 degrees, 21 minutes, 

21.0 seconds east 45.36 feet to a point N129246.00, 

E349487.46; 

(v) thence running south 44 degrees, 13 minutes, 

32.6 seconds east 18.85 feet to a point N129232.49, 

E349500.61; 

(vi) thence running south 17 degrees, 40 minutes 

13.0 seconds west 340.50 feet to a point N128908.06, 

E349397.25; 

(vii) thence running south 12 degrees, 52 minutes, 

37.2 seconds west 235.41 feet to a point at N128678.57, 

E349344.79; and 

(viii) thence running north 15 degrees, 32 minutes, 

59.3 seconds west 126.04 feet to the point of origin. 

(6) FALMOUTH HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.—The portion of 

the project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts, 

authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 

1948 (62 Stat. 1172), beginning at a point along the eastern 

side of the inner harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running north 25 degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 

feet to a point N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 

22 degrees 7 minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point 

N201,112.15, E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 

1 minute 0.3 seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, 

E845,674.65, thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 

seconds west 665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, 

thence running south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 

160.76 feet to the point of origin. 

(7) ISLAND END RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—The portion of 

the project for navigation, Island End River, Massachusetts, 

carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act 

of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), described as follows: Beginning at 

a point along the eastern limit of the existing project, 

N507,348.98, E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35 

feet to a point N507,384.17, E721,183.36, thence running northeast about 324 feet to a point N507,590.51, E721,433.17, thence 

running northeast about 345 feet to a point along the northern 

limit of the existing project, N507,927.29, E721,510.29, thence 

running southeast about 25 feet to a point N507,921.71, 

E721,534.66, thence running southwest about 354 feet to a 

point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence running southwest 

about 357 feet to the point of origin. 

(8) CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON.—The portion 

of the project for navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 

Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), consisting 

of the last 1,000 linear feet of the inner portion of the waterway 

beginning at station 70+00 and ending at station 80+00. 

(9) AUNT LYDIA’S COVE, MASSACHUSETTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project for navigation, Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts, constructed under 

section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 

577), consisting of the 8-foot deep anchorage in the cove 

described in subparagraph (B). 
H. R. 1495—121 

(B) DESCRIPTION OF PORTION.—The portion of the 

project described in subparagraph (A) is more particularly 

described as the portion beginning at a point along the 

southern limit of the existing project, N254,332.00, 

E1,023,103.96, thence running northwesterly about 761.60 

feet to a point along the western limit of the existing 

project N255,076.84, E1,022,945.07, thence running southwesterly about 38.11 feet to a point N255,038.99, 

E1,022,940.60, thence running southeasterly about 267.07 

feet to a point N254,772.00, E1,022,947.00, thence running 

southeasterly about 462.41 feet to a point N254,320.06, 

E1,023,044.84, thence running northeasterly about 60.31 

feet to the point of origin. 

(10) WHATCOM CREEK WATERWAY, BELLINGHAM, WASH- INGTON.—The portion of the project for navigation, Whatcom 

Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington, authorized by the 

River and Harbor Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 664), and 

section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 

299), consisting of the last 2,900 linear feet of the inner portion 

of the waterway and beginning at station 29+00 to station 

0+00. 

(11) OCONTO HARBOR, WISCONSIN.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The portion of the project for navigation, Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin, authorized by the Act of 

August 2, 1882 (22 Stat. 196), and the Act of June 25, 

1910 (36 Stat. 664) (commonly known as the ‘‘River and 

Harbor Act of 1910’’), consisting of a 15-foot-deep turning 

basin in the Oconto River, as described in subparagraph 

(B). 

(B) PROJECT DESCRIPTION.—The project referred to in 

subparagraph (B) is more particularly described as— 

(i) beginning at a point along the western limit 

of the existing project, N394,086.71, E2,530,202.71; 

(ii) thence northeasterly about 619.93 feet to a 

point N394,459.10, E2,530,698.33; 

(iii) thence southeasterly about 186.06 feet to a 

point N394,299.20, E2,530,793.47; 

(iv) thence southwesterly about 355.07 feet to a 

point N393,967.13, E2,530,667.76; 

(v) thence southwesterly about 304.10 feet to a 

point N393,826.90, E2,530,397.92; and 

(vi) thence northwesterly about 324.97 feet to the 

point of origin. 

(b) ANCHORAGE AREA, NEW LONDON HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.— 

The portion of the project for navigation, New London Harbor, 

Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor Appropriations 

Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that consists of a 23-foot 

waterfront channel and that is further described as beginning at 

a point along the western limit of the existing project, N188, 802.75, 

E779, 462.81, thence running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet 

to a point N189, 554.87, E780, 612.53, thence running southeasterly 

about 439.54 feet to a point N189, 319.88, E780, 983.98, thence 

running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to a point N188, 864.63, 

E780, 288.08, thence running southeasterly about 567.39 feet to 

a point N188, 301.88, E780, 360.49, thence running northwesterly 

about 1,027.96 feet to the point of origin, is redesignated as an 

anchorage area. 
H. R. 1495—122 

(c) SOUTHPORT HARBOR, FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT.—The project 

for navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut, authorized 

by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1829, and 

by the first section of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 

1935 (49 Stat. 1029), and section 364 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3733–3734), is modified to 

redesignate a portion of the 9-foot-deep channel to an anchorage 

area, approximately 900 feet in length and 90,000 square feet 

in area, and lying generally north of a line with points at coordinates 

N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and N107,938.74, E452,265.74. 

(d) SACO RIVER, MAINE.—The portion of the project for navigation, Saco River, Maine, constructed under section 107 of the River 

and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and described as a 6- 

foot deep, 10-acre maneuvering basin located at the head of navigation, is redesignated as an anchorage area. 

(e) UNION RIVER, MAINE.—The project for navigation, Union 

River, Maine, authorized by the first section of the Act of June 

3, 1896 (29 Stat. 215), is modified by redesignating as an anchorage 

area that portion of the project consisting of a 6-foot turning basin 

and lying northerly of a line commencing at a point N315,975.13, 

E1,004,424.86, thence running north 61 degrees 27 minutes 20.71 

seconds west about 132.34 feet to a point N316,038.37, 

E1,004,308.61. 

(f) MYSTIC RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS.—The portion of the project 

for navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts, authorized by the first 

section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of July 13, 

1892 (27 Stat. 96), between a line starting at a point N515,683.77, 

E707,035.45 and ending at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85 and 

a line starting at a point N514,595.15, E707,746.15 and ending 

at a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38 shall be relocated and reduced 

from a 100-foot wide channel to a 50-foot wide channel after the 

date of enactment of this Act described as follows: Beginning at 

a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85, thence running southeasterly 

about 840.50 feet to a point N515,070.16, E707,601.27, thence running southeasterly about 177.54 feet to a point N514,904.84, 

E707,665.98, thence running southeasterly about 319.90 feet to 

a point with coordinates N514,595.15, E707,746.15, thence running 

northwesterly about 163.37 feet to a point N514,732.94, 

E707,658.38, thence running northwesterly about 161.58 feet to 

a point N514.889.47, E707,618.30, thence running northwesterly 

about 166.61 feet to a point N515.044.62, E707,557.58, thence running northwesterly about 825.31 feet to a point N515,683.77, 

E707,035.45, thence running northeasterly about 50.90 feet 

returning to a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85. 

(g) RIVERCENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.—Section 38(c) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C. 59j– 

1; 102 Stat. 4038) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (a) of this 

section’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a) (except 30 years from such 

date of enactment, in the case of the area or any part thereof 

described in subsection (a)(5))’’. 

(h) ADDITIONAL DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—The following projects are 

not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, except 

with respect to any portion of such a project which portion has 

been completed before such date or is under construction on such 

date: 
H. R. 1495—123 

(1) The project for flood protection on Atascadero Creek 

and its tributaries of Goleta, California, authorized by section 

201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826). 

(2) The project for the construction of bridge fenders for 

the Summit and St. Georges Bridge for the Inland Waterway 

of the Delaware River to the C & D Canal of the Chesapeake 

Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by the River and 

Harbor Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249). 

(3) The project for flood control, central and southern 

Florida, Shingle Creek basin, Florida, authorized by section 

203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182). 

(4) The project for flood control, Brevoort, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 

(49 Stat. 1587). 

(5) The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, Greenfield 

Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the Flood Control 

Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 649). 

(6) The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George, 

Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602(a)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148). 

(7) The project for navigation at the Muscatine Harbor 

on the Mississippi River at Muscatine, Iowa, authorized by 

section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 

166). 

(8) The project for flood control and water supply, Eagle 

Creek Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1188). 

(9) The project for flood control, Hazard, Kentucky, authorized by section 3(a)(7) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1988 (100 Stat. 4014) and section 108 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621). 

(10) The project for flood control, western Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1076) and modified by section 210 of 

the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1829). 

(11) The project for flood damage reduction, TensasCocodrie area, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the Flood 

Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 643). 

(12) The uncompleted portions of the project for navigation 

improvement for Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 

1033), and the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 481). 

(13) The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and 

South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825). 

(14) The project for erosion protection and recreation, Fort 

Livingston, Grande Terre Island, Louisiana, authorized by the 

Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426e et seq.). 

(15) The project for navigation, Northeast Harbor, Maine, 

authorized by section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 

12). 

(16) The project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, Maine, 

authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 

(40 Stat. 1275). 

(17) The project for navigation, New York Harbor and 

adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey City, New 
H. R. 1495—124 

Jersey, authorized by section 202(b) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4098). 

(18) The project for navigation, Olcott Harbor, Lake 

Ontario, New York, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143). 

(19) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New 

York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817). 

(20) The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon, authorized by title I of the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1991 (104 Stat. 

2078). 

(21) The project for navigation, Narragansett Town Beach, 

Narragansett, Rhode Island, authorized by section 361 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4861). 

(22) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset PointDavisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788). 

(23) The structural portion of the project for flood control, 

Cypress Creek, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014). 

(24) The project for flood protection, East Fork Channel 

Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River, 

Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act 

of 1962 (76 Stat. 1185). 

(25) The project for flood control, Falfurrias, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(14) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014). 

(26) The project for flood control, Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas, 

authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 

(82 Stat. 742). 

(27) The project for navigation improvements affecting Lake 

of the Pines, Texas, for the portion of the Red River below 

Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the Act of July 13, 1892 (27 

Stat. 103) and modified by the Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 

635), the Act of May 17, 1950 (64 Stat. 163), and the River 

and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731). 

(28) The project for navigation, Tennessee Colony Lake, 

Trinity River, Texas, authorized by section 204 of the River 

and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091). 

(29) The project for streambank erosion, Kanawha River, 

Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4153). 

SEC. 3182. LAND CONVEYANCES. 

(a) ST. FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey to the State 

of Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to 

paragraph (2), all right, title, and interest in and to real property within the State acquired by the Federal Government 

as mitigation land for the project for flood control, St. Francis 

Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by the Flood 

Control Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et seq.). 

(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The conveyance by the United States 

under this subsection shall be subject to— 
H. R. 1495—125 

(i) the condition that the State of Arkansas agree 

to operate, maintain, and manage the real property 

for fish and wildlife, recreation, and environmental 

purposes at no cost or expense to the United States; 

and 

(ii) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be in the interest of the United 

States. 

(B) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the 

real property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be 

held in public ownership or the State ceases to operate, 

maintain, and manage the real property in accordance 

with this subsection, all right, title, and interest in and 

to the property shall revert to the United States, at the 

option of the Secretary. 

(3) MITIGATION.—Nothing in this subsection extinguishes 

the responsibility of the Federal Government or the non-Federal 

interest for the project referred to in paragraph (1) from the 

obligation to implement mitigation for such project that existed 

on the day prior to the transfer authorized by this subsection. 

(b) OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL, CALIFORNIA.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may convey, by separate 

quitclaim deeds, as soon as the conveyance of each individual 

portion is practicable, the title of the United States in and 

to all or portions of the approximately 86 acres of upland, 

tideland, and submerged land, commonly referred to as the 

‘‘Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal’’, California (referred to 

in this section as the ‘‘Canal Property’’), as follows: 

(A) To the city of Oakland, without consideration, the 

title of the United States in and to all or portions of 

that part of the Canal Property that are located within 

the boundaries of the City of Oakland. 

(B) To the city of Alameda, or to a public entity created 

by or designated by the city of Alameda that is eligible 

to hold title to real property, without consideration, the 

title of the United States in and to all or portions of 

that part of the Canal Property that are located within 

the boundaries of the city of Alameda. 

(C) To the owners of lands adjacent to the Canal Property, or to a public entity created by or designated by 

one or more of the adjacent land owners that are eligible 

to hold title to real property, at fair market value, the 

title of the United States in and to all or portions of 

that part of the Canal Property that are located within 

the boundaries of the city in which the adjacent land is 

located. 

(2) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may reserve and retain 

from any conveyance under this subsection a right-of-way or 

other rights as the Secretary determines to be necessary for 

the operation and maintenance of the authorized Federal 

channel in the Canal Property. 

(3) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Until the date on which each 

conveyance described in paragraph (1) is complete, the Secretary shall submit, by not later than November 30 of each 

year, to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

of the Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives an annual report that 
H. R. 1495—126 

describes the efforts of the Secretary to complete that conveyance during the preceding fiscal year. 

(4) FORM.—A conveyance made under this subsection may 

be, in whole or in part, in the form of an easement. 

(5) RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.—For any property on which 

an easement is granted under this subsection, should the Secretary seek to dispose of the property, the holder of the easement shall have the right of first refusal to the property without 

cost or consideration. 

(6) REPEAL.—Section 205 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4633; 110 Stat. 3748) is repealed. 

(c) MILFORD, KANSAS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim 

deed without consideration to the Geary County Fire Department, Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and interest of the United 

States in and to real property consisting of approximately 7.4 

acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for construction, operation, and maintenance of a fire station. 

(2) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the real 

property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in 

public ownership or ceases to be operated and maintained as 

a fire station, all right, title, and interest in and to the property 

shall revert to the United States, at the option of the United 

States. 

(d) STRAWN CEMETERY, JOHN REDMOND LAKE, KANSAS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the 

Tulsa District of the Corps of Engineers, shall transfer to 

Pleasant Township, Coffey County, Kansas, for use as the New 

Strawn Cemetery, all right, title, and interest of the United 

States in and to the land described in paragraph (3). 

(2) REVERSION.—If the land transferred under this subsection ceases at any time to be used as a nonprofit cemetery 

or for another public purpose, the land shall revert to the 

United States. 

(3) DESCRIPTION.—The land to be conveyed under this subsection is a tract of land near John Redmond Lake, Kansas, 

containing approximately 3 acres and lying adjacent to the 

west line of the Strawn Cemetery located in the SE corner 

of the NE1⁄4 of section 32, township 20 south, range 14 east, 

Coffey County, Kansas. 

(e) PIKE COUNTY, MISSOURI.— (1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the following definitions apply: 

(A) FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘Federal land’’ means 

the 2 parcels of Corps of Engineers land totaling approximately 42 acres, located on Buffalo Island in Pike County, 

Missouri, and consisting of Government Tract Numbers 

MIS–7 and a portion of FM–46. 

(B) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘non-Federal land’’ 

means the approximately 42 acres of land, subject to any 

existing flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream and northwest, about 200 feet from Drake 

Island (also known as Grimes Island). 

(2) LAND EXCHANGE.—Subject to paragraph (3), on conveyance by S.S.S., Inc., to the United States of all right, title, 

and interest in and to the non-Federal land, the Secretary 
H. R. 1495—127 

shall convey to S.S.S., Inc., all right, title, and interest of 

the United States in and to the Federal land. 

(3) CONDITIONS.— 

(A) DEEDS.— 

(i) NON-FEDERAL LAND.—The conveyance of the 

non-Federal land to the Secretary shall be by a warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary. 

(ii) FEDERAL LAND.—The conveyance of the Federal 

land to S.S.S., Inc., shall be— 

(I) by quitclaim deed; and 

(II) subject to any reservations, terms, and 

conditions that the Secretary determines to be necessary to allow the United States to operate and 

maintain the Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation 

Project. 

(iii) LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS.—The Secretary shall 

provide a legal description of the Federal land, and 

S.S.S., Inc., shall provide a legal description of the 

non-Federal land, for inclusion in the deeds referred 

to in clauses (i) and (ii). 

(B) REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may require the 

removal of, or S.S.S., Inc., may voluntarily remove, 

any improvements to the non-Federal land before the 

completion of the exchange or as a condition of the 

exchange. 

(ii) NO LIABILITY.—If S.S.S., Inc., removes any 

improvements to the non-Federal land under clause 

(i)— 

(I) S.S.S., Inc., shall have no claim against 

the United States relating to the removal; and 

(II) the United States shall not incur or be 

liable for any cost associated with the removal 

or relocation of the improvements. 

(C) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—The Secretary shall 

require S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs 

associated with the exchange. 

(D) CASH EQUALIZATION PAYMENT.—If the appraised 

fair market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the 

Federal land exceeds the appraised fair market value, as 

determined by the Secretary, of the non-Federal land, 

S.S.S., Inc., shall make a cash equalization payment to 

the United States. 

(E) DEADLINE.—The land exchange under subparagraph (B) shall be completed not later than 2 years after 

the date of enactment of this Act. 

(f) UNION LAKE, MISSOURI.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall offer to convey to 

the State of Missouri, before June 30, 2007, all right, title, 

and interest in and to approximately 205.50 acres of land 

described in paragraph (2) purchased for the Union Lake Project 

that was deauthorized as of January 1, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 

40906), in accordance with section 1001(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(a)). 

(2) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land referred to in paragraph 

(1) is described as follows: 
H. R. 1495—128 

(A) TRACT 500.—A tract of land situated in Franklin 

County, Missouri, being part of the SW1⁄4 of section 7, 

and the NW1⁄4 of the SW1⁄4 of section 8, township 42 

north, range 2 west of the fifth principal meridian, consisting of approximately 112.50 acres. 

(B) TRACT 605.—A tract of land situated in Franklin 

County, Missouri, being part of the N1⁄2 of the NE, and 

part of the SE of the NE of section 18, township 42 north, 

range 2 west of the fifth principal meridian, consisting 

of approximately 93.00 acres. 

(3) CONVEYANCE.—On acceptance by the State of Missouri 

of the offer by the Secretary under paragraph (1), the land 

described in paragraph (2) shall immediately be conveyed, in 

its current condition, by Secretary to the State of Missouri. 

(g) BOARDMAN, OREGON.—Section 501(g)(1) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘city of Boardman,’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘such city’’ and inserting ‘‘the city of 

Boardman’’. 

(h) LOOKOUT POINT PROJECT, LOWELL, OREGON.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may convey without consideration to Lowell School District, by quitclaim deed, all right, 

title, and interest of the United States in and to land and 

buildings thereon, known as Tract A–82, located in Lowell, 

Oregon, and described in paragraph (2). 

(2) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The parcel of land authorized to be conveyed under paragraph (1) is as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the west line of Pioneer 

Street with the westerly extension of the north line of Summit 

Street, in Meadows Addition to Lowell, as platted and recorded 

at page 56 of Volume 4, Lane County Oregon Plat Records; 

thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance 

of 176.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this description; 

thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a distance 

of 170.0 feet; thence west at right angles to the west line 

of Pioneer Street a distance of 250.0 feet; thence south and 

parallel to the west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 170.0 

feet; thence east 250.0 feet to the true point of beginning 

of this description in Section 14, Township 19 South, Range 

1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Lane County, Oregon. 

(3) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Before conveying the parcel 

to the school district, the Secretary shall ensure that the conditions of buildings and facilities meet the requirements of 

applicable Federal law. 

(4) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines that the property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in public 

ownership, all right, title, and interest in and to the property 

shall revert to the United States, at the option of the United 

States. 

(i) RICHARD B. RUSSELL LAKE, SOUTH CAROLINA.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey, at fair market 

value, to the State of South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, all 

right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 

parcels of land described in paragraph (2)(A) that are managed, 

as of the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina 

department of commerce for public recreation purposes for the 
H. R. 1495—129 

Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project 

authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 

(80 Stat. 1420). 

(2) LAND DESCRIPTION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraphs (B) and 

(C), the parcels of land referred to in paragraph (1) are 

the parcels contained in the portion of land described in 

Army Lease Number DACW21–1–92–0500. 

(B) RETENTION OF INTERESTS.—The United States shall 

retain— 

(i) ownership of all land included in the lease 

referred to in subparagraph (A) that would have been 

acquired for operational purposes in accordance with 

the 1971 implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior 

Joint Acquisition Policy; and 

(ii) such other land as is determined by the Secretary to be required for authorized project purposes, 

including easement rights-of-way to remaining Federal 

land. 

(C) SURVEY.—The cost of the survey shall be paid 

by the State. 

(3) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The State shall be responsible for 

all costs, including real estate transaction and environmental costs, associated with the conveyance under this 

subsection. 

(B) FORM OF CONTRIBUTION.—As determined appropriate by the Secretary, in lieu of payment of compensation 

to the United States under subparagraph (A), the State 

may perform certain environmental or real estate actions 

associated with the conveyance under this subsection if 

those actions are performed in close coordination with, 

to the satisfaction of, and in compliance with the laws 

of the United States. 

(4) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.— 

(A) NO EFFECT ON SHORE MANAGEMENT POLICY.—The 

Shoreline Management Policy (ER–1130–2–406) of the 

Corps of Engineers may not be changed or altered for 

any proposed development of land conveyed under this 

subsection. 

(B) COST SHARING.—In carrying out the conveyance 

under this subsection, the Secretary and the State shall 

comply with all obligations of any cost sharing agreement 

between the Secretary and the State in effect as of the 

date of the conveyance. 

(C) LAND NOT CONVEYED.—The State shall continue 

to manage the land that is subject to Army Lease Number 

DACW21–1–92–0500 and that is not conveyed under this 

subsection in accordance with the terms and conditions 

of Army Lease Number DACW21–1–92–0500. 

(j) DENISON, TEXAS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall offer to convey 

at fair market value to the city of Denison, Texas, all right, 

title, and interest of the United States in and to the approximately 900 acres of land located in Grayson County, Texas, 

which is currently subject to an application for lease for public 
H. R. 1495—130 

park and recreational purposes made by the city of Denison, 

dated August 17, 2005. 

(2) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and description of the real property referred to in paragraph 

(1) shall be determined by a survey paid for by the city of 

Denison, Texas, that is satisfactory to the Secretary. 

(3) CONVEYANCE.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

of acceptance by the city of Denison, Texas, of an offer under 

paragraph (1), the Secretary shall convey the land surveyed 

under paragraph (2) by quitclaim deed to the city of Denison, 

Texas. 

(k) GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.— 

(1) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—The exact acreage and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed 

under this section shall be determined by a survey that is 

satisfactory to the Secretary. 

(2) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVISIONS.— Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 

to any conveyance under this section. 

(3) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary 

may require that any conveyance under this section be subject 

to such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate and necessary to protect the interests of 

the United States. 

(4) COSTS OF CONVEYANCE.—An entity to which a conveyance is made under this section shall be responsible for all 

reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated with 

the conveyance. 

(5) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a conveyance is made 

under this section shall hold the United States harmless from 

any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or after 

the date of the conveyance, on the real property conveyed. 

The United States shall remain responsible for any liability 

with respect to activities carried out, before such date, on 

the real property conveyed. 

SEC. 3183. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE 

RESTRICTIONS. 

(a) IDAHO.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the property covered by 

each deed in paragraph (2)— 

(A) the reversionary interests and use restrictions 

relating to port and industrial use purposes are extinguished; 

(B) the restriction that no activity shall be permitted 

that will compete with services and facilities offered by 

public marinas is extinguished; and 

(C) the human habitation or other building structure 

use restriction is extinguished if the elevation of the property is above the standard project flood elevation. 

(2) AFFECTED DEEDS.—The deeds with the following county 

auditor’s file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1): 

(A) Auditor’s Instrument No. 399218 of Nez Perce 

County, Idaho—2.07 acres. 

(B) Auditor’s Instrument No. 487437 of Nez Perce 

County, Idaho—7.32 acres. 
H. R. 1495—131 

(b) LAKE TEXOMA, OKLAHOMA.— 

(1) RELEASE.—Any reversionary interest relating to public 

parks and recreation on the land conveyed by the Secretary 

to the State of Oklahoma at Lake Texoma pursuant to the 

Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the sale of certain lands 

to the State of Oklahoma’’ (67 Stat. 63), shall terminate on 

the date of enactment of this Act. 

(2) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—As soon as practicable after 

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute 

and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, an amended 

deed, or any other appropriate instrument to release each reversionary interest to which paragraph (1) applies. 

(3) PRESERVATION OF RESERVED RIGHTS.—A release of a 

reversionary interest under this subsection shall not affect any 

other right of the United States in any deed of conveyance 

pursuant to the Act referred to in paragraph (1). 

(c) LOWELL, OREGON.— 

(1) RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEED RESERVATIONS.— 

(A) RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEED RESERVATIONS.—The Secretary may release and extinguish the deed 

reservations for access and communication cables contained 

in the quitclaim deed, dated January 26, 1965, and recorded 

February 15, 1965, in the records of Lane County, Oregon; 

except that such reservations may only be released and 

extinguished for the lands owned by the city of Lowell 

as described in the quitclaim deed, dated April 11, 1991, 

in such records. 

(B) ADDITIONAL RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF

DEED RESERVATIONS.—The Secretary may also release and 

extinguish the same deed reservations referred to in 

subparagraph (A) over land owned by Lane County, Oregon, 

within the city limits of Lowell, Oregon, to accommodate 

the development proposals of the city of Lowell/St. Vincent 

de Paul, Lane County, affordable housing project; except 

that the Secretary may require, at no cost to the United 

States— 

(i) the alteration or relocation of any existing facilities, utilities, roads, or similar improvements on such 

lands; and 

(ii) the right-of-way for such facilities, utilities, 

roads, or improvements as a precondition of any release 

or extinguishment of the deed reservations. 

(2) CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary may convey to the city 

of Lowell, Oregon, the parcel of land situated in the city of 

Lowell, Oregon, at fair market value consisting of the strip 

of federally owned lands located northeast of West Boundary 

Road between Hyland Lane and the city of Lowell’s eastward 

city limits. 

(3) ADMINISTRATIVE COST.—Notwithstanding paragraphs 

(1) and (2), the city of Lowell, Oregon, shall pay the administrative costs incurred by the United States to execute the release 

and extinguishment of the deed reservations under paragraph 

(1) and the conveyance under paragraph (2). 

(d) OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, CUMBERLAND RIVER, TENNESSEE.— 
H. R. 1495—132 

(1) RELEASE OF RETAINED RIGHTS, INTERESTS, RESERVATIONS.—With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to 

the Tennessee Society of Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (commonly known as ‘‘Easter Seals Tennessee’’) at Old 

Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under 

section 211 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087), 

the reversionary interests and the use restrictions relating 

to recreation and camping purposes are extinguished. 

(2) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—As soon as practicable after 

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute 

and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended 

deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating the release 

of interests required by paragraph (1). 

(e) LOWER GRANITE POOL, WASHINGTON.— 

(1) EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE

RESTRICTIONS.—With respect to property covered by each deed 

described in paragraph (2)— 

(A) the reversionary interests and use restrictions 

relating to port or industrial purposes are extinguished; 

and 

(B) the human habitation or other building structure 

use restriction is extinguished in each area in which the 

elevation is above the standard project flood elevation. 

(2) DEEDS.—The deeds referred to in paragraph (1) are 

as follows: 

(A) Auditor’s File Numbers 432576, 443411, 499988, 

and 579771 of Whitman County, Washington. 

(B) Auditor’s File Numbers 125806, 138801, 147888, 

154511, 156928, and 176360 of Asotin County, Washington. 

(f) PORT OF PASCO, WASHINGTON.— 

(1) EXTINGUISHMENT OF USE RESTRICTIONS AND FLOWAGE

EASEMENT.—With respect to the property covered by the deed 

in paragraph (3)(A)— 

(A) the flowage easement and human habitation or 

other building structure use restriction is extinguished if 

the elevation of the property is above the standard project 

flood elevation; and 

(B) the use of fill material to raise areas of the property 

above the standard project flood elevation is authorized, 

except in any area for which a permit under section 404 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) 

is required. 

(2) EXTINGUISHMENT OF FLOWAGE EASEMENT.—With respect 

to the property covered by each deed in paragraph (3)(B), 

the flowage easement is extinguished if the elevation of the 

property is above the standard project flood elevation. 

(3) AFFECTED DEEDS.—The deeds referred to in paragraphs 

(1) and (2) are as follows: 

(A) Auditor’s File Number 262980 of Franklin County, 

Washington. 

(B) Auditor’s File Numbers 263334 and 404398 of 

Franklin County, Washington. 

(g) NO EFFECT ON OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing in this section 

affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of Engineers 

for authorized project purposes. 
H. R. 1495—133 

TITLE IV—STUDIES 

SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM. 

Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–21) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR STUDY.—The non-Federal 

interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal share 

required under subsection (f) in the form of in-kind services and 

materials.’’. 

SEC. 4002. LAKE ERIE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the nature 

and frequency of avian botulism problems in the vicinity of Lake 

Erie associated with dredged material disposal sites and shall make 

recommendations to eliminate the conditions that result in such 

problems. 

SEC. 4003. SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES DROUGHT STUDY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary 

of Commerce, and other appropriate agencies, shall conduct, at 

Federal expense, a comprehensive study of drought conditions in 

the southwestern United States, with particular emphasis on the 

Colorado River basin, the Rio Grande River basin, and the Great 

Basin. 

(b) INVENTORY OF ACTIONS.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall assemble an inventory of actions taken or planned 

to be taken to address drought-related situations in the southwestern United States. 

(c) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the study shall be to develop 

recommendations to more effectively address current and future 

drought conditions in the southwestern United States. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 

$7,000,000. Such funds shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 4004. DELAWARE RIVER. 

The Secretary shall review, in consultation with the Delaware 

River Basin Commission and the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, 

New Jersey, and New York, the report of the Chief of Engineers 

on the Delaware River, published as House Document Numbered 

522, 87th Congress, Second Session, as it relates to the Mid-Delaware River Basin from Wilmington to Port Jervis, and any other 

pertinent reports (including the strategy for resolution of interstate 

flow management issues in the Delaware River Basin dated August 

2004 and the National Park Service Lower Delaware River Management Plan (1997–1999)), with a view to determining whether any 

modifications of recommendations contained in the first report 

referred to are advisable at the present time, in the interest of 

flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and other related 

problems. 

SEC. 4005. EURASIAN MILFOIL. 

Under the authority of section 104 of the River and Harbor 

Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 610), the Secretary shall conduct a study, 

at Federal expense, to develop national protocols for the use of 
H. R. 1495—134 

the Euhrychiopsis lecontei weevil for biological control of Eurasian 

milfoil in the lakes of Vermont and other northeastern States. 

SEC. 4006. FIRE ISLAND, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for navigational improvements, including 

a barge landing facility, Fire Island, Alaska. 

SEC. 4007. KNIK ARM, COOK INLET, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the potential 

impacts on navigation of construction of a bridge across Knik Arm, 

Cook Inlet, Alaska. 

SEC. 4008. KUSKOKWIM RIVER, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for navigation, Kuskokwim River, Alaska, 

in the vicinity of the village of Crooked Creek. 

SEC. 4009. NOME HARBOR, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall review the project for navigation, Nome 

Harbor improvements, Alaska, authorized by section 101(a)(1) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 273), 

to determine whether the project cost increases, including the cost 

of rebuilding the entrance channel damaged in a September 2005 

storm, resulted from a design deficiency. 

SEC. 4010. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of providing navigation improvements at St. George Harbor, Alaska. 

SEC. 4011. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for hydropower, recreation, and related 

purposes on the Susitna River, Alaska. 

SEC. 4012. VALDEZ, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for navigation, Valdez, Alaska, and if 

the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, shall carry 

out the project at a total cost of $20,000,000. 

SEC. 4013. GILA BEND, MARICOPA, ARIZONA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 

reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona. 

(b) REVIEW OF PLANS.—In conducting the study, the Secretary 

shall review plans and designs developed by non-Federal interests 

and shall incorporate such plans and designs into the Federal 

study if the Secretary determines that such plans and designs 

are consistent with Federal standards. 

SEC. 4014. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply source for Searcy 

County, Arkansas. 

SEC. 4015. ALISO CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for streambank protection and environmental restoration along Aliso Creek, California. 
H. R. 1495—135 

SEC. 4016. FRESNO, KINGS, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply for Fresno, Kings, and 

Kern Counties, California. 

SEC. 4017. FRUITVALE AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall prepare a comprehensive 

report that examines the condition of the existing Fruitvale Avenue 

Railroad Bridge, Alameda County, California (referred to in this 

section as the ‘‘Railroad Bridge’’), and determines the most economic 

means to maintain that rail link by either repairing or replacing 

the Railroad Bridge. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—The report under this section shall 

include— 

(1) a determination of whether the Railroad Bridge is in 

immediate danger of failing or collapsing; 

(2) the annual costs to maintain the Railroad Bridge; 

(3) the costs to place the Railroad Bridge in a safe, ‘‘nocollapse’’ condition, such that the Railroad Bridge will not 

endanger maritime traffic; 

(4) the costs to retrofit the Railroad Bridge such that the 

Railroad Bridge may continue to serve as a rail link between 

the Island of Alameda and the mainland; and 

(5) the costs to construct a replacement for the Railroad 

Bridge capable of serving the current and future rail, light 

rail, and homeland security needs of the region. 

(c) SUBMISSION OF REPORT.—The Secretary shall— 

(1) complete the Railroad Bridge report under subsection 

(a) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act; and 

(2) submit the report to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives. 

(d) LIMITATIONS.—The Secretary shall not— 

(1) demolish the Railroad Bridge or otherwise render the 

Railroad Bridge unavailable or unusable for rail traffic; or 

(2) reduce maintenance of the Railroad Bridge. 

(e) EASEMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide to the city 

of Alameda, California, a nonexclusive access easement over 

the Oakland Estuary that comprises the subsurface land and 

surface approaches for the Railroad Bridge that— 

(A) is consistent with the Bay Trail Proposal of the 

city of Oakland; and 

(B) is otherwise suitable for the improvement, operation, and maintenance of the Railroad Bridge or construction, operation, and maintenance of a suitable replacement 

bridge. 

(2) COST.—The easement under paragraph (1) shall be 

provided to the city of Alameda without consideration and 

at no cost to the United States. 

SEC. 4018. LOS ANGELES RIVER REVITALIZATION STUDY, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordination with the city 

of Los Angeles, shall— 
H. R. 1495—136 

(1) prepare a feasibility study for environmental ecosystem 

restoration, flood control, recreation, and other aspects of Los 

Angeles River revitalization that is consistent with the goals 

of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan published 

by the city of Los Angeles; and 

(2) consider any locally-preferred project alternatives developed through a full and open evaluation process for inclusion 

in the study. 

(b) USE OF EXISTING INFORMATION AND MEASURES.—In preparing the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use, 

to the maximum extent practicable— 

(1) information obtained from the Los Angeles River 

Revitalization Master Plan; and 

(2) the development process of that plan. 

(c) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to construct 

demonstration projects in order to provide information to 

develop the study under subsection (a)(1). 

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of any 

project under this subsection shall be not more than 65 percent. 

(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $25,000,000. 

SEC. 4019. LYTLE CREEK, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and groundwater recharge, Lytle Creek, Rialto, California. 

SEC. 4020. MOKELUMNE RIVER, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply 

along the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California. 

(b) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

section shall be construed to invalidate, preempt, or create any 

exception to State water law, State water rights, or Federal or 

State permitted activities or agreements. 

SEC. 4021. ORICK, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 

reduction and ecosystem restoration, Orick, California. 

(b) FEASIBILITY OF RESTORING OR REHABILITATING REDWOOK

CREEK LEVEES.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of restoring or rehabilitating the Redwood Creek 

Levees, Humboldt County, California. 

SEC. 4022. SHORELINE STUDY, OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2636) is amended by striking ‘‘32 months’’ and inserting 

‘‘44 months’’. 

SEC. 4023. RIALTO, FONTANA, AND COLTON, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply for Rialto, Fontana, 

and Colton, California. 

SEC. 4024. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of, and alternatives for, measures to protect 
H. R. 1495—137 

water diversion facilities and fish protective screen facilities in 

the vicinity of river mile 178 on the Sacramento River, California. 

SEC. 4025. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, San Diego County, 

California, including a review of the feasibility of connecting 4 

existing reservoirs to increase usable storage capacity. 

SEC. 4026. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, 

CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged material from 

the San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, including the benefits and impacts of salinity in the Delta 

and the benefits to navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem 

restoration, water quality, salinity control, water supply reliability, 

and recreation. 

(b) COOPERATION.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall 

cooperate with the California department of water resources and 

appropriate Federal and State entities in developing options for 

the beneficial use of dredged material from San Francisco Bay 

for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area. 

(c) REVIEW.—The study shall include a review of the feasibility 

of using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for levee maintenance 

material, as well as for ecosystem restoration. The review may 

include carrying out and monitoring a pilot project using up to 

150,000 cubic yards of dredged material and being carried out 

at the Sherman Island site, examining larger scale use of dredged 

materials from the San Francisco Bay and Suisun Bay Channel, 

and analyzing the feasibility of the potential use of saline materials 

from the San Francisco Bay for both rehandling and ecosystem 

restoration purposes. 

SEC. 4027. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with non-Federal interests, shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying 

out a project for— 

(1) flood damage reduction along the South San Francisco 

Bay shoreline, California; 

(2) restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt ponds 

(including on land owned by other Federal agencies); and 

(3) other related purposes, as the Secretary determines 

to be appropriate. 

(b) REPORT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 

a report describing the results of the study under subsection 

(a). 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The report under paragraph (1) shall 

include recommendations of the Secretary with respect to the 

project described in subsection (a) based on planning, design, 

and land acquisition documents prepared by— 

(A) the California State Coastal Conservancy; 

(B) the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and 

(C) other local interests. 

(c) CREDIT.— 
H. R. 1495—138 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with section 221 of the 

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

to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall credit toward the nonFederal share of the cost of any project authorized by law 

as a result of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study— 

(A) the cost of work performed by the non-Federal 

interest in preparation of the feasibility study that is conducted before the date of the feasibility cost sharing agreement; and 

(B) the funds expended by the non-Federal interest 

for acquisition costs of land that constitutes a part of 

such a project and that is owned by the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

(2) CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may provide credit under 

paragraph (1) if— 

(A) the value of all or any portion of land referred 

to in paragraph (1)(B) that would be subject to the credit 

has not previously been credited to the non-Federal interest 

for a project; and 

(B) the land was not acquired to meet any mitigation 

requirement of the non-Federal interest. 

SEC. 4028. TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction in the vicinity 

of Twentynine Palms, California. 

SEC. 4029. YUCCA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Burnt Mountain 

basin, in the vicinity of Yucca Valley, California. 

SEC. 4030. SELENIUM STUDIES, COLORADO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the United States Geological 

Survey, in consultation with State water quality and resource and 

conservation agencies, shall conduct regional and watershed-wide 

studies to address selenium concentrations in the State of Colorado, 

including studies— 

(1) to measure selenium on specific sites; and 

(2) to determine whether specific selenium measures 

studied should be recommended for use in demonstration 

projects. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000. 

SEC. 4031. DELAWARE AND CHRISTINA RIVERS AND SHELLPOT CREEK, 

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and related 

purposes along the Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot 

Creek, Wilmington, Delaware. 

SEC. 4032. DELAWARE INLAND BAYS AND TRIBUTARIES AND ATLANTIC 

COAST, DELAWARE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, Indian 

River Inlet and Bay, Delaware. 
H. R. 1495—139 

(b) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION AND PRIORITY.—In carrying 

out the study under subsection (a), the Secretary shall— 

(1) take into consideration all necessary activities to stabilize the scour holes threatening the Inlet and Bay shorelines; 

and 

(2) give priority to stabilizing and restoring the Inlet 

channel and scour holes adjacent to the United States Coast 

Guard pier and helipad and the adjacent State-owned properties. 

SEC. 4033. COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES, FLORIDA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction 

and flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Vanderbilt, Park 

Shore, and Naples beaches, Collier County, Florida. 

SEC. 4034. LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER, FLORIDA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including 

improved water quality, and related purposes, Lower St. Johns 

River, Florida. 

SEC. 4035. HERBERT HOOVER DIKE SUPPLEMENTAL MAJOR 

REHABILITATION REPORT, FLORIDA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 120 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish a supplemental 

report to the major rehabilitation report for the Herbert Hoover 

Dike system approved by the Chief of Engineers in November 

2000. 

(b) INCLUSIONS.—The supplemental report under subsection (a) 

shall include— 

(1) an evaluation of existing conditions at the Herbert 

Hoover Dike system; 

(2) an identification of additional risks associated with 

flood events at the system that are equal to or greater than 

the standard projected flood risks; 

(3) an evaluation of the potential to integrate projects of 

the Corps of Engineers into an enhanced flood protection system 

for Lake Okeechobee, including— 

(A) the potential for additional water storage north 

of Lake Okeechobee; and 

(B) an analysis of other project features included in 

the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan; and 

(4) a review of the report prepared for the South Florida 

Water Management District dated April 2006. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000. 

SEC. 4036. VANDERBILT BEACH LAGOON, FLORIDA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, water 

supply, and improvement of water quality at Vanderbilt Beach 

Lagoon, Florida. 

SEC. 4037. MERIWETHER COUNTY, GEORGIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Meriwether County, 

Georgia. 
H. R. 1495—140 

SEC. 4038. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO. 

The study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho, authorized 

by section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 324), is modified— 

(1) to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as project 

purposes to be studied; and 

(2) to require the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the study the cost, not to exceed $500,000, 

of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the project. 

SEC. 4039. BALLARD’S ISLAND SIDE CHANNEL, ILLINOIS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, Ballard’s Island 

side channel, Illinois. 

SEC. 4040. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. 

Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (114 Stat. 2638) is amended by inserting ‘‘Lake Michigan 

and’’ before ‘‘the Chicago River’’. 

SEC. 4041. SALEM, INDIANA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project to provide an additional water supply 

source for Salem, Indiana. 

SEC. 4042. BUCKHORN LAKE, KENTUCKY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood damage reduction, Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 2 of the 

Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to add ecosystem 

restoration and recreation as project purposes. 

(b) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-Federal interest may 

provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the 

form of in-kind services and materials. 

SEC. 4043. DEWEY LAKE, KENTUCKY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of modifying the project for Dewey Lake, Kentucky, to add water 

supply as a project purpose. 

SEC. 4044. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood 

control, Louisville, Kentucky, authorized by section 4 of the Flood 

Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to investigate measures 

to address the rehabilitation of the project. 

SEC. 4045. VIDALIA PORT, LOUISIANA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for navigation improvement at Vidalia, 

Louisiana. 

SEC. 4046. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE 

ISLAND. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of deepening that portion of the navigation channel of the navigation 

project for Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 

authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 
H. R. 1495—141 

(82 Stat. 731), seaward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial 

Bridge, Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts. 

SEC. 4047. CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, Clinton 

River, Michigan. 

SEC. 4048. HAMBURG AND GREEN OAK TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction on Ore Lake 

and the Huron River for Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, 

Michigan. 

SEC. 4049. LAKE ERIE AT LUNA PIER, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and other 

related purposes along Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan. 

SEC. 4050. DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study and 

prepare a report to evaluate the integrity of the bulkhead system 

located on and in the vicinity of Duluth-Superior Harbor, Duluth, 

Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin. 

(b) CONTENTS.—The report shall include— 

(1) a determination of causes of corrosion of the bulkhead 

system; 

(2) recommendations to reduce corrosion of the bulkhead 

system; 

(3) a description of the necessary repairs to the bulkhead 

system; and 

(4) an estimate of the cost of addressing the causes of 

the corrosion and carrying out necessary repairs. 

SEC. 4051. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of modifying the project for navigation, Tennessee-Tombigbee 

Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi, to provide water supply for 

northeast Mississippi. 

SEC. 4052. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, NEW JERSEY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project in the vicinity of the Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway, New Jersey, for the construction of a dredged material 

disposal transfer facility to make dredged material available for 

beneficial reuse. 

SEC. 4053. BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including 

improved water quality, enhanced public access, and recreation, 

on the Kill Van Kull, Bayonne, New Jersey. 

SEC. 4054. CARTERET, NEW JERSEY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration, including 

improved water quality, enhanced public access, and recreation, 

on the Raritan River, Carteret, New Jersey. 
H. R. 1495—142 

SEC. 4055. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Gloucester 

County, New Jersey, including the feasibility of restoring the flood 

protection dikes in Gibbstown, New Jersey, and the associated 

tidegates in Gloucester County, New Jersey. 

SEC. 4056. PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for environmental restoration and recreation on the Arthur Kill, Perth Amboy, New Jersey. 

SEC. 4057. BATAVIA, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for hydropower and related purposes in 

the vicinity of Batavia, New York. 

SEC. 4058. BIG SISTER CREEK, EVANS, NEW YORK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 

reduction, Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York. 

(b) EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS.—In conducting the 

study, the Secretary shall evaluate potential solutions to flooding 

from all sources, including flooding that results from ice jams. 

SEC. 4059. FINGER LAKES, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem restoration and 

protection, Finger Lakes, New York, to address water quality and 

aquatic nuisance species. 

SEC. 4060. LAKE ERIE SHORELINE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for storm damage reduction and shoreline 

protection in the vicinity of Gallagher Beach, Lake Erie Shoreline, 

Buffalo, New York. 

SEC. 4061. NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out ecosystem restoration improvements on Newtown 

Creek, Brooklyn and Queens, New York. 

SEC. 4062. NIAGARA RIVER, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for a low-head hydroelectric generating 

facility in the Niagara River, New York. 

SEC. 4063. SHORE PARKWAY GREENWAY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying 

out a project for shoreline protection in the vicinity of the confluence 

of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, Upper New York Bay, Shore 

Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New York. 

SEC. 4064. UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NEW YORK. 

In accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), a nonprofit organization may serve, 

with the consent of the affected local government, as the nonFederal interest for a study for the Upper Delaware River watershed, New York, being carried out under Committee Resolution 
H. R. 1495—143 

2495 of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 

the House of Representatives, adopted May 9, 1996. 

SEC. 4065. LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of existing water and 

water quality-related infrastructure in Lincoln County, North Carolina, to assist local interests in determining the most efficient 

and effective way to connect county infrastructure. 

SEC. 4066. WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Wilkes County, North 

Carolina. 

SEC. 4067. YADKINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Yadkinville, North Carolina. 

SEC. 4068. FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, OHIO. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction in Cuyahoga, 

Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Erie, Lucas, Sandusky, Huron, and Stark 

Counties, Ohio. 

SEC. 4069. LAKE ERIE, OHIO. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out projects for power generation at confined disposal 

facilities along Lake Erie, Ohio. 

SEC. 4070. OHIO RIVER, OHIO. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction on the Ohio 

River in Mahoning, Columbiana, Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, 

Washington, Athens, Meigs, Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties, 

Ohio. 

SEC. 4071. TOLEDO HARBOR DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT, 

TOLEDO, OHIO. 

The Secretary shall study the feasibility of removing previously 

dredged and placed materials from the Toledo Harbor confined 

disposal facility, transporting the materials, and disposing of the 

materials in or at abandoned mine sites in southeastern Ohio. 

SEC. 4072. TOLEDO HARBOR, MAUMEE RIVER, AND LAKE CHANNEL 

PROJECT, TOLEDO, OHIO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a project for navigation, Toledo, 

Ohio. 

(b) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In conducting the study 

under subsection (a), the Secretary shall take into consideration— 

(1) realigning the existing Toledo Harbor channel widening 

occurring where the River Channel meets the Lake Channel 

from the northwest to the southeast side of the River Channel; 

(2) realigning the entire 200-foot wide channel located at 

the upper river terminus of the River Channel southern river 

embankment towards the northern river embankment; and 

(3) adjusting the existing turning basin to accommodate 

those changes. 
H. R. 1495—144 

SEC. 4073. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON. 

(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine 

the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restoration and fish passage 

improvements on rivers throughout the State of Oregon. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the study, the Secretary 

shall— 

(1) work in coordination with the State of Oregon, local 

governments, and other Federal agencies; and 

(2) place emphasis on— 

(A) fish passage and conservation and restoration 

strategies to benefit species that are listed or proposed 

for listing as threatened or endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); 

and 

(B) other watershed restoration objectives. 

(c) PILOT PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In conjunction with conducting the study 

under subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out pilot projects 

to demonstrate the effectiveness of ecosystem restoration and 

fish passages. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection. 

SEC. 4074. WALLA WALLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON. 

In conducting the study of determine the feasibility of carrying 

out a project for ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla River basin, 

Oregon, the Secretary shall— 

(1) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 

study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 

if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 

project; and 

(2) allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the form of in-kind 

services and materials. 

SEC. 4075. CHARTIERS CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chartiers 

Creek watershed, Pennsylvania. 

SEC. 4076. KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood 

control, Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Warren, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 

22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), and modified by section 2 of the Flood 

Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), section 2 of the 

Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 646), and section 

4 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), 

to review operations of and identify modifications to the project 

to expand recreational opportunities. 

SEC. 4077. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction, stream bank 

protection, storm water management, channel clearing and modification, and watershed coordination measures in the Mahoning 
H. R. 1495—145 

River basin, Pennsylvania, the Allegheny River basin, Pennsylvania, 

and the Upper Ohio River basin, Pennsylvania, to provide a level 

of flood protection sufficient to prevent future losses to communities 

located in such basins from flooding such as occurred in September 

2004, but not less than a 100-year level of flood protection. 

(b) PRIORITY COMMUNITIES.—In carrying out this section, the 

Secretary shall give priority to the following Pennsylvania communities: Marshall Township, Ross Township, Shaler Township, Jackson Township, Harmony, Zelienople, Darlington Township, Houston 

Borough, Chartiers Township, Washington, Canton Township, 

Tarentum Borough, and East Deer Township. 

SEC. 4078. WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for flood 

control, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the 

Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), to investigate 

measures to rehabilitate the project. 

SEC. 4079. YARDLEY BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, at Yardley 

Borough, Pennsylvania, including the alternative of raising River 

Road. 

SEC. 4080. RIO VALENCIANO, JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to 

reevaluate the project for flood damage reduction and water supply, 

Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, authorized by section 209 

of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197) and section 204 

of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1828), to determine 

the feasibility of carrying out the project. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the study the cost of work carried out by 

the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that the work 

is integral to the project. 

SEC. 4081. WOONSOCKET LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, BLACKSTONE 

RIVER BASIN, RHODE ISLAND. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study, and, not later than June 

30, 2008, submit to Congress a report that describes the results 

of the study, on the flood damage reduction project, Woonsocket, 

Blackstone River basin, Rhode Island, authorized by section 10 

of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 892), 

to determine the measures necessary to restore the level of protection of the project as originally designed and constructed. 

SEC. 4082. CROOKED CREEK, BENNETTSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Crooked Creek, 

Bennettsville, South Carolina. 

SEC. 4083. BROAD RIVER, YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Broad River, York County, 

South Carolina. 
H. R. 1495—146 

SEC. 4084. SAVANNAH RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall determine the feasibility 

of carrying out projects— 

(1) to improve the Savannah River for navigation and 

related purposes that may be necessary to support the location 

of container cargo and other port facilities to be located in 

Jasper County, South Carolina, in the vicinity of Mile 6 of 

the Savannah Harbor entrance channel; and 

(2) to remove from the proposed Jasper County port site 

the easements used by the Corps of Engineers for placement 

of dredged fill materials for the Savannah Harbor Federal 

navigation project. 

(b) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In making a determination 

under subsection (a), the Secretary shall take into consideration— 

(1) landside infrastructure; 

(2) the provision of any additional dredged material disposal area as a consequence of removing from the proposed 

Jasper County port site the easements used by the Corps of 

Engineers for placement of dredged fill materials for the 

Savannah Harbor Federal navigation project; and 

(3) the results of the proposed bistate compact between 

the State of Georgia and the State of South Carolina to own, 

develop, and operate port facilities at the proposed Jasper 

County port site, as described in the term sheet executed by 

the Governor of the State of Georgia and the Governor of 

the State of South Carolina on March 12, 2007. 

SEC. 4085. CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Chattanooga 

Creek, Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga, Tennessee. 

SEC. 4086. CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Cleveland, 

Tennessee. 

SEC. 4087. CUMBERLAND RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for recreation on, riverbank protection 

for, and environmental protection of, the Cumberland River and 

riparian habitats in the city of Nashville and Davidson County, 

Tennessee. 

SEC. 4088. LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply for Lewis, Lawrence, 

and Wayne Counties, Tennessee. 

SEC. 4089. WOLF RIVER AND NONCONNAH CREEK, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction along Wolf 

River and Nonconnah Creek, in the vicinity of Memphis, Tennessee, 

to include the repair, replacement, rehabilitation, and restoration 

of the following pumping stations: Cypress Creek, Nonconnah 

Creek, Ensley, Marble Bayou, and Bayou Gayoso. 
H. R. 1495—147 

SEC. 4090. ABILENE, TEXAS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply, Abilene, Texas. 

SEC. 4091. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall develop a comprehensive 

plan to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood 

damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and 

ecosystem restoration in the coastal areas of the State of Texas. 

(b) SCOPE.—The comprehensive plan shall provide for the 

protection, conservation, and restoration of wetlands, barrier 

islands, shorelines, and related lands and features that protect 

critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure from the impacts of 

coastal storms, hurricanes, erosion, and subsidence. 

(c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘coastal 

areas in the State of Texas’’ means the coastal areas of the State 

of Texas from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande 

River on the west and includes tidal waters, barrier islands, 

marshes, coastal wetlands, rivers and streams, and adjacent areas. 

SEC. 4092. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of carrying 

out a project for dredged material disposal in the vicinity of the 

project for navigation and environmental restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(30) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666). 

SEC. 4093. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for water supply for Grand County and 

the city of Moab, Utah, including a review of the impact of current 

and future demands on the Spanish Valley Aquifer. 

SEC. 4094. SOUTHWESTERN UTAH. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction, Santa Clara 

River, Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties, Utah. 

SEC. 4095. ECOSYSTEM AND HYDROPOWER GENERATION DAMS, 

VERMONT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of the 

potential to carry out ecosystem restoration and hydropower generation at dams in the State of Vermont, including a review of the 

report of the Secretary on the land and water resources of the 

New England–New York region submitted to the President on April 

27, 1956 (published as Senate Document Number 14, 85th Congress), and other relevant reports. 

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the study under subsection (a) 

shall be to determine the feasibility of providing water resource 

improvements and small-scale hydropower generation in the State 

of Vermont, including, as appropriate, options for dam restoration, 

hydropower, dam removal, and fish passage enhancement. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to carry out this section $500,000. Such sums shall remain available 

until expended. 
H. R. 1495—148 

SEC. 4096. ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The study for rehabilitation of the Elliott 

Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington, being carried out under Committee Resolution 2704 of the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure of the House of Representatives adopted September 

25, 2002, is modified to include a determination of the feasibility 

of reducing future damage to the seawall from seismic activity. 

(b) ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRIBUTIONS.—In carrying out the study, 

the Secretary may accept contributions in excess of the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the study from the non-Federal interest to 

the extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions 

will facilitate completion of the study. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result 

of the study the value of contributions accepted by the Secretary 

under subsection (b). 

SEC. 4097. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects 

in the watersheds of the Monongahela River Basin lying within 

the counties of Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, 

Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, 

Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Rithchie, 

West Virginia. 

SEC. 4098. KENOSHA HARBOR, WISCONSIN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for navigation, Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin, 

including the extension of existing piers. 

SEC. 4099. JOHNSONVILLE DAM, JOHNSONVILLE, WISCONSIN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Johnsonville Dam, 

Johnsonville, Wisconsin, to determine if the structure prevents ice 

jams on the Sheboygan River. 

SEC. 4100. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility 

of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and environmental restoration, Menomonee River and Underwood Creek, 

Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, and greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin. 

SEC. 4101. DEBRIS REMOVAL. 

(a) EVALUATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 

States, in coordination with the Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and in consultation with affected communities, shall conduct a complete 

evaluation of Federal and non-Federal demolition, debris 

removal, segregation, transportation, and disposal practices 

relating to disaster areas designated in response to Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita (including regulated and nonregulated materials and debris). 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The evaluation under paragraph (1) shall 

include a review of— 

(A) compliance with all applicable environmental laws; 
H. R. 1495—149 

(B) permits issued or required to be issued with respect 

to debris handling, transportation, storage, or disposal; and 

(C) administrative actions relating to debris removal 

and disposal in the disaster areas described in paragraph 

(1). 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General, in consultation with 

the Secretary and the Administrator, shall submit to the Committee 

on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report that— 

(1) describes the findings of the Comptroller General with 

respect to the evaluation under subsection (a); 

(2)(A) certifies compliance with all applicable environmental laws; and 

(B) identifies any area in which a violation of such a 

law has occurred or is occurring; 

(3) includes recommendations to ensure— 

(A) the protection of the environment; 

(B) sustainable practices; and 

(C) the integrity of hurricane and flood protection infrastructure relating to debris disposal practices; 

(4) contains an enforcement plan that is designed to prevent 

illegal dumping of hurricane debris in a disaster area; and 

(5) contains plans of the Secretary and the Administrator 

to involve the public and non-Federal interests, including 

through the formation of a Federal advisory committee, as 

necessary, to seek public comment relating to the removal, 

disposal, and planning for the handling of post-hurricane debris. 

(c) RESTRICTION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—No Federal funds may be used to pay 

for or reimburse any State or local entity in Louisiana for 

the disposal of construction and demolition debris generated 

as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in a landfill designated 

for construction and demolition debris as described in section 

257.2 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, unless that 

waste meets the definition of construction and demolition 

debris, as specified under Federal law and described in that 

section on the date of enactment of this Act. 

(2) APPLICABILITY.—The restriction in paragraph (1) shall 

apply only to any disposal that occurs after the date of enactment of this Act. 

TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS 

SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the 

Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the following 

navigation channels and breakwaters constructed or improved by 

the non-Federal interest if the Secretary determines that such 

maintenance is economically justified and environmentally acceptable and that the channel or breakwater was constructed in accordance with applicable permits and appropriate engineering and 

design standards: 

(1) Manatee Harbor basin, Florida. 
H. R. 1495—150 

(2) Tampa Harbor, Sparkman Channel and Davis Island, 

Florida. 

(3) West turning basin, Canaveral Harbor, Florida. 

(4) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana. 

(5) Calcasieu River at Devil’s Elbow, Louisiana. 

(6) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, 

Memphis Harbor, Tennessee. 

(7) Houston Ship Channel, Bayport Cruise Channel and 

Bayport Cruise turning basin, as part of the existing Bayport 

Channel, Texas. 

(8) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, 

Texas. 

(9) Jacintoport Channel at Houston Ship Channel, Texas. 

(10) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin. 

(b) COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT.—Not later than 6 months 

after the date of receipt of a request from a non-Federal interest 

for Federal assumption of maintenance of a channel listed in subsection (a), the Secretary shall make a determination as provided 

in subsection (a) and advise the non-Federal interest of the Secretary’s determination. 

SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide technical, planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests for carrying 

out watershed management, restoration, and development projects 

at the locations described in subsection (d). 

(b) SPECIFIC MEASURES.—Assistance provided under subsection 

(a) may be in support of non-Federal projects for the following 

purposes: 

(1) Management and restoration of water quality. 

(2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments. 

(3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and 

other water bodies to their natural condition as a means to 

control flooding, excessive erosion, and sedimentation. 

(4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, including 

urban watersheds. 

(5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural measures to reduce destructive impacts of flooding. 

(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the cost 

of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 25 percent. 

(d) PROJECT LOCATIONS.—The locations referred to in subsection 

(a) are the following: 

(1) Charlotte Harbor watershed, Florida. 

(2) Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee, 

Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the 

counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, 

Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, 

Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia. 

(3) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois. 

(4) Amite River basin, Louisiana. 

(5) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and 

Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana. 

(6) Red River watershed, Louisiana. 

(7) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts. 

(8) Marlboro Township, New Jersey. 

(9) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene, Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York. 
H. R. 1495—151 

(10) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New 

Jersey. 

(11) Long Island Sound watershed, New York. 

(12) Ramapo River watershed, New York. 

(13) Tuscarawas River basin, Ohio. 

(14) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio. 

(15) Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper 

Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower 

Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers 

lying within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and 

Mercer, Pennsylvania. 

(16) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania. 

(17) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania. 

(18) Sauk River basin, Washington. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000. 

SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY. 

(a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide assistance to 

enhance dam safety at the following locations: 

(1) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho. 

(2) Keith Creek, Rockford, Illinois. 

(3) Mount Zion Mill Pond Dam, Fulton County, Indiana. 

(4) Hamilton Dam, Flint River, Flint, Michigan. 

(5) Congers Lake Dam, Rockland County, New York. 

(6) Lake Lucille Dam, New City, New York. 

(7) Peconic River Dams, town of Riverhead, Suffolk, Long 

Island, New York. 

(8) Pine Grove Lakes Dam, Sloatsburg, New York. 

(9) State Dam, Auburn, New York. 

(10) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York. 

(11) Brightwood Dam, Concord Township, Ohio. 

(12) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania. 

(13) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. 

(14) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. 

(15) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania. 

(b) SPECIAL RULE.—The assistance provided under subsection 

(a) for State Dam, Auburn, New York, shall be for a project for 

rehabilitation in accordance with the report on State Dam 

Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake Outlet, New York, dated March 1999, 

if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $12,000,000. 

SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon request of a non-Federal interest, the 

Secretary shall evaluate the structural integrity and effectiveness 

of a project for flood damage reduction and, if the Secretary determines that the project does not meet such minimum standards 

as the Secretary may establish and absent action by the Secretary 

the project will fail, the Secretary may take such action as may 

be necessary to restore the integrity and effectiveness of the project. 

(b) PRIORITY.—The Secretary shall carry out an evaluation and 

take such actions as may be necessary under subsection (a) for 
H. R. 1495—152 

the project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River Levees, 

Arkansas. 

SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 212(e) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraphs (23) and 

(27); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) 

and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(29) Ascension Parish, Louisiana; 

‘‘(30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana; 

‘‘(31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana; 

‘‘(32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and 

‘‘(33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.’’. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 212(i)(1) of 

such Act (33 U.S.C. 2332(i)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘section— 

’’ and all that follows before the period at the end and inserting 

‘‘section $20,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 219(e) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 

Stat. 334) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (7); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) 

and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(9) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(18); 

‘‘(10) $27,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(19); 

‘‘(11) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(20); 

‘‘(12) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(23); 

‘‘(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(25); 

‘‘(14) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(26); 

‘‘(15) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(27); 

‘‘(16) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(28); and 

‘‘(17) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 

(c)(40).’’. 

(b) EAST ARKANSAS ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY, ARKANSAS.—Federal assistance made available under the rural enterprise zone 

program of the Department of Agriculture may be used toward 

payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project 

described in section 219(c)(20) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–219) if such assistance is authorized 

to be used for such purposes. 
H. R. 1495—153 

SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CONSTRUCTION 

FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. 

The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports and, 

if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, shall expedite completion of construction for the following projects: 

(1) Project for navigation, Whittier, Alaska. 

(2) Laguna Creek watershed flood damage reduction 

project, California. 

(3) Daytona Beach shore protection project, Florida. 

(4) Flagler Beach shore protection project, Florida. 

(5) St. Johns County shore protection project, Florida. 

(6) Chenier Plain environmental restoration project, Louisiana. 

(7) False River, Louisiana, being carried out under section 

206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 

2330). 

(8) North River, Peabody, Massachusetts, being carried 

out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 

U.S.C. 701s). 

(9) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being 

carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 

(33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(10) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being 

carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 

(33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(11) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried 

out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 

U.S.C. 701s). 

(12) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York, 

being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330). 

(13) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, 

New York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a). 

(14) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being 

carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330). 

SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN 

PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite completion of 

the reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is justified in the completed report, proceed 

directly to project preconstruction, engineering, and design: 

(1) Project for water supply, Little Red River, Arkansas. 

(2) Watershed study, Fountain Creek, north of Pueblo, 

Colorado. 

(3) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, 

Florida. 

(4) Project for navigation, Sabine-Neches Waterway, Texas 

and Louisiana. 

(5) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

(b) SPECIAL RULE FOR EGMONT KEY, FLORIDA.—In carrying 

out the project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, Florida, 

referred to in subsection (a)(3), the Secretary shall waive any cost 
H. R. 1495—154 

share to be provided by non-Federal interests for any portion of 

the project that benefits federally owned property. 

SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal 

expense, an assessment of the water resources needs of the river 

basins and watersheds of the southeastern United States. 

(b) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out the assessment, the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with 

State and local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, and 

regional researchers. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $7,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5010. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT 

PROJECT. 

Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b)(2)(A) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary shall ensure that such activities are 

carried out throughout the geographic area that is subject 

to the plan.’’; 

(2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 

(g) and (h), respectively; 

(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following: 

‘‘(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project or activity carried out under this section, a non-Federal 

interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the 

affected local government.’’; 

(4) in subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) 

of this section) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(4) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the costs 

of activities carried out under the plan may be provided— 

‘‘(i) in cash; 

‘‘(ii) by the provision of land, easements, rightsof-way, relocations, or disposal areas; 

‘‘(iii) by in-kind services to implement the project; 

or 

‘‘(iv) by any combination thereof. 

‘‘(B) PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.—Land needed for activities 

carried out under the plan and credited toward the nonFederal share of the cost of an activity may remain in 

private ownership subject to easements that are— 

‘‘(i) satisfactory to the Secretary; and 

‘‘(ii) necessary to ensure achievement of the project 

purposes.’’; and 

(5) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (2) 

of this section) by striking ‘‘for the period of fiscal years 2003 

and 2004.’’ and inserting ‘‘per fiscal year through fiscal year 

2015.’’. 

SEC. 5011. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 

PROGRAM. 

(a) GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.—Section 506(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–22(c)) is amended— 
H. R. 1495—155 

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 

(3) and (4), respectively; 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following: 

‘‘(2) RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES.—Before planning, 

designing, or constructing a project under paragraph (3), the 

Secretary shall carry out a reconnaissance study— 

‘‘(A) to identify methods of restoring the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes; and 

‘‘(B) to determine whether planning of a project under 

paragraph (3) should proceed.’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (4)(A) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) 

of this subsection) by striking ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ and inserting 

‘‘paragraph (3)’’. 

(b) COST SHARING.—Section 506(f) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–22(f)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (2)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘The Federal share’’ and inserting 

‘‘Except for reconnaissance studies, the Federal share’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘(2) or (3)’’ and inserting ‘‘(3) or (4)’’; 

(2) in paragraph (3)— 

(A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘subsection (c)(2)’’ 

and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(3)’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘50 percent’’ and 

inserting ‘‘100 percent’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (5) by striking ‘‘Notwithstanding’’ and 

inserting ‘‘In accordance with’’. 

SEC. 5012. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT 

REMEDIATION. 

Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 

(33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 104 Stat. 4644; 114 Stat. 2613) is amended 

by striking ‘‘through 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘through 2012’’. 

SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELS. 

Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘through 2006’’ 

and inserting ‘‘through 2012’’. 

SEC. 5014. GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION AND PROTECTION. 

(a) GREAT LAKES NAVIGATION.—Using available funds, the Secretary shall expedite the operation and maintenance, including 

dredging, of the navigation features of the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels for the purpose of supporting commercial navigation to authorized project depths. 

(b) GREAT LAKES PILOT PROJECT.—Using available funds, the 

Director of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, in 

coordination with the Secretary, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, 

and the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 

shall carry out a pilot project, on an emergency basis, to control 

and prevent further spreading of viral hemorrhagic septicemia in 

the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels. 

(c) GREAT LAKES AND CONNECTING CHANNELS DEFINED.—In 

this section, the term ‘‘Great Lakes and Connecting Channels’’ 

includes Lakes Superior, Huron, Michigan, Erie, and Ontario, all 

connecting waters between and among such lakes used for commercial navigation, any navigation features in such lakes or waters 

that are a Federal operation or maintenance responsibility, and 
H. R. 1495—156 

areas of the Saint Lawrence River that are operated or maintained 

by the Federal Government for commercial navigation. 

SEC. 5015. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized, using amounts 

contributed by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation under subsection (b), to carry out projects for operations, 

maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation, including associated 

maintenance dredging, of the Eisenhower and Snell lock facilities 

and related navigational infrastructure for the Saint Lawrence Seaway, at a total cost of $134,650,000. 

(b) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—The Secretary is authorized to accept 

funds from the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

to carry out projects under this section. Such funds may include 

amounts made available to the Corporation from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the general fund of the Treasury of the 

United States pursuant to section 210 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2238). 

(c) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

section authorizes the construction of any project to increase the 

depth or width of the navigation channel to a level greater than 

that previously authorized and existing on the date of enactment 

of this Act or to increase the dimensions of the Eisenhower and 

Snell lock facilities. 

SEC. 5016. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER DISPERSAL BARRIER PROJECT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies, shall study, design, and carry 

out a project to delay, deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal 

of aquatic nuisance species into the northern reaches of the Upper 

Mississippi River system. The Secretary shall complete the study, 

design, and construction of the project not later than 6 months 

after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) DISPERSAL BARRIER.—In carrying out subsection (a), the 

Secretary, at Federal expense, shall— 

(1) investigate and identify environmentally sound methods 

for preventing and reducing the dispersal of aquatic nuisance 

species through the northern reaches of the Upper Mississippi 

River system; 

(2) use available technologies and measures; 

(3) monitor and evaluate, in cooperation with the Director 

of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the effectiveness 

of the project in preventing and reducing the dispersal of 

aquatic nuisance species through the northern reaches of the 

Upper Mississippi River system; 

(4) 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 evaluation conducted under paragraph (3); 

and 

(5) operate and maintain the project. 

(c) REQUIREMENT.—In conducting the study under subsection 

(a), the Secretary shall take into consideration the feasibility of 

locating the dispersal barrier at the lock portion of the project 

at Lock and Dam 11 in the Upper Mississippi River basin. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $4,000,000 to carry out this section. 
H. R. 1495—157 

SEC. 5017. ESTUARY RESTORATION. 

(a) PURPOSES.—Section 102 of the Estuary Restoration Act 

of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2901) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1) by inserting before the semicolon at 

the end the following: ‘‘by implementing a coordinated Federal 

approach to estuary habitat restoration activities, including 

the use of common monitoring standards and a common system 

for tracking restoration acreage’’; 

(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘and implement’’ after 

‘‘to develop’’; and 

(3) in paragraph (3) by inserting ‘‘through cooperative 

agreements’’ after ‘‘restoration projects’’. 

(b) DEFINITION OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN.—Section 103(6)(A) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 

2902(6)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘Federal or State’’ and inserting 

‘‘Federal, State, or regional’’. 

(c) ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAM.—Section 104 of 

the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2903) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘‘through the award of 

contracts and cooperative agreements’’ after ‘‘assistance’’; 

(2) in subsection (c)— 

(A) in paragraph (3)(A) by inserting ‘‘or State’’ after 

‘‘Federal’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (4)(B) by inserting ‘‘or approach’’ after 

‘‘technology’’; 

(3) in subsection (d)— 

(A) in paragraph (1)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘Except’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except’’; and 

(ii) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) MONITORING.— 

‘‘(i) COSTS.—The costs of monitoring an estuary 

habitat restoration project funded under this title may 

be included in the total cost of the estuary habitat 

restoration project. 

‘‘(ii) GOALS.—The goals of the monitoring shall 

be— 

‘‘(I) to measure the effectiveness of the restoration project; and 

‘‘(II) to allow adaptive management to ensure 

project success.’’; 

(B) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘or approach’’ after 

‘‘technology’’; and 

(C) in paragraph (3) by inserting ‘‘(including monitoring)’’ after ‘‘services’’; 

(4) in subsection (f)(1)(B) by inserting ‘‘long-term’’ before 

‘‘maintenance’’; and 

(5) in subsection (g)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘In carrying’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) SMALL PROJECTS.— ‘‘(A) SMALL PROJECT DEFINED.—In this paragraph, the 

term ‘small project’ means a project carried out under 

this title with an estimated Federal cost of less than 

$1,000,000. 
H. R. 1495—158 

‘‘(B) DELEGATION OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.—In 

carrying out this section, the Secretary, on recommendation 

of the Council, may delegate implementation of a small 

project to— 

‘‘(i) the Secretary of the Interior (acting through 

the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service); 

‘‘(ii) the Under Secretary for Oceans and 

Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce; 

‘‘(iii) the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency; or 

‘‘(iv) the Secretary of Agriculture. 

‘‘(C) FUNDING.—A small project delegated to the head 

of a Federal department or agency under this paragraph 

may be carried out using funds appropriated to the department or agency under section 109(a)(1) or other funds 

available to the department or agency. 

‘‘(D) AGREEMENTS.—The head of a Federal department 

or agency to which a small project is delegated under 

this paragraph shall enter into an agreement with the 

non-Federal interest for the project generally in conformance with the criteria in subsections (d) and (e). Cooperative 

agreements may be used for any delegated project to allow 

the non-Federal interest to carry out the project on behalf 

of the Federal agency.’’. 

(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION

COUNCIL.—Section 105(b) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 

(33 U.S.C. 2904(b)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (4) by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; 

(2) in paragraph (5) by striking the period at the end 

and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) cooperating in the implementation of the strategy 

developed under section 106; 

‘‘(7) recommending standards for monitoring for restoration 

projects and contribution of project information to the database 

developed under section 107; and 

‘‘(8) otherwise using the respective authorities of the 

Council members to carry out this title.’’. 

(e) MONITORING OF ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION

PROJECTS.—Section 107(d) of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 

(33 U.S.C. 2906(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘compile’’ and inserting 

‘‘have general data compilation, coordination, and analysis responsibilities to carry out this title and in support of the strategy 

developed under this section, including compilation of’’. 

(f) REPORTING.—Section 108(a) of the Estuary Restoration Act 

of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2907(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘At the end 

of the third and fifth fiscal years following the date of enactment 

of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘Not later than September 30, 2008, 

and every 2 years thereafter’’. 

(g) FUNDING.—Section 109(a) of the Estuary Restoration Act 

of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2908(a)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by 

striking ‘‘to the Secretary’’; and 

(B) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (D) and 

inserting the following: 
H. R. 1495—159 

‘‘(A) to the Secretary, $25,000,000 for each of fiscal 

years 2008 through 2012; 

‘‘(B) to the Secretary of the Interior (acting through 

the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service), 

$2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012; 

‘‘(C) to the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

of the Department of Commerce, $2,500,000 for each of 

fiscal years 2008 through 2012; 

‘‘(D) to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

through 2012; and 

‘‘(E) to the Secretary of Agriculture, $2,500,000 for 

each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.’’; and 

(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘and other information compiled under 

section 107’’ after ‘‘this title’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

(h) GENERAL PROVISIONS.—Section 110 of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2909) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b)(1)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘or contracts’’ after ‘‘agreements’’; and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘, nongovernmental organizations,’’ 

after ‘‘agencies’’; and 

(2) by striking subsections (d) and (e). 

SEC. 5018. MISSOURI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, MITIGATION, 

RECOVERY, AND RESTORATION, IOWA, KANSAS, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH 

DAKOTA, AND WYOMING. 

(a) STUDY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee to be 

established under subsection (b)(1), shall conduct a study of 

the Missouri River and its tributaries to determine actions 

required— 

(A) to mitigate losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat; 

(B) to recover federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and 

(C) to restore the ecosystem to prevent further declines 

among other native species. 

(2) FUNDING.—The study to be conducted under paragraph 

(1) shall be funded using amounts made available to carry 

out the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan authorized 

by section 601(a) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143). 

(b) MISSOURI RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 6 months after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish 

a committee to be known as the Missouri River Recovery 

Implementation Committee (in this section referred to as the 

‘‘Committee’’). 

(2) MEMBERSHIP.—The Committee shall include representatives from— 

(A) Federal agencies; 

(B) States located near the Missouri River basin; and 

(C) other appropriate entities, as determined by the 

Secretary, including— 
H. R. 1495—160 

(i) water management and fish and wildlife agencies; 

(ii) Indian tribes located near the Missouri River 

basin; and 

(iii) nongovernmental stakeholders, which may 

include— 

(I) navigation interests; 

(II) irrigation interests; 

(III) flood control interests; 

(IV) fish, wildlife, and conservation organizations; 

(V) recreation interests; and 

(VI) power supply interests. 

(3) DUTIES.—The Committee shall— 

(A) with respect to the study to be conducted under 

subsection (a)(1), provide guidance to the Secretary and 

any affected Federal agency, State agency, or Indian tribe; 

and 

(B) provide guidance to the Secretary with respect 

to the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including recommendations relating to— 

(i) changes to the implementation strategy from 

the use of adaptive management; 

(ii) coordination of the development of consistent 

policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, activities, 

and priorities for the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; 

(iii) exchange of information regarding programs, 

projects, and activities of the agencies and entities 

represented on the Committee to promote the goals 

of the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; 

(iv) establishment of such working groups as the 

Committee determines to be necessary to assist in 

carrying out the duties of the Committee, including 

duties relating to public policy and scientific issues; 

(v) facilitating the resolution of interagency and 

intergovernmental conflicts between entities represented on the Committee associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; 

(vi) coordination of scientific and other research 

associated with the Missouri River recovery and mitigation plan; and 

(vii) annual preparation of a work plan and associated budget requests. 

(4) RECOMMENDATIONS AND GUIDANCE.—In providing recommendations and guidance from the Committee, the members 

of the Committee may include dissenting opinions. 

(5) COMPENSATION; TRAVEL EXPENSES.— 

(A) COMPENSATION.—Members of the Committee shall 

not receive compensation from the Secretary in carrying 

out the duties of the Committee under this section. 

(B) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Travel expenses incurred by 

a member of the Committee in carrying out the duties 

of the Committee under this section shall not be eligible 

for Federal reimbursement. 
H. R. 1495—161 

(c) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Committee. 

SEC. 5019. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS, 

DELAWARE, MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, AND VIRGINIA. 

(a) EX OFFICIO MEMBER.—Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of 

the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery 

From Natural Disasters, and for Overseas Peacekeeping Efforts, 

Including Those in Bosnia (Public Law 105–18; 111 Stat. 176), 

section 2.2 of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact to which 

consent was given by Public Law 91–575 (84 Stat. 1512), and 

section 2.2 of the Delaware River Basin Compact to which consent 

was given by Public Law 87–328 (75 Stat. 691), beginning in fiscal 

year 2002, and each fiscal year thereafter, the Division Engineer, 

North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers— 

(1) shall be— 

(A) the ex officio United States member of the Susquehanna River Basin Compact and the Delaware River Basin 

Compact; and 

(B) one of the 3 members appointed by the President 

under the Potomac River Basin Compact to which consent 

was given by Public Law 91–407 (84 Stat. 856); 

(2) shall serve without additional compensation; and 

(3) may designate an alternate member in accordance with 

the terms of those compacts. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOCATE.—The Secretary shall allocate 

funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware River 

Basin Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac 

River Basin to fulfill the equitable funding requirements of the 

respective interstate compacts. 

(c) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STORAGE, DELAWARE

RIVER BASIN.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Delaware River Basin Commission to provide 

temporary water supply and conservation storage at the Francis 

E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, for any period during which 

the Commission has determined that a drought warning or 

drought emergency exists. 

(2) LIMITATION.—The agreement shall provide that the cost 

for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph 

(1) shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 

with providing the storage. 

(d) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STORAGE, SUSQUEHANNA

RIVER BASIN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to provide 

temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal 

facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Susquehanna River basin for any period for which the Commission 

has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency 

exists. 

(2) LIMITATION.—The agreement shall provide that the cost 

for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph 

(1) shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 

with providing the storage. 

(e) WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION STORAGE, POTOMAC

RIVER BASIN.— 
H. R. 1495—162 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River 

Basin to provide temporary water supply and conservation 

storage at Federal facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers 

in the Potomac River basin for any period for which the 

Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought 

emergency exists. 

(2) LIMITATION.—The agreement shall provide that the cost 

for water supply and conservation storage under paragraph 

(1) shall not exceed the incremental operating costs associated 

with providing the storage. 

SEC. 5020. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND 

PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

(a) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Section 510(a)(2) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended 

by striking ‘‘, and beneficial uses of dredged material’’ and inserting 

‘‘, beneficial uses of dredged material, and restoration of submerged 

aquatic vegetation’’. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 510(i) of such 

Act (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$40,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5021. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION, VIRGINIA AND 

MARYLAND. 

Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); 

(2) in paragraph (1)— (A) in the second sentence by striking ‘‘$30,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000’’; and 

(B) in the third sentence by striking ‘‘Such projects’’ 

and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) INCLUSIONS.—Such projects’’; 

(3) by striking paragraph (2)(D) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(D) the restoration and rehabilitation of habitat for 

fish, including native oysters, in the Chesapeake Bay and 

its tributaries in Virginia and Maryland, including— 

‘‘(i) the construction of oyster bars and reefs; 

‘‘(ii) the rehabilitation of existing marginal habitat; 

‘‘(iii) the use of appropriate alternative substrate 

material in oyster bar and reef construction; 

‘‘(iv) the construction and upgrading of oyster 

hatcheries; and 

‘‘(v) activities relating to increasing the output of 

native oyster broodstock for seeding and monitoring 

of restored sites to ensure ecological success. 

‘‘(3) RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES.—The 

restoration and rehabilitation activities described in paragraph 

(2)(D) shall be— 

‘‘(A) for the purpose of establishing permanent sanctuaries and harvest management areas; and 

‘‘(B) consistent with plans and strategies for guiding 

the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay oyster resource and 

fishery.’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: 
H. R. 1495—163 

‘‘(5) DEFINITION OF ECOLOGICAL SUCCESS.—In this subsection, the term ‘ecological success’ means— 

‘‘(A) achieving a tenfold increase in native oyster biomass by the year 2010, from a 1994 baseline; and 

‘‘(B) the establishment of a sustainable fishery as determined by a broad scientific and economic consensus.’’. 

SEC. 5022. HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT. 

The Secretary may participate with Federal, State, and local 

agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional researchers, 

and other interested parties to assess hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. 

SEC. 5023. POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND TRIBUTARY STRATEGY EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM. 

The Secretary may participate in the Potomac River watershed 

assessment and tributary strategy evaluation and monitoring program to identify a series of resource management indicators to 

accurately monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the 

agreed upon tributary strategies and other public policies that 

pertain to natural resource protection of the Potomac River watershed. 

SEC. 5024. LOCK AND DAM SECURITY. 

(a) STANDARDS.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Valley 

Authority, and the Coast Guard, shall develop standards for the 

security of locks and dams, including the testing and certification 

of vessel exclusion barriers. 

(b) SITE SURVEYS.—At the request of a lock or dam owner, 

the Secretary shall provide technical assistance, on a reimbursable 

basis, to improve lock or dam security. 

(c) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—The Secretary may enter into 

a cooperative agreement with a nonprofit alliance of public and 

private organizations that has the mission of promoting safe waterways and seaports to carry out testing and certification activities, 

and to perform site surveys, under this section. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

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

SEC. 5025. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA 

AND SNAKE RIVER SALMON SURVIVAL. 

Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(16 U.S.C. 3301 note; 110 Stat. 3761; 113 Stat. 375) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(6) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$25,000,000’’; and 

(2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$10,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5026. WAGE SURVEYS. 

Employees of the Corps of Engineers who are paid wages determined under the last undesignated paragraph under the heading 

‘‘Administrative Provisions’’ of chapter V of the Supplemental 

Appropriations Act, 1982 (5 U.S.C. 5343 note; 96 Stat. 832) shall 

be allowed, through appropriate employee organization representatives, to participate in wage surveys under such paragraph to 

the same extent as are prevailing rate employees under subsection 

(c)(2) of section 5343 of title 5, United States Code. Nothing in 
H. R. 1495—164 

such section 5343 shall be construed to affect which agencies are 

to be surveyed under such paragraph. 

SEC. 5027. REHABILITATION. 

The Secretary, at Federal expense and in an amount not to 

exceed $1,000,000, shall rehabilitate and improve the water-related 

infrastructure and the transportation infrastructure for the historic 

property in the Anacostia River watershed located in the District 

of Columbia, including measures to address wet weather conditions. 

To carry out this section, the Secretary shall accept funds provided 

for such project under any other Federal program. 

SEC. 5028. AUBURN, ALABAMA. 

The Secretary may provide technical assistance relating to 

water supply to Auburn, Alabama. There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5029. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA. 

(a) PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary shall design and 

construct the locally preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook 

Creek, Huntsville, Alabama. In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall utilize, to the extent practicable, the existing detailed 

project report for the project prepared under the authority of section 

205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(b) PARTICIPATION BY NON-FEDERAL INTEREST.—The Secretary 

shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the financing 

of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) if the detailed 

project report evaluation indicates that applying such section is 

necessary to implement the project. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 5030. ALASKA. 

Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 369) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (c) by inserting ‘‘environmental restoration,’’ after ‘‘water supply and related facilities,’’; 

(2) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence; 

(3) in subsection (h) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$45,000,000’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government. 

‘‘(j) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense.’’. 

SEC. 5031. BARROW, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall carry out, under section 117 of the Energy 

and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 Stat. 2944), 
H. R. 1495—165 

a nonstructural project for coastal erosion and storm damage 

prevention and reduction at Barrow, Alaska, including relocation 

of infrastructure. 

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

(a) LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.— 

(1) MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.—The Secretary shall assume 

responsibility for the long-term maintenance and repair of the 

Lowell Creek tunnel, Seward, Alaska. 

(2) DURATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES.—The responsibility of 

the Secretary for long-term maintenance and repair of the 

tunnel shall continue until an alternative method of flood diversion is constructed and operational under this section, or 15 

years after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is 

earlier. 

(b) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine 

whether an alternative method of flood diversion in Lowell Canyon 

is feasible. 

(c) CONSTRUCTION.— (1) ALTERNATIVE METHODS.—If the Secretary determines 

under the study conducted under subsection (b) that an alternative method of flood diversion in Lowell Canyon is feasible, 

the Secretary shall carry out the alternative method. 

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of carrying out an alternative method under paragraph (1) shall 

be the same as the Federal share of the cost of the construction 

of the Lowell Creek tunnel. 

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

The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, necessary 

removal of rubble, sediment, and rock impeding the entrance to 

the St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska, at a Federal 

cost of $2,000,000. 

SEC. 5034. TANANA RIVER, ALASKA. 

The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, the 

removal of the hazard to navigation on the Tanana River, Alaska, 

near the mouth of the Chena River, as described in the January 

3, 2005, memorandum from the Commander, Seventeenth Coast 

Guard District, to the Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska. 

SEC. 5035. WRANGELL HARBOR, ALASKA. 

(a) GENERAL NAVIGATION FEATURES.—In carrying out the 

project for navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska, authorized by section 101(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 279), the Secretary shall consider the dredging of the 

mooring basin and construction of the inner harbor facilities to 

be general navigation features for purposes of estimating the nonFederal share of project costs. 

(b) REVISION OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The Secretary 

shall revise the partnership agreement for the project to reflect 

the change required by subsection (a). 

SEC. 5036. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out rehabilitation 

of authorized and completed levees on the White River between 

Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas, at a total estimated cost of 
H. R. 1495—166 

$8,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,200,000 and an 

estimated non-Federal cost of $2,800,000. 

(b) REIMBURSEMENT.—After performing the rehabilitation 

under subsection (a), the Secretary shall seek reimbursement from 

the Secretary of the Interior of an amount equal to the costs 

allocated to benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such rehabilitation. 

SEC. 5037. DES ARC LEVEE PROTECTION, ARKANSAS. 

The Secretary shall review the project for flood control, Des 

Arc, Arkansas, to determine whether bank and channel scour along 

the White River threaten the existing project and whether the 

scour is a result of a design deficiency. If the Secretary determines 

that such conditions exist as a result of a deficiency, the Secretary 

shall carry out measures to eliminate the deficiency. 

SEC. 5038. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the 

vicinity of Loomis Landing, Arkansas, to determine if the damage 

is the result of a Federal navigation project, and, if the Secretary 

determines that the damage is the result of a Federal navigation 

project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the 

damage under section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 

(33 U.S.C. 426i). 

SEC. 5039. CALIFORNIA. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in California. 

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance 

for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in California, including projects for 

wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and 

related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water 

resource protection and development. 

(c) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide 

assistance for a project under this section only if the project is 

publicly owned. 

(d) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 

the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including 

appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of 

a project under this section— 
H. R. 1495—167 

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or 

reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project 

that is the subject of an agreement under this section, 

the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable 

interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF- WAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

on publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may 

not exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.— 

Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State 

law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out 

with assistance provided under this section. 

(f) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity. 

(g) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of amounts made available to carry out this section may be used 

by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5040. CALAVERAS RIVER AND LITTLEJOHN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Unless the Secretary determines, by not later 

than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, that the 

relocation of the portion of the project described in subsection 

(b)(2) would be injurious to the public interest, a non-Federal 

interest may reconstruct and relocate that portion of the project 

approximately 300 feet in a westerly direction. 

(b) PROJECT DESCRIPTION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The project referred to in subsection (a) 

is the project for flood control, Calaveras River and Littlejohn 

Creek and tributaries, California, authorized by section 10 of 

the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 902). 

(2) SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION.—The portion of the project to 

be reconstructed and relocated is that portion consisting of 
H. R. 1495—168 

approximately 5.34 acres of dry land levee beginning at a 

point N. 2203542.3167, E. 6310930.1385, thence running west 

about 59.99 feet to a point N. 2203544.6562, E. 6310870.1468, 

thence running south about 3,874.99 feet to a point N. 

2199669.8760, E. 6310861.7956, thence running east about 

60.00 feet to a point N. 2199668.8026, E. 6310921.7900, thence 

running north about 3,873.73 feet to the point of origin. 

(c) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the cost of reconstructing and relocating the portion of the project described in 

subsection (b)(2) shall be 100 percent. 

SEC. 5041. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$10,300,000’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$10,300,000’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project not to exceed $3,000,000 for the cost 

of planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest for the project before the date of the partnership 

agreement for the project.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 

(A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 

subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section). 

SEC. 5042. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, CALIFORNIA; MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, CALIFORNIA. 

Sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2650) are each amended by adding at the 

end the following: ‘‘All planning, study, design, and construction 

on the project shall be carried out by the office of the district 

engineer, San Francisco, California.’’. 

SEC. 5043. DANA POINT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of the causes of water 

quality degradation within Dana Point Harbor, California, to determine if the degradation is the result of a Federal navigation project, 

and, if the Secretary determines that the degradation is the result 

of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a 

project to mitigate the degradation at Federal expense. 

SEC. 5044. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (113 Stat. 336) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$25,000,000’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project the cost of design and construction 

work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

‘‘(C) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The non-Federal 

interest may provide any portion of the non-Federal share 
H. R. 1495—169 

of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services 

and materials.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 

(A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 

subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section). 

SEC. 5045. EASTERN SANTA CLARA BASIN, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 111(c) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 

(as enacted into law by Public Law 106–554; 114 Stat. 2763A– 

224) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$28,000,000’’; 

and 

(2) by striking ‘‘$7,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5046. LA–3 DREDGED MATERIAL OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION, CALIFORNIA. 

The third sentence of section 102(c)(4) of the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)(4)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘January 

1, 2011’’. 

SEC. 5047. LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(f)(50) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended— 

(1) by inserting after ‘‘water’’ the following: ‘‘and wastewater’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘$14,500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$24,500,000’’. 

SEC. 5048. LOS OSOS, CALIFORNIA. 

Section 219(c)(27) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–219) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(27) LOS OSOS, CALIFORNIA.—Wastewater infrastructure, 

Los Osos, California.’’. 

SEC. 5049. PINE FLAT DAM FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) COOPERATIVE PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall participate with 

appropriate State and local agencies in the implementation 

of a cooperative program to improve and manage fisheries 

and aquatic habitat conditions in Pine Flat Reservoir and in 

the 14-mile reach of the Kings River immediately below Pine 

Flat Dam, California, in a manner that— 

(A) provides for long-term aquatic resource enhancement; and 

(B) avoids adverse effects on water storage and water 

rights holders. 

(2) GOALS AND PRINCIPLES.—The cooperative program 

described in paragraph (1) shall be carried out— 

(A) substantially in accordance with the goals and principles of the document entitled ‘‘Kings River Fisheries 

Management Program Framework Agreement’’ and dated 

May 29, 1999, between the California department of fish 

and game and the Kings River Water Association and 

the Kings River Conservation District; and 

(B) in cooperation with the parties to that agreement. 

(b) PARTICIPATION BY SECRETARY.— 
H. R. 1495—170 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In furtherance of the goals of the agreement described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall participate in the planning, design, and construction of projects and 

pilot projects on the Kings River and its tributaries to enhance 

aquatic habitat and water availability for fisheries purposes 

(including maintenance of a trout fishery) in accordance with 

flood control operations, water rights, and beneficial uses in 

existence as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

(2) PROJECTS.—Projects referred to in paragraph (1) may 

include— 

(A) projects to construct or improve pumping, conveyance, and storage facilities to enhance water transfers; 

and 

(B) projects to carry out water exchanges and create 

opportunities to use floodwater within and downstream 

of Pine Flat Reservoir. 

(c) NO AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN DAM-RELATED PROJECTS.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any project 

for the raising of Pine Flat Dam or the construction of a multilevel 

intake structure at Pine Flat Dam. 

(d) USE OF EXISTING STUDIES.—In carrying out this section, 

the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, studies 

in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, including data 

and environmental documentation in the document entitled ‘‘Final 

Feasibility Report and Report of the Chief of Engineers for Pine 

Flat Dam Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration’’ and dated July 

19, 2002. 

(e) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—The 

Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 

of construction of any project under subsection (b) the value, regardless of the date of acquisition, of any land, easements, rightsof-way, dredged material disposal areas, or relocations provided 

by the non-Federal interest for use in carrying out the project. 

(f) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried 

out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility. 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000. Such 

sums shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 5050. RAYMOND BASIN, SIX BASINS, CHINO BASIN, AND SAN 

GABRIEL BASIN, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—The Secretary, in consultation and 

coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, 

shall develop a comprehensive plan for the management of water 

resources in the Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and 

San Gabriel Basin, California. The Secretary may carry out activities identified in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable 

alternatives for water resources management. 

(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share of 

the cost of operation and maintenance of any measures constructed 

under this section shall be 100 percent. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000. 

SEC. 5051. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the Port 

of San Francisco, California, may carry out the project for repair 
H. R. 1495—171 

and removal, as appropriate, of Piers 30–32, 35, 36, 70 (including 

Wharves 7 and 8), and 80 in San Francisco, California, substantially 

in accordance with the Port’s redevelopment plan. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $25,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5052. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA. 

(a) AREA TO BE DECLARED NONNAVIGABLE; PUBLIC INTEREST.— 

Unless the Secretary finds, after consultation with local and 

regional public officials (including local and regional public planning 

organizations), that the proposed projects to be undertaken within 

the boundaries of the portion of the San Francisco, California, 

waterfront area described in subsection (b) are not in the public 

interest, such portion is declared to be nonnavigable waters of 

the United States. 

(b) NORTHERN EMBARCADERO SOUTH OF BRYANT STREET.—The 

portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area referred 

to in subsection (a) is as follows: Beginning at the intersection 

of the northeasterly prolongation of that portion of the northwesterly line of Bryant Street lying between Beale Street and Main 

Street with the southwesterly line of Spear Street, which intersection lies on the line of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port 

Commission; following thence southerly along said line of jurisdiction as described in the State of California Harbor and Navigation 

Code Section 1770, as amended in 1961, to its intersection with 

the southeasterly line of Townsend Street; thence northeasterly 

along said southeasterly line of Townsend Street, to its intersection 

with a line that is parallel and distant 10 feet southerly from 

the existing southern boundary of Pier 40 produced; thence easterly 

along said parallel line, to its point of intersection with the United 

States Government Pierhead line; thence northerly along said 

Pierhead line to its intersection with a line parallel with, and 

distant 10 feet easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line 

of Pier 30–32; thence northerly along said parallel line and its 

northerly prolongation, to a point of intersection with a line parallel 

with, and distant 10 feet northerly from, the existing northerly 

boundary of Pier 30–32; thence westerly along last said parallel 

line to its intersection with the United States Government Pierhead 

line; thence northerly along said Pierhead line, to its intersection 

aforementioned northwesterly line of Bryant Street produced northeasterly; thence southwesterly along said northwesterly line of 

Bryant Street produced to the point of beginning. 

(c) REQUIREMENT THAT AREA BE IMPROVED.—The declaration 

of nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies only to those parts 

of the area described in subsection (b) that are or will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied by permanent structures and 

does not affect the applicability of any Federal statute or regulation 

applicable to such parts the day before the date of enactment 

of this Act, including sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 

1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known 

as the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and 

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

et seq.). 

(d) EXPIRATION DATE.—If, 20 years from the date of enactment 

of this Act, any area or part thereof described in subsection (b) 

is not bulkheaded or filled or occupied by permanent structures, 
H. R. 1495—172 

including marina facilities, in accordance with the requirements 

set out in subsection (c), or if work in connection with any activity 

permitted in subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after 

issuance of such permits, then the declaration of nonnavigability 

for such area or part thereof shall expire. 

SEC. 5053. SAN PABLO BAY, CALIFORNIA, WATERSHED AND SUISUN 

MARSH ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 

(a) SAN PABLO BAY WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall complete work, as 

expeditiously as possible, on the ongoing San Pablo Bay watershed, California, study to determine the feasibility of opportunities for restoring, preserving, and protecting the San Pablo 

Bay watershed. 

(2) REPORT.—Not later than March 31, 2008, the Secretary 

shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the study. 

(b) SUISUN MARSH, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary shall conduct 

a comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of opportunities 

for restoring, preserving, and protecting the Suisun Marsh, California. 

(c) SAN PABLO AND SUISUN BAY MARSH WATERSHED CRITICAL

RESTORATION PROJECTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in critical 

restoration projects that will produce, consistent with Federal 

programs, projects, and activities, immediate and substantial 

ecosystem restoration, preservation, and protection benefits in 

the following sub-watersheds of the San Pablo and Suisun 

Bay Marsh watersheds: 

(A) The tidal areas of the Petaluma River, NapaSonoma Marsh. 

(B) The shoreline of West Contra Costa County. 

(C) Novato Creek. 

(D) Suisun Marsh. 

(E) Gallinas-Miller Creek. 

(2) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—Participation in critical restoration projects under this subsection may include assistance for 

planning, design, or construction. 

(d) CREDIT.—In accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), the Secretary shall credit toward 

the non-Federal share of the cost of construction of a project under 

this section— 

(1) the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, 

dredged material disposal areas, or relocations provided by 

the non-Federal interest for carrying out the project, regardless 

of the date of acquisition; 

(2) funds received from the CALFED Bay-Delta program; 

and 

(3) the cost of the studies, design, and construction work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5054. ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may construct a project for 

flood control and environmental restoration, St. Helena, California, 

substantially in accordance with the plan for the St. Helena comprehensive flood protection project dated 2006 and described in 
H. R. 1495—173 

the addendum dated June 27, 2006, to the report prepared by 

the city of St. Helena entitled ‘‘City of St. Helena Comprehensive 

Flood Protection Project, Final Environmental Impact Report’’, and 

dated January 2004, if the Secretary determines that the plans 

and designs for the project are feasible. 

(b) COST.—The total cost of the project to be constructed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be $30,000,000, with an estimated Federal 

cost of $19,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 

$10,500,000. 

(c) REIMBURSEMENT.—The non-Federal interest shall be 

reimbursed for any work performed by the non-Federal interest 

for the project described in subsection (a) that is in excess of 

the required non-Federal contribution toward the total cost of the 

project, if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to 

the project. 

SEC. 5055. UPPER CALAVERAS RIVER, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA. 

(a) REEVALUATION.—The Secretary shall reevaluate the feasibility of the Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee extensions 

on the Upper Calaveras River element of the project for flood 

control, Stockton Metropolitan Area, California, carried out under 

section 211(f)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3683), to determine the eligibility of such elements for 

reimbursement under section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b– 

13). 

(b) SPECIAL RULES FOR REEVALUATION.—In conducting the 

reevaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall not reject 

a feasibility determination based on one or more of the policies 

of the Corps of Engineers concerning the frequency of flooding, 

the drainage area, and the amount of runoff. 

(c) REIMBURSEMENT.—If the Secretary determines that the elements referred to subsection (a) are feasible, the Secretary shall 

reimburse, subject to appropriations, the non-Federal interest under 

section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 for 

the Federal share of the cost of such elements. 

SEC. 5056. RIO GRANDE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, 

COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, AND TEXAS. 

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

apply: 

(1) RIO GRANDE COMPACT.—The term ‘‘Rio Grande Compact’’ 

means the compact approved by Congress under the Act of 

May 31, 1939 (53 Stat. 785), and ratified by the States. 

(2) RIO GRANDE BASIN.—The term ‘‘Rio Grande Basin’’ 

means the Rio Grande (including all tributaries and their headwaters) located— 

(A) in the State of Colorado, from the Rio Grande 

Reservoir, near Creede, Colorado, to the New Mexico State 

border; 

(B) in the State of New Mexico, from the Colorado 

State border downstream to the Texas State border; and 

(C) in the State of Texas, from the New Mexico State 

border to the southern terminus of the Rio Grande at 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

(3) STATES.—The term ‘‘States’’ means the States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. 

(b) PROGRAM AUTHORITY.— 
H. R. 1495—174 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out, in the 

Rio Grande Basin— 

(A) a program for the planning, construction, and 

evaluation of measures for fish and wildlife habitat 

rehabilitation and enhancement; and 

(B) implementation of a long-term monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, applied research, and 

adaptive management program. 

(2) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31, 2008, and not 

later than December 31 of every sixth year thereafter, the 

Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior 

and the States, shall submit to Congress a report that— 

(A) contains an evaluation of the programs described 

in paragraph (1); 

(B) describes the accomplishments of each program; 

(C) provides updates of a systemic habitat needs assessment; and 

(D) identifies any needed adjustments in the authorization of the programs. 

(c) STATE AND LOCAL CONSULTATION AND COOPERATIVE

EFFORT.—For the purpose of ensuring the coordinated planning 

and implementation of the programs described in subsection (b), 

the Secretary shall— 

(1) consult with the States, and other appropriate entities 

in the States, the rights and interests of which might be affected 

by specific program activities; and 

(2) enter into an interagency agreement with the Secretary 

of the Interior to provide for the direct participation of, and 

transfer of funds to, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and any other agency or bureau of the Department of the 

Interior for the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of those programs. 

(d) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The costs of operation and 

maintenance of a project located on Federal land, or land owned 

or operated by a State or local government, shall be borne by 

the Federal, State, or local agency that has jurisdiction over fish 

and wildlife activities on the land. 

(e) EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.— 

(1) WATER LAW.—Nothing in this section shall be construed 

to preempt any State water law. 

(2) COMPACTS AND DECREES.—In carrying out this section, 

the Secretary shall comply with the Rio Grande Compact, and 

any applicable court decrees or Federal and State laws, affecting 

water or water rights in the Rio Grande Basin. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 

$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2011. 

SEC. 5057. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN 

HARBOR, CONNECTICUT. 

The western breakwater for the project for navigation, New 

Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by the first section of the 

Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 428), shall be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater’’. 
H. R. 1495—175 

SEC. 5058. STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and recreation components of the Mill River and Long Island Sound revitalization project, Stamford, Connecticut. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5059. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA. 

(a) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide technical assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in carrying out the 

Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program established under 

subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security and Rural Investment 

Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275). 

(b) COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION.—In carrying out water 

resources projects in the States on the Delmarva Peninsula, the 

Secretary shall coordinate and integrate those projects, to the maximum extent practicable, with any activities carried out to implement a conservation corridor plan approved by the Secretary of 

Agriculture under section 2602 of the Farm Security and Rural 

Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275). 

SEC. 5060. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND. 

(a) COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PLAN.—Not later than one year 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Governor 

of Maryland, the county executives of Montgomery County and 

Prince George’s County, Maryland, and other interested entities, 

shall develop and make available to the public a 10-year comprehensive action plan to provide for the restoration and protection of 

the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River and its tributaries. 

(b) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—On completion of the comprehensive 

action plan under subsection (a), the Secretary shall make the 

plan available to the public, including on the Internet. 

SEC. 5061. EAST CENTRAL AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA. 

(a) EAST CENTRAL AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA REGION DEFINED.— 

In this section, the term ‘‘East Central and Northeast Florida 

Region’’ means Flagler County, St. Johns County, Putman County 

(east of the St. Johns River), Seminole County, Volusia County, 

the towns of Winter Park, Maitland, and Palatka, Florida. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in the East Central and Northeast Florida Region. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance 

for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in the East Central and Northeast 

Florida Region, including projects for wastewater treatment and 

related facilities, water supply and related facilities, environmental 

restoration, and surface water resource protection and development. 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide 

assistance for a project under this section only if the project is 

publicly owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— 
H. R. 1495—176 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 

the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including 

appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of 

a project under this section— 

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or 

reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project 

that is the subject of an agreement under this section, 

the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable 

interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

on publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may 

not exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.— 

Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State 

law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out 

with assistance provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 
H. R. 1495—177 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5062. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS. 

Section 109 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 

(enacted into law by Public Law 106–554) (114 Stat. 2763A–222) 

is amended— 

(1) by adding at the end of subsection (e)(2) the following: 

‘‘(C) CREDIT FOR WORK PRIOR TO EXECUTION OF THE

PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall credit 

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project— 

‘‘(i) in accordance with section 221 of the Flood 

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

of construction work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest for the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the project; and 

‘‘(ii) the cost of land acquisition carried out by 

the non-Federal interest for projects to be carried out 

under this section.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (f) by striking ‘‘$100,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000,000, of which not more than $15,000,000 

may be used to provide planning, design, and construction 

assistance to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for a water 

treatment plant, Florida City, Florida’’. 

SEC. 5063. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA. 

The Secretary may carry out necessary repairs for the Lake 

Worth bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, Florida, 

at an estimated total cost of $9,000,000. 

SEC. 5064. BIG CREEK, GEORGIA, WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may cooperate with, by providing technical, planning, and construction assistance to, the city 

of Roswell, Georgia, as the non-Federal interest and coordinator 

with other local governments in the Big Creek watershed, Georgia, 

to assess the quality and quantity of water resources, conduct 

comprehensive watershed management planning, develop and 

implement water efficiency technologies and programs, and plan, 

design, and construct water resource facilities to restore the watershed. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary $5,000,000 to carry out this 

section. 

SEC. 5065. METROPOLITAN NORTH GEORGIA WATER PLANNING DISTRICT. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District. 

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance 

for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in north Georgia, including projects 
H. R. 1495—178 

for wastewater treatment and related facilities, elimination or control of combined sewer overflows, water supply and related facilities, 

environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection 

and development. 

(c) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide 

assistance for a project under this section only if the project is 

publicly owned. 

(d) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 

the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including 

appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of 

a project under this section— 

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or 

reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of a project under this section, in an amount 

not to exceed 6 percent of the total construction costs 

of the project, the cost of design work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project 

that is the subject of an agreement under this section, 

the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable 

interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

on publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may 

not exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State 
H. R. 1495—179 

law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out 

with assistance provided under this section. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

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

SEC. 5066. SAVANNAH, GEORGIA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—After completion of a Savannah Riverfront 

plan, the Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, 

recreation, navigation, and flood damage reduction components of 

the plan. 

(b) COORDINATION.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary 

shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity 

of Savannah, Georgia, including the Georgia Ports Authority, the 

city of Savannah, and Camden County. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5067. IDAHO, MONTANA, RURAL NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, RURAL 

UTAH, AND WYOMING. 

Section 595 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 383; 117 Stat. 139; 117 Stat. 142; 117 Stat. 1836; 118 

Stat. 440) is amended— 

(1) in the section heading by striking ‘‘AND RURAL UTAH’’ 

and inserting ‘‘RURAL UTAH, AND WYOMING’’; 

(2) in subsections (b) and (c) by striking ‘‘and rural Utah’’ 

each place it appears and inserting ‘‘rural Utah, and Wyoming’’; 

and 

(3) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(h) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section for the period beginning 

with fiscal year 2001 $150,000,000 for rural Nevada, $25,000,000 

for each of Montana and New Mexico, $55,000,000 for Idaho, 

$50,000,000 for rural Utah, and $30,000,000 for Wyoming. Such 

sums shall remain available until expended.’’. 

SEC. 5068. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO. 

The Secretary is authorized to carry out the Riley Creek Recreation Area Operation Plan of the Albeni Falls Management Plan, 

dated October 2001, for the Riley Creek Recreation Area, Albeni 

Falls Dam, Bonner County, Idaho. 

SEC. 5069. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, CHICAGO, 

ILLINOIS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide assistance for 

a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood 

inundation areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—Maps developed under the project shall 

include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall accurately 

show the flood inundation of each property by flood risk in the 

floodplain. The maps shall be produced in a high resolution format 

and shall be made available to all flood prone areas along the 

Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois, in an electronic format. 

(c) PARTICIPATION OF FEMA.—The Secretary and the non-Federal interests for the project shall work with the Administrator 

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure the 

validity of the maps developed under the project for flood insurance 

purposes. 
H. R. 1495—180 

(d) FORMS OF ASSISTANCE.—In carrying out the project, the 

Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with 

the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of project 

costs. 

(e) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of the 

project shall be 50 percent. 

(f) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

section shall be construed to modify the prioritization of map 

updates or the substantive requirements of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency flood map modernization program authorized 

by section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 4101). 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000. 

SEC. 5070. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS AND MISSOURI FLOOD 

PROTECTION PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the 

reconstruction of an eligible flood control project if the Secretary 

determines that such reconstruction is not required as a result 

of improper operation and maintenance of the project by the nonFederal interest. 

(b) COST SHARING.—The non-Federal share of the costs for 

the reconstruction of a flood control project authorized by this 

section shall be the same non-Federal share that was applicable 

to construction of the project. The non-Federal interest shall be 

responsible for operation and maintenance and repair of a project 

for which reconstruction is undertaken under this section. 

(c) RECONSTRUCTION DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘reconstruction’’, as used with respect to a project, means addressing 

major project deficiencies caused by long-term degradation of the 

foundation, construction materials, or engineering systems or 

components of the project, the results of which render the project 

at risk of not performing in compliance with its authorized project 

purposes. In addressing such deficiencies, the Secretary may incorporate current design standards and efficiency improvements, 

including the replacement of obsolete mechanical and electrical 

components at pumping stations, if such incorporation does not 

significantly change the scope, function, and purpose of the project 

as authorized. 

(d) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—The following flood control projects 

are eligible for reconstruction under this section: 

(1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois. 

(2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, 

Illinois. 

(3) Prairie Du Pont Levee and Sanitary District, including 

Fish Lake Drainage and Levee District, Illinois. 

(4) Cairo, Illinois Mainline Levee, Cairo, Illinois. 

(5) Goose Pond Pump Station, Cairo, Illinois. 

(6) Cottonwood Slough Pump Station, Alexander County, 

Illinois. 

(7) 10th and 28th Street Pump Stations, Cairo, Illinois. 

(8) Flood control levee projects in Brookport, Shawneetown, 

Old Shawneetown, Golconda, Rosiclare, Harrisburg, and 

Reevesville, Illinois. 

(9) City of St. Louis, Missouri. 

(10) Missouri River Levee Drainage District, Missouri. 
H. R. 1495—181 

(e) JUSTIFICATION.—The reconstruction of a project authorized 

by this section shall not be considered a separable element of 

the project. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5071. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION. 

(a) EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION.—Section 519(c)(2) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is 

amended by striking ‘‘2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL SHARE.—Section 519(c)(3) of such Act 

(114 Stat. 2654) is amended by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$20,000,000’’. 

(c) IN-KIND SERVICES.—Section 519(g)(3) of such Act (114 Stat. 

2655) is amended by inserting before the period at the end of 

the first sentence ‘‘if such services are provided not more than 

5 years before the date of initiation of the project or activity’’. 

(d) MONITORING.—Section 519 of such Act (114 Stat. 2654) 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(h) MONITORING.—The Secretary shall develop an Illinois River 

basin monitoring program to support the plan developed under 

subsection (b). Data collected under the monitoring program shall 

incorporate data provided by the State of Illinois and shall be 

publicly accessible through electronic means, including on the Internet.’’. 

SEC. 5072. PROMONTORY POINT THIRD-PARTY REVIEW, CHICAGO 

SHORELINE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. 

(a) REVIEW.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a third-party 

review of the Promontory Point feature of the project for storm 

damage reduction and shoreline erosion protection, Lake 

Michigan, Illinois, from Wilmette, Illinois, to the IllinoisIndiana State line, authorized by section 101(a)(12) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3664), at a 

cost not to exceed $450,000. 

(2) JOINT REVIEW.—The Buffalo and Seattle Districts of 

the Corps of Engineers shall jointly conduct the review under 

paragraph (1). 

(3) STANDARDS.—The review under paragraph (1) shall be 

based on the standards under part 68 of title 36, Code of 

Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation). 

(b) CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary may accept funds from a 

State or political subdivision of a State to conduct the review 

under paragraph (1). 

(c) TREATMENT.—The review under paragraph (1) shall not 

be considered to be an element of the project referred to in paragraph (1). 

(d) EFFECT OF SECTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the authorization for the project referred to in 

paragraph (1). 

SEC. 5073. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORATION. 

(a) KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘Kaskaskia River Basin’’ means the Kaskaskia River, Illinois, its 

backwaters, its side channels, and all tributaries, including their 

watersheds, draining into the Kaskaskia River. 

(b) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.— 
H. R. 1495—182 

(1) DEVELOPMENT.—The Secretary shall develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for the purpose 

of restoring, preserving, and protecting the Kaskaskia River 

Basin. 

(2) TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATIVE APPROACHES.—The comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new technologies and innovative approaches— 

(A) to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a transportation 

corridor; 

(B) to improve water quality within the entire 

Kaskaskia River Basin; 

(C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for plants 

and wildlife; 

(D) to ensure aquatic integrity of side channels and 

backwaters and their connectivity with the mainstem river; 

(E) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture 

and business communities; and 

(F) to reduce the impacts of flooding to communities 

and landowners. 

(3) SPECIFIC COMPONENTS.—The comprehensive plan shall 

include such features as are necessary to provide for— 

(A) the development and implementation of a program 

for sediment removal technology, sediment characterization, sediment transport, and beneficial uses of sediment; 

(B) the development and implementation of a program 

for the planning, conservation, evaluation, and construction 

of measures for fish and wildlife habitat conservation and 

rehabilitation, and stabilization and enhancement of land 

and water resources in the Kaskaskia River Basin; 

(C) the development and implementation of a longterm resource monitoring program for the Basin; 

(D) a conveyance study of the Kaskaskia River floodplain from Vandalia, Illinois, to Carlyle Lake to determine 

the impacts of existing and future waterfowl improvements 

on flood stages, including detailed surveys and mapping 

information to ensure proper hydraulic and hydrological 

analysis; 

(E) the development and implementation of a computerized inventory and analysis system for the Basin; 

(F) the development and implementation of a systemic 

plan for the Basin to reduce flood impacts by means of 

ecosystem restoration projects; and 

(G) the study and design of necessary measures to 

reduce ongoing headcutting and restore the aquatic 

environment of the Basin that has been degraded by the 

headcutting that has occurred above the existing grade 

control structure. 

(4) CONSULTATION.—The comprehensive plan shall be 

developed by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate 

Federal agencies, the State of Illinois, and the Kaskaskia River 

Watershed Association. 

(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after 

the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 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 comprehensive plan. 
H. R. 1495—183 

(6) ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND ANALYSES.—After submission 

of a report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall conduct 

studies and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive 

plan that are appropriate and consistent with this subsection. 

(c) GENERAL PROVISIONS.— 

(1) WATER QUALITY.—In carrying out activities under this 

section, the Secretary’s recommendations shall be consistent 

with applicable State water quality standards. 

(2) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—In developing the comprehensive plan under subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement 

procedures to facilitate public participation, including providing 

advance notice of meetings, providing adequate opportunity 

for public input and comment, maintaining appropriate records, 

and making a record of the proceedings of meetings available 

for public inspection. 

(d) CRITICAL PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES.—If the Secretary, in 

cooperation with appropriate Federal agencies and the State of 

Illinois, determines that a project or initiative for the Kaskaskia 

River Basin will produce independent, immediate, and substantial 

benefits, the Secretary may proceed with the implementation of 

the project. 

(e) COORDINATION.—The Secretary shall integrate activities carried out under this section with ongoing Federal and State programs, projects, and activities, including the following: 

(1) Farm programs of the Department of Agriculture. 

(2) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State of 

Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program of the 

Illinois department of natural resources. 

(3) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and 

the Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the 

Illinois department of agriculture. 

(4) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 

(5) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the 

Illinois environmental protection agency. 

(6) Other programs that may be developed by the State 

of Illinois or the Federal Government, or that are carried out 

by nonprofit organizations, to carry out the objectives of the 

Kaskaskia River Basin Comprehensive Plan. 

(f) IN-KIND SERVICES.—The Secretary may credit the cost of 

in-kind services provided by the non-Federal interest for an activity 

carried out under this section toward not more than 80 percent 

of the non-Federal share of the cost of the activity. In-kind services 

shall include all State funds expended on programs that accomplish 

the goals of this section, as determined by the Secretary. The 

programs may include the Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve 

Program, the Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands 

Trust Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out in the 

Kaskaskia River Basin. 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

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

SEC. 5074. SOUTHWEST ILLINOIS. 

(a) SOUTHWEST ILLINOIS DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘Southwest Illinois’’ means the counties of Madison, St. Clair, 

Monroe, Randolph, Perry, Franklin, Jackson, Union, Alexander, 

Pulaski, and Williamson, Illinois. 
H. R. 1495—184 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in Southwest Illinois. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance 

for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in Southwest Illinois, including 

projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water 

supply and related facilities, and surface water resource protection 

and development. 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide 

assistance for a project under this section only if the project is 

publicly owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 

the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including 

appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of 

a project under this section— 

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or 

reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 

subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 

interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred 

in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

on publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may 

not exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 
H. R. 1495—185 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State 

law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out 

with assistance provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5075. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA. 

Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (113 Stat. 335; 117 Stat. 1843) is amended— (1) by striking ‘‘$30,000,000’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$100,000,000’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project the cost of planning and design work 

carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 

(A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 

subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section). 

SEC. 5076. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, MISSOURI RIVER, IOWA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide assistance for 

a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood 

inundation areas in the State of Iowa, along the Missouri River. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.—Maps developed under the project shall 

include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall accurately 

portray the flood hazard areas in the floodplain. The maps shall 

be produced in a high resolution format and shall be made available 

to the State of Iowa in an electronic format. 

(c) PARTICIPATION OF FEMA.—The Secretary and the non-Federal interests for the project shall work with the Administrator 

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure the 

validity of the maps developed under the project for flood insurance 

purposes. 

(d) FORMS OF ASSISTANCE.—In carrying out the project, the 

Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with 

the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of project 

costs. 

(e) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of the 

project shall be 50 percent. 
H. R. 1495—186 

(f) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this 

section shall be construed to modify the prioritization of map 

updates or the substantive requirements of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency flood map modernization program authorized 

by section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 4101). 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

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

SEC. 5077. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY. 

The Secretary shall complete a feasibility report for rehabilitation of the project for flood damage reduction, Paducah, Kentucky, 

authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 

(52 Stat. 1217), and, if the Secretary determines that the project 

is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project at a total 

cost of $3,000,000. 

SEC. 5078. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY. 

Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(110 Stat. 3773; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense.’’. 

SEC. 5079. WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY. 

Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A–219) is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(41) WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY.—Wastewater infrastructure, 

Winchester, Kentucky.’’. 

SEC. 5080. BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA. 

Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220) is amended by striking 

‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$35,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5081. CALCASIEU SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA. 

The Secretary shall expedite completion of a dredged material 

management plan for the Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana, and 

may take interim measures to increase the capacity of existing 

disposal areas, or to construct new confined or beneficial use disposal areas, for the channel. 

SEC. 5082. EAST ATCHAFALAYA BASIN AND AMITE RIVER BASIN 

REGION, LOUISIANA. 

(a) EAST ATCHAFALAYA BASIN AND AMITE RIVER BASIN REGION

DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘East Atchafalaya Basin and 

Amite River Basin Region’’ means the following parishes and 

municipalities in the State of Louisiana: Ascension, East Baton 

Rouge, East Feliciana, Iberville, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, St. 

Helena, West Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in the East Atchafalaya Basin and Amite River Basin 

Region. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance 
H. R. 1495—187 

for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in the East Atchafalaya Basin and 

Amite River Basin Region, including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and related facilities, 

environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection 

and development. 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide 

assistance for a project under this section only if the project is 

publicly owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement of a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 

the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including 

appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of 

a project under this section— 

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or 

reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 

subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 

interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred 

in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF- WAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

on publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may 

not exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State 
H. R. 1495—188 

law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out 

with assistance provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5083. INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK PROJECT, LOUISIANA. 

Not later than July 1, 2008, the Secretary shall— 

(1) issue a final environmental impact statement relating 

to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock project, Louisiana; 

and 

(2) develop and maintain a transportation mitigation program relating to that project in coordination with— 

(A) St. Bernard Parish; 

(B) Orleans Parish; 

(C) the Old Arabi Neighborhood Association; and 

(D) other interested parties. 

SEC. 5084. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA. 

For purposes of carrying out section 121 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1273), the Lake Pontchartrain, 

Louisiana, basin stakeholders conference convened by the Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and United States Geological Survey on February 

25, 2002, shall be treated as being a management conference convened under section 320 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330). 

SEC. 5085. SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA REGION, LOUISIANA. 

(a) DEFINITION OF SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA REGION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Southeast Louisiana Region’’ means any of the 

following parishes and municipalities in the State of Louisiana: 

(1) Orleans. 

(2) Jefferson. 

(3) St. Tammany. 

(4) Tangipahoa. 

(5) St. Bernard. 

(6) St. Charles. 

(7) St. John. 

(8) Plaquemines. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in the Southeast Louisiana Region. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance 

for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in the Southeast Louisiana Region, 

including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, 

water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and 
H. R. 1495—189 

surface water resource protection and development (including 

projects to improve water quality in the Lake Pontchartrain basin). 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide 

assistance for a project under this section only if the project is 

publicly owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 

the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including 

appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of 

a project under this section— 

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or 

reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project 

that is the subject of an agreement under this section, 

the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable 

interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

on publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may 

not exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.— 

Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State 

law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out 

with assistance provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(b)), for any 
H. R. 1495—190 

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of amounts made available to carry out this section may be used 

by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $17,000,000. 

SEC. 5086. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA. 

(a) MODIFICATION OF STUDY.—The study for the project for 

waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement, 

Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, being carried out under Committee Resolution 2570 of the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

adopted July 23, 1998, is modified to add West Feliciana Parish 

and East Baton Rouge Parish to the geographic scope of the study. 

(b) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary may, upon completion of 

the study, participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood 

damage reduction, and recreation components of the project. 

(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project. 

(d) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION.—Section 517(5) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 345) is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge, West Feliciana, 

and East Baton Rouge Parishes, Louisiana, project for waterfront and riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement 

modifications.’’. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000. 

SEC. 5087. CHARLESTOWN, MARYLAND. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a project for 

nonstructural flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration 

at Charlestown, Maryland. 

(b) LAND ACQUISITION.—The flood damage reduction component 

of the project may include the acquisition of private property from 

willing sellers. 

(c) JUSTIFICATION.—Any nonstructural flood damage reduction 

project to be carried out under this section that will result in 

the conversion of property to use for ecosystem restoration and 

wildlife habitat shall be justified based on national ecosystem restoration benefits. 

(d) USE OF ACQUIRED PROPERTY.—Property acquired under this 

section shall be maintained in public ownership for ecosystem restoration and wildlife habitat. 

(e) ABILITY TO PAY.—In determining the appropriate non-Federal cost share for the project, the Secretary shall determine the 

ability of Cecil County, Maryland, to participate as a cost-sharing 

non-Federal interest in accordance with section 103(m) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)). 
H. R. 1495—191 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $2,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5088. ST. MARY’S RIVER, MARYLAND. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out the project 

for shoreline protection, St. Mary’s River, Maryland, under section 

3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation 

in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned property’’, 

approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g). 

(b) USE OF FUNDS.—In carrying out the project under subsection 

(a), the Secretary shall use funds made available for such project 

under Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 

(Public Law 109–103). 

SEC. 5089. MASSACHUSETTS DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES. 

The Secretary may cooperate with Massachusetts in the 

management and long-term monitoring of aquatic dredged material 

disposal sites within the State and is authorized to accept funds 

from the State to carry out such activities. 

SEC. 5090. ONTONAGON HARBOR, MICHIGAN. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the 

vicinity of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor, Ontonagon 

County, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176) and reauthorized by section 

363 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3730), to determine if the damage is the result of a Federal navigation project, and, if the Secretary determines that the damage 

is the result of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall 

carry out a project to mitigate the damage under section 111 of 

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

SEC. 5091. CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for emergency 

streambank protection along the Red Lake River in Crookston, 

Minnesota, and, if the Secretary determines that the project is 

feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project under section 

14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r); except that 

the maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 

for the project shall be $6,500,000. 

SEC. 5092. GARRISON AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA. 

(a) PROJECT DESCRIPTION.—Section 219(f)(61) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–221) is 

amended— 

(1) in the paragraph heading by striking ‘‘AND KATHIO

TOWNSHIP’’ and inserting ‘‘, CROW WING COUNTY, MILLE LACS

COUNTY, MILLE LACS INDIAN RESERVATION, AND KATHIO TOWN- SHIP’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘$11,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$17,000,000’’; 

(3) by inserting ‘‘, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County, 

Mille Lacs Indian Reservation established by the treaty of 

February 22, 1855 (10 Stat. 1165),’’ after ‘‘Garrison’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Such assistance 

shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille 

Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota, except for assistance 

provided directly to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe at the 

discretion of the Secretary.’’. 
H. R. 1495—192 

(b) PROCEDURES.—In carrying out the project authorized by 

such section 219(f)(61), the Secretary may use the cost sharing 

and contracting procedures available to the Secretary under section 

569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 

368). 

SEC. 5093. ITASCA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 

The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage reduction, Trout Lake and Canisteo Pit, Itasca County, Minnesota, without regard to normal policy considerations. 

SEC. 5094. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA. 

(a) CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary shall convey to the city of 

Minneapolis by quitclaim deed and without consideration all right, 

title, and interest of the United States to the property known 

as the War Department (Fort Snelling Interceptor) Tunnel in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

(b) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to the 

conveyance under this section. 

SEC. 5095. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘Benton, Sherburne,’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena,’’; 

(2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (e)(3)(B); 

(3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government.’’; (4) in subsection (h) by striking ‘‘$40,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$54,000,000’’; and 

(5) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense.’’. 

(b) BIWABIK, MINNESOTA.—The Secretary shall reimburse the 

non-Federal interest for the project for environmental infrastructure, Biwabik, Minnesota, carried out under section 569 of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368), for 

planning, design, and construction costs that were incurred by 

the non-Federal interest with respect to the project before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project and that were 

in excess of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project if 

the Secretary determines that the costs are appropriate. 

SEC. 5096. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA. 

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the general 

reevaluation report, authorized by section 438 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2640), for the project 

for flood protection, Wild Rice River, Minnesota, authorized by 

section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825), to 

develop alternatives to the Twin Valley Lake feature, and upon 
H. R. 1495—193 

the completion of such report, shall construct the project at a 

total cost of $20,000,000. 

SEC. 5097. MISSISSIPPI. 

Section 592(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 380; 117 Stat. 1837) is amended by striking 

‘‘$100,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$110,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5098. HARRISON, HANCOCK, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. 

In carrying out projects for the protection, restoration, and 

creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats located in Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi, under section 

204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 

2326), the Secretary shall accept any portion of the non-Federal 

share of the cost of the projects in the form of in-kind services 

and materials. 

SEC. 5099. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS. 

As a part of the operation and maintenance of the project 

for the Mississippi River (Regulating Works), between the Ohio 

and Missouri Rivers, Missouri and Illinois, authorized by the first 

section of an Act entitled ‘‘Making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers 

and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved June 25, 1910 

(36 Stat. 630), the Secretary may carry out activities necessary 

to restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi River system. Such activities may include modification of 

navigation training structures, modification and creation of side 

channels, modification and creation of islands, and studies and 

analysis necessary to apply adaptive management principles in 

design of future work. 

SEC. 5100. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. 

Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (113 Stat. 337) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘a project’’ and inserting ‘‘projects’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$35,000,000’’; 

and 

(3) by inserting ‘‘and St. Louis County’’ before ‘‘, Missouri’’. 

SEC. 5101. ST. LOUIS REGIONAL GREENWAYS, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage reduction components of the St. Louis Regional Greenways Proposal of the Metropolitan Park and Recreation District, St. Louis, Missouri, dated 

March 31, 2004. 

(b) COORDINATION.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary 

shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity 

of St. Louis, Missouri, including the Metropolitan Park and Recreation District, the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and St. 

Charles County. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 
H. R. 1495—194 

SEC. 5102. MISSOULA, MONTANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and recreation components of the Clark Fork River Revitalization Project, Missoula, 

Montana. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5103. ST. MARY PROJECT, GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

Bureau of Reclamation, shall conduct all necessary studies, develop 

an emergency response plan, provide technical and planning and 

design assistance, and rehabilitate and construct the St. Mary 

Diversion and Conveyance Works project located within the exterior 

boundaries of the Blackfeet Reservation in the State of Montana, 

at a total cost of $153,000,000. 

(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the total cost of 

the project under this section shall be 75 percent. 

(c) PARTICIPATION BY BLACKFEET TRIBE AND FORT BELKNAP

INDIAN COMMUNITY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 

construction shall be carried out under this section until the 

earlier of— 

(A) the date on which Congress approves the reserved 

water rights settlements of the Blackfeet Tribe and the 

Fort Belknap Indian Community; and 

(B) January 1, 2011. 

(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect 

to construction relating to— 

(A) standard operation and maintenance; or 

(B) emergency repairs to ensure water transportation 

or the protection of life and property. 

(3) REQUIREMENT.—The Blackfeet Tribe shall be a participant in all phases of the project authorized by this section. 

SEC. 5104. LOWER PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION, 

NEBRASKA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may cooperate with and provide assistance to the Lower Platte River natural resources districts 

in the State of Nebraska to serve as non-Federal interests with 

respect to— 

(1) conducting comprehensive watershed planning in the 

natural resource districts; 

(2) assessing water resources in the natural resource districts; and 

(3) providing project feasibility planning, design, and 

construction assistance for water resource and watershed 

management in the natural resource districts, including projects 

for environmental restoration and flood damage reduction. 

(b) FUNDING.— 

(1) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of carrying out an activity described in subsection (a)(1) shall be 

75 percent. 

(2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the 

cost of carrying out an activity described in subsection (a) 

may be provided in cash or in kind. 
H. R. 1495—195 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 

$12,000,000. 

SEC. 5105. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY. 

Section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(106 Stat. 4849; 110 Stat. 3779) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘design’’ and inserting ‘‘planning, 

design,’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Hackensack Meadowlands Development’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Plan for’’ and inserting 

‘‘New Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development of an environmental improvement program for’’; 

(2) in subsection (b)— 

(A) in the subsection heading by striking ‘‘REQUIRED’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting ‘‘may’’; 

(C) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands 

and aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands ecosystem.’’; 

(D) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘and aquatic habitat’’ 

before the period at the end; and 

(E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(7) Research, development, and implementation for a 

water quality improvement program, including restoration of 

hydrology and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and 

other sources of contaminants that degrade existing or planned 

sites.’’; 

(3) in subsection (c)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘non-Federal sponsor’’ and inserting 

‘‘non-Federal interest’’; and 

(B) by inserting before the last sentence the following: 

‘‘The non-Federal interest may also provide in-kind services 

not to exceed the non-Federal share of the total project 

cost.’’; 

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

(5) by inserting after subsection (c) the following: 

‘‘(d) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project to be 

carried out under the program developed under subsection (a) the 

cost of design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 

project.’’; and 

(6) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (4) 

of this subsection) by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$20,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5106. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK. 

(a) DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM.—Section 404(a) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘processes’’ and inserting ‘‘and related 

environmental processes’’; 

(2) by inserting after ‘‘Atlantic Coast’’ the following: ‘‘(and 

associated back bays)’’; 
H. R. 1495—196 

(3) by inserting after ‘‘actions’’ the following: ‘‘, environmental restoration or conservation measures for coastal and 

back bays,’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The plan for collecting data and monitoring information included in such 

annual report shall be coordinated with and agreed to by appropriate agencies of the State of New York.’’. 

(b) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Section 404(b) of such Act is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘INITIAL PLAN.—Not later than 12 months 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, the’’ and inserting 

‘‘ANNUAL REPORTS.—The’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘initial plan for data collection and monitoring’’ and inserting ‘‘annual report of data collection and 

monitoring activities’’; and 

(3) by striking the last sentence. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 404(c) of such 

Act (113 Stat. 341) is amended by striking ‘‘and an additional 

total of $2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter’’ and inserting 

‘‘$2,500,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and $7,500,000 

for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2004,’’. 

(d) TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM.—Section 404 of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(d) TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM.—There is authorized to be 

appropriated $800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a project 

for a tsunami warning system, Atlantic Coast of New York.’’. 

SEC. 5107. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. 

In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639), the Secretary shall give priority 

to work in College Point, New York City, New York. 

SEC. 5108. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with section 221 of 

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

non-Federal share of the cost of the project for ecosystem restoration, Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York, the 

cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

SEC. 5109. HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK. 

The Secretary may participate with the State of New York, 

New York City, and the Hudson River Park Trust in carrying 

out activities to restore critical marine habitat, improve safety, 

and protect and rehabilitate critical infrastructure with respect 

to the Hudson River. There is authorized to be appropriated 

$10,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5110. MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NEW YORK. 

As part of the operation and maintenance of the Mount Morris 

Dam, New York, the Secretary may make improvements to the 

access road for the dam to provide safe access to a Federal visitor’s 

center. 
H. R. 1495—197 

SEC. 5111. NORTH HEMPSTEAD AND GLEN COVE NORTH SHORE 

WATERSHED RESTORATION, NEW YORK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and recreation components of the North Hempstead and Glen Cove North 

Shore watershed restoration, New York. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5112. ROCHESTER, NEW YORK. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, navigation, flood damage reduction, and recreation components of the Port of Rochester waterfront revitalization 

project, Rochester, New York. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5113. NORTH CAROLINA. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in the State of North Carolina. 

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance 

for environmental infrastructure and resource protection and 

development projects in North Carolina, including projects for— 

(1) wastewater treatment and related facilities; 

(2) combined sewer overflow, water supply, storage, treatment, and related facilities; 

(3) drinking water infrastructure including treatment and 

related facilities; 

(4) environmental restoration; 

(5) stormwater infrastructure; and 

(6) surface water resource protection and development. 

(c) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide 

assistance for a project under this section only if the project is 

publicly owned. 

(d) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 

the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities development plan or resource protection plan, including 

appropriate plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of 

a project under this section— 

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 
H. R. 1495—198 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or 

reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project, in an amount not to exceed 

6 percent of the total construction costs of the project, 

the cost of design work carried out by the non-Federal 

interest for the project before the date of the partnership 

agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of the costs of a project 

that is the subject of an agreement under this section, 

the non-Federal interest shall receive credit for reasonable 

interest incurred in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF- WAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

on publicly owned or controlled land). 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(e) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State 

law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out 

with assistance provided under this section. 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $13,000,000. 

SEC. 5114. STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. 

Section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended by inserting ‘‘water 

and’’ before ‘‘wastewater’’. 

SEC. 5115. JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA. 

The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the calculations 

necessary to negotiate and execute a revised, permanent contract 

for water supply storage at John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, 

North Carolina, among the Secretary and the Kerr Lake Regional 

Water System and the city of Henderson, North Carolina. 

SEC. 5116. CINCINNATI, OHIO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may undertake the ecosystem 

restoration and recreation components of the Central Riverfront 

Park Master Plan, dated December 1999, at a total cost of 

$30,000,000. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 

cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out by 

the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 
H. R. 1495—199 

SEC. 5117. OHIO RIVER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. 

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

apply: 

(1) OHIO RIVER BASIN.—The term ‘‘Ohio River Basin’’ means 

the Ohio River, its backwaters, its side channels, and all tributaries (including their watersheds) that drain into the Ohio 

River and encompassing areas of any of the States of Indiana, 

Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, New 

York, and Virginia. 

(2) COMPACT.—The term ‘‘Compact’’ means the Ohio River 

Watershed Sanitation Commission flood and pollution control 

compact between the States of Indiana, West Virginia, Ohio, 

Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, and Virginia, to 

which consent was given by Congress pursuant to the Act 

of July 11, 1940 (54 Stat. 752) and that was chartered in 

1948. 

(b) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide planning, design, 

and construction assistance to the Compact for the improvement 

of the quality of the environment in and along the Ohio River 

Basin. 

(c) PRIORITIES.—In providing assistance under this section, the 

Secretary shall give priority to reducing or eliminating the presence 

of organic pollutants in the Ohio River Basin through the renovation 

and technological improvement of the organic detection system monitoring stations along the Ohio River in the States of Indiana, 

Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000. 

SEC. 5118. TOUSSAINT RIVER NAVIGATION PROJECT, CARROLL TOWNSHIP, OHIO. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The costs of operation and maintenance 

activities for the Toussaint River Federal navigation project, Carroll 

Township, Ohio, that are carried out in accordance with section 

107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and 

relate directly to the presence of unexploded ordnance, shall be 

carried out at Federal expense. 

(b) CALCULATION OF TOTAL COSTS.—The Secretary shall not 

consider the additional costs of dredging due to the presence of 

unexploded ordnance when calculating the costs of the project 

referred to in subsection (a) for the purposes of section 107(b) 

of such Act (33 U.S.C. 577(b)). 

SEC. 5119. STATEWIDE COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING, OKLAHOMA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide technical assistance for the development of updates of the Oklahoma comprehensive 

water plan. 

(b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—Technical assistance provided 

under subsection (a) may include— 

(1) acquisition of hydrologic data, groundwater characterization, database development, and data distribution; 

(2) expansion of surface water and groundwater monitoring 

networks; 

(3) assessment of existing water resources, surface water 

storage, and groundwater storage potential; 
H. R. 1495—200 

(4) numerical analysis and modeling necessary to provide 

an integrated understanding of water resources and water 

management options; 

(5) participation in State planning forums and planning 

groups; 

(6) coordination of Federal water management planning 

efforts; and 

(7) technical review of data, models, planning scenarios, 

and water plans developed by the State. 

(c) ALLOCATION.—The Secretary shall allocate, subject to the 

availability of appropriations, $6,500,000 to provide technical assistance and for the development of updates of the Oklahoma comprehensive water plan. 

(d) COST SHARING REQUIREMENT.—The non-Federal share of 

the total cost of any activity carried out under this section— 

(1) shall be 25 percent; and 

(2) may be in the form of cash or any in-kind services 

that the Secretary determines would contribute substantially 

toward the conduct and completion of the activity assisted. 

SEC. 5120. FERN RIDGE DAM, OREGON. 

The Secretary may treat all work carried out for emergency 

corrective actions to repair the embankment dam at the Fern Ridge 

Lake project, Oregon, as a dam safety project. The cost of work 

carried out may be recovered in accordance with section 1203 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n; 

100 Stat. 4263). 

SEC. 5121. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A–221) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$20,000,000’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 

(A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 

subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section). 

SEC. 5122. CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 219(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$2,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5123. KEHLY RUN DAMS, PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 504(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1999 (113 Stat. 338; 117 Stat. 1842) is amended by striking ‘‘Dams’’ 

and inserting ‘‘Dams No. 1–5’’. 

SEC. 5124. LEHIGH RIVER, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. 

The Secretary shall use existing water quality data to model 

the effects of the Francis E. Walter Dam, at different water levels, 

to determine its impact on water and related resources in and 
H. R. 1495—201 

along the Lehigh River in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. There 

is authorized to be appropriated $500,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5125. NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA. 

Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ‘‘and Monroe’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Northumberland, Union, Snyder, Luzerne, and Monroe’’. 

SEC. 5126. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND 

NEW YORK. 

(a) STUDY AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT.—Section 567(a) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787; 114 

Stat. 2662) is amended— 

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting 

‘‘and carry out’’ after ‘‘develop’’; and (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000.’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000, of which the Secretary may utilize not more 

than $5,000,000 to design and construct feasible pilot projects 

during the development of the strategy to demonstrate alternative approaches for the strategy. The total cost for any single 

pilot project may not exceed $500,000. The Secretary shall 

evaluate the results of the pilot projects and consider the results 

in the development of the strategy.’’. 

(b) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Section 567(c) of such Act (114 

Stat. 2662) is amended— 

(1) in the subsection heading by striking ‘‘COOPERATION’’ 

and inserting ‘‘PARTNERSHIP’’; and 

(2) in the first sentence— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘and carrying out’’ after ‘‘developing’’; 

and 

(B) by striking ‘‘cooperation’’ and inserting ‘‘costsharing and partnership’’. 

(c) IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGY.—Section 567(d) of such Act 

(114 Stat. 2663) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary’’; 

(2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) (as so designated)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘implement’’ and inserting ‘‘carry out’’; 

and 

(B) by striking ‘‘implementing’’ and inserting ‘‘carrying 

out’’; 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) PRIORITY PROJECT.—In carrying out projects to implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give priority to the 

project for ecosystem restoration, Cooperstown, New York, 

described in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin—Cooperstown Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, dated 

December 2004, prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the 

New York State department of environmental conservation.’’; 

and 

(4) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph 

(1) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with 

paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection). 

(d) CREDIT.—Section 567 of such Act (110 Stat. 3787; 114 

Stat. 2662) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(e) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 

share of the cost of a project under this section— 
H. R. 1495—202 

‘‘(1) in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), the cost of design and 

construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 

the project before the date of the partnership agreement for 

the project; and 

‘‘(2) the cost of in-kind services and materials provided 

for the project by the non-Federal interest.’’. 

SEC. 5127. CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO. 

The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-Federal 

interest concerning flood protection and environmental restoration 

for Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and, if the Secretary 

determines that the report meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the project is feasible, 

the Secretary may carry out the project at a total cost of 

$150,000,000. 

SEC. 5128. LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Section 219(f)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A–220; 117 Stat. 1838) is 

amended by striking ‘‘$35,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$60,000,000’’. 

SEC. 5129. CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX 

TRIBE, AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION, SOUTH DAKOTA. 

(a) DISBURSEMENT PROVISIONS OF STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

AND CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION TRUST FUNDS.—Section 602(a)(4) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 386) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A)— 

(A) in clause (i) by inserting ‘‘and the Secretary of 

the Treasury’’ after ‘‘Secretary’’; and 

(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notification in 

accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the 

Treasury shall make available to the State of South 

Dakota funds from the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund established under section 603 to be used to carry out the 

plan for terrestrial wildlife habitat restoration submitted by the State of South Dakota after the State 

certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the 

funds to be disbursed will be used in accordance with 

section 603(d)(3) and only after the Trust Fund is 

fully capitalized.’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(ii) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—On notification in 

accordance with clause (i), the Secretary of the 

Treasury shall make available to the Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe funds 

from the Cheyenne River Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife 

Habitat Restoration Trust Fund and the Lower Brule 

Sioux Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust 

Fund, respectively, established under section 604, to 

be used to carry out the plans for terrestrial wildlife 

habitat restoration submitted by the Cheyenne River 
H. R. 1495—203 

Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, respectively, to after the respective tribe certifies to the Secretary of the Treasury that the funds to be disbursed 

will be used in accordance with section 604(d)(3) and 

only after the Trust Fund is fully capitalized.’’. 

(b) INVESTMENT PROVISIONS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RESTORATION TRUST FUND.—Section 603 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 388; 

114 Stat. 2664) is amended— 

(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(c) INVESTMENTS.— 

‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE OBLIGATIONS.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 

the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest 

earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations 

of the United States issued directly to the Fund. 

‘‘(2) INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

invest the amounts in the Fund in accordance with the 

requirements of this paragraph. 

‘‘(B) SEPARATE INVESTMENTS OF PRINCIPAL AND

INTEREST.— 

‘‘(i) PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.—The amounts deposited 

in the Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited 

to an account within the Fund (referred to in this 

paragraph as the ‘principal account’) and invested as 

provided in subparagraph (C). 

‘‘(ii) INTEREST ACCOUNT.—The interest earned from 

investing amounts in the principal account of the Fund 

shall be transferred to a separate account within the 

Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘interest 

account’) and invested as provided in subparagraph 

(D). 

‘‘(iii) CREDITING.—The interest earned from 

investing amounts in the interest account of the Fund 

shall be credited to the interest account. 

‘‘(C) INVESTMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.— 

‘‘(i) INITIAL INVESTMENT.—Each amount deposited 

in the principal account of the Fund shall be invested 

initially in eligible obligations having the shortest 

maturity then available until the date on which the 

amount is divided into 3 substantially equal portions 

and those portions are invested in eligible obligations 

that are identical (except for transferability) to the 

next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations having 

a 2-year maturity, a 5-year maturity, and a 10-year 

maturity, respectively. 

‘‘(ii) SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT.—As each 2-year, 5- 

year, and 10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the maturing eligible obligation shall also be 

invested initially in the shortest-maturity eligible 

obligation then available until the principal is 

reinvested substantially equally in the eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to 

the next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations 

having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities. 
H. R. 1495—204 

‘‘(iii) DISCONTINUANCE OF ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS.—If the Department of the Treasury discontinues 

issuing to the public obligations having 2-year, 5-year, 

or 10-year maturities, the principal of any maturing 

eligible obligation shall be reinvested substantially 

equally in eligible obligations that are identical (except 

for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued 

Treasury obligations of the maturities longer than 1 

year then available. 

‘‘(D) INVESTMENT OF INTEREST ACCOUNT.— 

‘‘(i) BEFORE FULL CAPITALIZATION.—Until the date 

on which the Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in 

the interest account of the Fund shall be invested 

in eligible obligations that are identical (except for 

transferability) to publicly issued Treasury obligations 

that have maturities that coincide, to the maximum 

extent practicable, with the date on which the Fund 

is expected to be fully capitalized. 

‘‘(ii) AFTER FULL CAPITALIZATION.—On and after 

the date on which the Fund is fully capitalized, 

amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall 

be invested and reinvested in eligible obligations 

having the shortest maturity then available until the 

amounts are withdrawn and transferred to fund the 

activities authorized under subsection (d)(3). 

‘‘(E) PAR PURCHASE PRICE.—The price to be paid for 

eligible obligations purchased as investments of the principal account shall not exceed the par value of the obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall 

be preserved in perpetuity. 

‘‘(F) HIGHEST YIELD.—Among eligible obligations 

having the same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be purchased shall be the obligation having the 

highest yield. 

‘‘(G) HOLDING TO MATURITY.—Eligible obligations purchased shall generally be held to their maturities. 

‘‘(3) ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES.—Not less 

frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the 

Treasury shall review with the State of South Dakota the 

results of the investment activities and financial status of the 

Fund during the preceding 12-month period. 

‘‘(4) AUDITS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The activities of the State of South 

Dakota (referred to in this subsection as the ‘State’) in 

carrying out the plan of the State for terrestrial wildlife 

habitat restoration under section 602(a) shall be audited 

as part of the annual audit that the State is required 

to prepare under the Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–133 (or a successor circulation). 

‘‘(B) DETERMINATION BY AUDITORS.—An auditor that 

conducts an audit under subparagraph (A) shall— 

‘‘(i) determine whether funds received by the State 

under this section during the period covered by the 

audit were used to carry out the plan of the State 

in accordance with this section; and 

‘‘(ii) include the determination under clause (i) in 

the written findings of the audit. 
H. R. 1495—205 

‘‘(5) MODIFICATION OF INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of the Treasury 

determines that meeting the requirements under paragraph (2) with respect to the investment of a Fund is 

not practicable, or would result in adverse consequences 

for the Fund, the Secretary shall modify the requirements, 

as the Secretary determines to be necessary. 

‘‘(B) CONSULTATION.—Before modifying a requirement 

under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury 

shall consult with the State regarding the proposed modification.’’; 

(2) in subsection (d)(2) by inserting ‘‘of the Treasury’’ after 

‘‘Secretary’’; and 

(3) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are authorized to be 

appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses 

associated with investing the Fund and auditing the uses of 

amounts withdrawn from the Fund— 

‘‘(1) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and 

‘‘(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 

year.’’. 

(c) INVESTMENT PROVISIONS FOR CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE

AND LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE TRUST FUNDS.—Section 604 of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 389; 

114 Stat. 2665) is amended— 

(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(c) INVESTMENTS.— ‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE OBLIGATIONS.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 

the amounts deposited under subsection (b) and the interest 

earned on those amounts only in interest-bearing obligations 

of the United States issued directly to the Funds. 

‘‘(2) INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

invest the amounts in each of the Funds in accordance 

with the requirements of this paragraph. 

‘‘(B) SEPARATE INVESTMENTS OF PRINCIPAL AND

INTEREST.— 

‘‘(i) PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.—The amounts deposited 

in each Fund under subsection (b) shall be credited 

to an account within the Fund (referred to in this 

paragraph as the ‘principal account’) and invested as 

provided in subparagraph (C). 

‘‘(ii) INTEREST ACCOUNT.—The interest earned from 

investing amounts in the principal account of each 

Fund shall be transferred to a separate account within 

the Fund (referred to in this paragraph as the ‘interest 

account’) and invested as provided in subparagraph 

(D). 

‘‘(iii) CREDITING.—The interest earned from 

investing amounts in the interest account of each Fund 

shall be credited to the interest account. 

‘‘(C) INVESTMENT OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.— 

‘‘(i) INITIAL INVESTMENT.—Each amount deposited 

in the principal account of each Fund shall be invested 

initially in eligible obligations having the shortest 

maturity then available until the date on which the 
H. R. 1495—206 

amount is divided into 3 substantially equal portions 

and those portions are invested in eligible obligations 

that are identical (except for transferability) to the 

next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations having 

a 2-year maturity, a 5-year maturity, and a 10-year 

maturity, respectively. 

‘‘(ii) SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT.—As each 2-year, 5- 

year, and 10-year eligible obligation matures, the principal of the maturing eligible obligation shall also be 

invested initially in the shortest-maturity eligible 

obligation then available until the principal is 

reinvested substantially equally in the eligible obligations that are identical (except for transferability) to 

the next-issued publicly issued Treasury obligations 

having 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year maturities. 

‘‘(iii) DISCONTINUATION OF ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS.—If the Department of the Treasury discontinues 

issuing to the public obligations having 2-year, 5-year, 

or 10-year maturities, the principal of any maturing 

eligible obligation shall be reinvested substantially 

equally in eligible obligations that are identical (except 

for transferability) to the next-issued publicly issued 

Treasury obligations of the maturities longer than 1 

year then available. 

‘‘(D) INVESTMENT OF INTEREST ACCOUNT.— 

‘‘(i) BEFORE FULL CAPITALIZATION.—Until the date 

on which each Fund is fully capitalized, amounts in 

the interest account of the Fund shall be invested 

in eligible obligations that are identical (except for 

transferability) to publicly issued Treasury obligations 

that have maturities that coincide, to the maximum 

extent practicable, with the date on which the Fund 

is expected to be fully capitalized. 

‘‘(ii) AFTER FULL CAPITALIZATION.—On and after 

the date on which each Fund is fully capitalized, 

amounts in the interest account of the Fund shall 

be invested and reinvested in eligible obligations 

having the shortest maturity then available until the 

amounts are withdrawn and transferred to fund the 

activities authorized under subsection (d)(3). 

‘‘(E) PAR PURCHASE PRICE.—The price to be paid for 

eligible obligations purchased as investments of the principal account shall not exceed the par value of the obligations so that the amount of the principal account shall 

be preserved in perpetuity. 

‘‘(F) HIGHEST YIELD.—Among eligible obligations 

having the same maturity and purchase price, the obligation to be purchased shall be the obligation having the 

highest yield. 

‘‘(G) HOLDING TO MATURITY.—Eligible obligations purchased shall generally be held to their maturities. 

‘‘(3) ANNUAL REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES.—Not less 

frequently than once each calendar year, the Secretary of the 

Treasury shall review with the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

and the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (referred to in this subsection 

as the ‘Tribes’) the results of the investment activities and 
H. R. 1495—207 

financial status of the Funds during the preceding 12-month 

period. 

‘‘(4) AUDITS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The activities of the Tribes in carrying out the plans of the Tribes for terrestrial wildlife 

habitat restoration under section 602(a) shall be audited 

as part of the annual audit that the Tribes are required 

to prepare under the Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–133 (or a successor circulation). 

‘‘(B) DETERMINATION BY AUDITORS.—An auditor that 

conducts an audit under subparagraph (A) shall— 

‘‘(i) determine whether funds received by the 

Tribes under this section during the period covered 

by the audit were used to carry out the plan of the 

appropriate Tribe in accordance with this section; and 

‘‘(ii) include the determination under clause (i) in 

the written findings of the audit. 

‘‘(5) MODIFICATION OF INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary of the Treasury 

determines that meeting the requirements under paragraph (2) with respect to the investment of a Fund is 

not practicable, or would result in adverse consequences 

for the Fund, the Secretary shall modify the requirements, 

as the Secretary determines to be necessary. 

‘‘(B) CONSULTATION.—Before modifying a requirement 

under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the Treasury 

shall consult with the Tribes regarding the proposed modification.’’; and 

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

‘‘(f) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—There are authorized to be 

appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to pay expenses 

associated with investing the Funds and auditing the uses of 

amounts withdrawn from the Funds— 

‘‘(1) $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and 

‘‘(2) such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 

year.’’. 

SEC. 5130. EAST TENNESSEE. 

(a) EAST TENNESSEE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘East 

Tennessee’’ means the counties of Blount, Knox, Loudon, McMinn, 

Monroe, and Sevier, Tennessee. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in East Tennessee. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance 

for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in East Tennessee, including projects 

for wastewater treatment and related facilities, water supply and 

related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water 

resource protection and development. 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide 

assistance for a project under this section only if the project is 

publicly owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 
H. R. 1495—208 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 

the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including 

appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of 

a project under this section— 

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or 

reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost of design work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 

subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 

interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred 

in providing the non-Federal share of the project cost. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project cost (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

on publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may 

not exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.— 

Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State 

law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out 

with assistance provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 
H. R. 1495—209 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5131. FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall— 

(1) conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur 

Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee modifications 

that would be required to make the levee and associated drainage structures consistent with Federal standards; 

(2) design and construct such modifications; and 

(3) after completion of such modifications, incorporate the 

levee into the project for flood control, Mississippi River and 

Tributaries, authorized by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act for the 

control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, 

and for other purposes’’, approved May 15, 1928 (45 Stat. 

534–539). 

SEC. 5132. J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct a trail system 

at the J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee, authorized 

by section 4 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction 

of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, 

and for other purposes’’, approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), 

and adjacent public property, including design and construction 

of support facilities. In carrying out such improvements, the Secretary is authorized to use funds made available by the State 

of Tennessee from any Federal or State source, or both. 

SEC. 5133. NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may participate in the ecosystem restoration, recreation, navigation, and flood damage reduction components of the Nashville Riverfront Concept Plan, dated 

February 2007. 

(b) COORDINATION.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary 

shall coordinate with appropriate representatives in the vicinity 

of Nashville, Tennessee, including the Nashville Parks and Recreation Department, the city of Nashville, and Davidson County. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5134. NONCONNAH WEIR, MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE. 

The project for flood control, Nonconnah Creek, Tennessee and 

Mississippi, authorized by section 401 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124) and modified by the 

section 334 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 

Stat. 2611), is modified to authorize the Secretary— 

(1) to reconstruct, at Federal expense, the weir originally 

constructed in the vicinity of the mouth of Nonconnah Creek; 

and 

(2) to make repairs and maintain the weir in the future 

so that the weir functions properly. 

SEC. 5135. TENNESSEE RIVER PARTNERSHIP. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—As part of the operation and maintenance 

of the project for navigation, Tennessee River, Tennessee, Alabama, 

Mississippi, and Kentucky, authorized by the first section of the 

River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 927), the Secretary 

may enter into a partnership with a nonprofit entity to remove 
H. R. 1495—210 

debris from the Tennessee River in the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by providing a vessel to such entity, at Federal expense, 

for such debris removal purposes. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000. 

SEC. 5136. TOWN CREEK, LENOIR CITY, TENNESSEE. 

The Secretary shall design and construct the project for flood 

damage reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the Town Creek, 

Lenoir City, Loudon County, Tennessee, feasibility report of the 

Nashville district engineer, dated November 2000, under the 

authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 

701s), notwithstanding section 1 of the Flood Control Act of June 

22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a; 49 Stat. 1570). The non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project shall be subject to section 103(m) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)). 

SEC. 5137. UPPER MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT, TENNESSEE, ARKANSAS, 

AND MISSISSIPPI. 

The Secretary may participate with non-Federal and nonprofit 

entities to address issues concerning managing groundwater as 

a sustainable resource through the Upper Mississippi Embayment, 

Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and to coordinate the protection of groundwater supply and groundwater quality of the 

Embayment with local surface water protection programs. There 

is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section. 

SEC. 5138. TEXAS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in the State of Texas. 

(b) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of planning, design, and construction 

assistance for water-related environmental infrastructure and 

resource protection and development projects in Texas, including 

projects for water supply, storage, treatment, and related facilities, 

water quality protection, wastewater treatment, and related facilities, environmental restoration, and surface water resource protection, and development, as identified by the Texas Water Development Board. 

(c) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide 

assistance for a project under this section only if the project is 

publicly owned. 

(d) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Before providing assistance 

under this section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 

agreement with a non-Federal interest. 

(e) COST SHARING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of the 

project under this section— 

(A) shall be 75 percent; and 

(B) may be provided in the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs. 

(2) IN-KIND SERVICES.—The non-Federal share may be provided in the form of materials and in-kind services, including 

planning, design, construction, and management services, as 

the Secretary determines to be compatible with, and necessary 

for, the project. 
H. R. 1495—211 

(3) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project the cost of design work carried out by 

the non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project. 

(4) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.— The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal 

share of project costs. 

(5) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share 

of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed 

with assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State 

law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out 

with assistance provided under this section. 

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5139. BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED, TEXAS. 

(a) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—The Secretary, in consultation with 

appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall develop, as 

expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for development 

of new technologies and innovative approaches for restoring, preserving, and protecting the Bosque River watershed within Bosque, 

Hamilton, McLennan, and Erath Counties, Texas. The Secretary, 

in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, may carry out 

activities identified in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives for stabilization and enhancement of land and 

water resources in the basin. 

(b) SERVICES OF NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER ENTI- TIES.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may utilize, 

through contracts or other means, the services of nonprofit institutions and such other entities as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

(c) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— (1) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(2) DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—The non-Federal share of the cost of development of the plan under subsection (a) shall be 25 percent. 

(3) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal share 

of the cost of operation and maintenance for measures constructed with assistance provided under this section shall be 

100 percent. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000. 

SEC. 5140. DALLAS COUNTY REGION, TEXAS. 

(a) DALLAS COUNTY REGION DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘Dallas County region’’ means the city of Dallas, and the municipalities of DeSoto, Duncanville, Lancaster, Wilmer, Hutchins, Balch 

Springs, Cedar Hill, Glenn Heights, and Ferris, Texas. 
H. R. 1495—212 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary may establish 

a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 

interests in the Dallas County region. 

(c) FORM OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance provided under this section may be in the form of design and construction assistance 

for water-related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in the Dallas County region, 

including projects for wastewater treatment and related facilities, 

water supply and related facilities, environmental restoration, and 

surface water resource protection and development. 

(d) OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may provide 

assistance for a project under this section only if the project is 

publicly owned. 

(e) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before providing assistance under this 

section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership agreement 

with a non-Federal interest to provide for design and construction of the project to be carried out with the assistance. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—Each partnership agreement for a 

project entered into under this subsection shall provide for 

the following: 

(A) PLAN.—Development by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities or resource protection and development plan, including 

appropriate engineering plans and specifications. 

(B) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES.—Establishment of such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to ensure the effective long-term operation of the 

project by the non-Federal interest. 

(3) COST SHARING.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Federal share of the cost of 

a project under this section— 

(i) shall be 75 percent; and 

(ii) may be provided in the form of grants or 

reimbursements of project costs. 

(B) CREDIT FOR WORK.—The Secretary shall credit, in 

accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share 

of the cost of the project the cost design work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the 

date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(C) CREDIT FOR INTEREST.—In case of a delay in the 

funding of the non-Federal share of a project that is the 

subject of an agreement under this section, the non-Federal 

interest shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred 

in providing the non-Federal share. 

(D) CREDIT FOR LAND, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OFWAY.—The non-Federal interest shall receive credit for 

land, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations toward the 

non-Federal share of project costs (including all reasonable 

costs associated with obtaining permits necessary for the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project 

on publicly owned or controlled land), but the credit may 

not exceed 25 percent of total project costs. 
H. R. 1495—213 

(E) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The non-Federal 

share of operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 

be 100 percent. 

(f) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS.— 

Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of any provision of Federal or State 

law that would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out 

with assistance provided under this section. 

(g) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government. 

(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense. 

(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 

SEC. 5141. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Trinity River 

and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled, 

‘‘An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of 

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

approved March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 18), is modified to— 

(1) direct the Secretary to review the Balanced Vision Plan 

for the Trinity River Corridor, Dallas, Texas, dated December 

2003 and amended in March 2004, prepared by the non-Federal 

interest for the project; 

(2) direct the Secretary to review the Interior Levee Drainage Study Phase-I report, Dallas, Texas, dated September 2006, 

prepared by the non-Federal interest; and 

(3) if the Secretary determines that the project is technically sound and environmentally acceptable, authorize the 

Secretary to construct the project at a total cost of $459,000,000, 

with an estimated Federal cost of $298,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $161,000,000. 

(b) CREDIT.— (1) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary shall credit, 

in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of 

the cost of the project the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the project 

before the date of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(2) CASH CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary shall accept funds 

provided by the non-Federal interest for use in carrying out 

planning, engineering, and design for the project. The Federal 

share of such planning, engineering, and design carried out 

with non-Federal contributions shall be credited against the 

non-Federal share of the cost of the project. 

SEC. 5142. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. 

Section 575(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 
H. R. 1495—214 

(2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end 

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by adding the following: 

‘‘(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou, 

Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).’’. 

SEC. 5143. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage reduction, 

environmental restoration, and recreation, Johnson Creek, 

Arlington, Texas, authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat 280), is modified 

to authorize the Secretary to construct the project substantially 

in accordance with the report entitled ‘‘Johnson Creek: A Vision 

of Conservation’’, dated March 30, 2006, at a total cost of 

$80,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $52,000,000 and 

an estimated non-Federal cost of $28,000,000, if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 

(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The non-Federal share of the cost of 

the project may be provided in cash or in the form of inkind services or materials. 

(2) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 

the cost of planning, design, and construction work carried 

out by the non-Federal interest for the project before the date 

of the partnership agreement for the project. 

(c) SPECIAL RULE.—In evaluating and implementing the project, 

the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate 

in the financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) 

of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184). 

(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 134 of the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2263) is 

repealed. 

SEC. 5144. ONION CREEK, TEXAS. 

(a) INCLUSION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF RELOCATION OF

FLOOD-PRONE RESIDENCES.—In carrying out the study for the 

project for flood damage reduction, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, Onion Creek, Texas, the Secretary shall include the costs 

and benefits associated with the relocation of flood-prone residences 

in the study area for the project in the period beginning 2 years 

before the date of initiation of the study and ending on the date 

of execution of the partnership agreement for construction of the 

project to the extent the Secretary determines such relocations 

are compatible with the project. 

(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d– 

5b), toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project referred 

to in subsection (a) the cost of relocation of those flood-prone residences described in subsection (a) that are incurred by the nonFederal interest before the date of the partnership agreement for 

the project. 

SEC. 5145. CONNECTICUT RIVER DAMS, VERMONT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall evaluate, design, and 

carry out structural modifications at Federal cost to the Union 
H. R. 1495—215 

Village Dam (Ompompanoosuc River), North Hartland Dam 

(Ottauquechee River), North Springfield Dam (Black River), Ball 

Mountain Dam (West River), and Townshend Dam (West River), 

Vermont, to regulate flow and temperature to mitigate downstream 

impacts on aquatic habitat and fisheries. 

(b) INCLUSION.—During the evaluation and design portion of 

the modifications authorized by this section, the Secretary shall 

ensure that a sustainable flow analysis is conducted for each dam. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

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

SEC. 5146. LAKE CHAMPLAIN CANAL, VERMONT AND NEW YORK. 

(a) DISPERSAL BARRIER PROJECT.—The Secretary shall determine, at Federal expense, the feasibility of a dispersal barrier 

project at the Lake Champlain Canal, Vermont and New York, 

to prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species. 

(b) CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION.—If the Secretary determines that the project described in subsection (a) is 

feasible, the Secretary shall construct, maintain, and operate a 

dispersal barrier at the Lake Champlain Canal at Federal expense. 

SEC. 5147. DYKE MARSH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA. 

The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park Service 

to restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia. 

SEC. 5148. EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—$20,000,000 for water supply, wastewater infrastructure, and environmental restoration’’; 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance 

with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 1962d–5b), toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the 

non-Federal interest for the project before the date of the 

partnership agreement for the project.’’; and 

(3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 

(A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 

subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section). 

SEC. 5149. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA. 

The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park Service 

to provide technical and project management assistance for the 

James River, Virginia, with a particular emphasis on locations 

along the shoreline adversely impacted by Hurricane Isabel. 

SEC. 5150. BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON. 

The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation in 

Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington, to determine if the 

siltation is the result of a Federal navigation project (including 

diverted flows from the Columbia River) and, if the Secretary determines that the siltation is the result of a Federal navigation project, 

the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the siltation 

as part of maintenance of the Federal navigation project. 
H. R. 1495—216 

SEC. 5151. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON. 

The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct a 

campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island (also 

known as ‘‘Strawberry Island’’) in Skamania County, Washington. 

SEC. 5152. EROSION CONTROL, PUGET ISLAND, WAHKIAKUM COUNTY, 

WASHINGTON. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Lower Columbia River levees and bank 

protection works authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control 

Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 178) is modified with regard to the Wahkiakum 

County diking districts No. 1 and 3, but without regard to any 

cost ceiling authorized before the date of enactment of this Act, 

to direct the Secretary to provide a one-time placement of dredged 

material along portions of the Columbia River shoreline of Puget 

Island, Washington, between river miles 38 to 47, and the shoreline 

of Westport Beach, Clatsop County, Oregon, between river miles 

43 to 45, to protect economic and environmental resources in the 

area from further erosion. 

(b) COORDINATION AND COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS.—The 

Secretary shall carry out subsection (a)— 

(1) in coordination with appropriate resource agencies; and 

(2) at Federal expense. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000. 

SEC. 5153. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON. 

Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(114 Stat. 2675) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘may construct’’ and 

inserting ‘‘shall construct’’; and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘and ecosystem restoration’’ after ‘‘erosion 

protection’’ each place it appears. 

SEC. 5154. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL. 

(a) CHEAT AND TYGART RIVER BASINS, WEST VIRGINIA.—Section 

581(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 

Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 313) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘flood control measures’’ and inserting 

‘‘structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and modification measures’’; and 

(2) by inserting ‘‘with respect to measures that incorporate 

levees or floodwalls’’ before the semicolon. 

(b) PRIORITY COMMUNITIES.—Section 581(b) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (5); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) 

and inserting a semicolon; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed; and 

‘‘(8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty’s Run River 

basin.’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 581(c) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is 

amended by striking ‘‘$12,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$90,000,000’’. 
H. R. 1495—217 

SEC. 5155. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA. 

Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 

(113 Stat. 371) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘Nicholas,’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘Gilmer,’’; 

(2) in subsection (h) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$20,000,000’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government. 

‘‘(j) CORPS OF ENGINEERS EXPENSES.—Not more than 10 percent 

of the amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be 

used by the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 

under this section at Federal expense.’’. 

SEC. 5156. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. 

(a) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—Section 340 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(h) CORPS OF ENGINEERS.—Not more than 10 percent of the 

amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 

the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects under 

this section at Federal expense.’’. 

(b) SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA DEFINED.—Section 340(f) of such 

Act is amended by inserting ‘‘Nicholas,’’ after ‘‘Greenbrier,’’. 

(c) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Section 340 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended by 

adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(i) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—In accordance with section 221(b) 

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

project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may 

include a nonprofit entity with the consent of the affected local 

government.’’. 

SEC. 5157. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NONFEDERAL INTERESTS. 

Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 

(33 U.S.C. 701b–13) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(12) PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—The project for flood control, 

Perris, California. 

‘‘(13) THORNTON RESERVOIR, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.—An 

element of the project for flood control, Chicagoland Underflow 

Plan, Illinois. 

‘‘(14) LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW, LOUISIANA.—The project 

for flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana. 

‘‘(15) BUFFALO BAYOU, TEXAS.—A project for flood control, 

Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project 

authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act 

of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and modified by section 3a 

of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1414). 

‘‘(16) HALLS BAYOU, TEXAS.—A project for flood control, 

Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project 
H. R. 1495—218 

for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources Development 

Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610). 

‘‘(17) MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED, WISCONSIN.—The 

project for the Menomonee River Watershed, Wisconsin, 

including— 

‘‘(A) the Underwood Creek diversion facility project 

(Milwaukee County Grounds); and 

‘‘(B) the Greater Milwaukee Rivers watershed project.’’. 

SEC. 5158. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS. 

Section 219 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

(106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334; 113 Stat. 1494; 

114 Stat. 2763A–219; 119 Stat. 2255) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (c)(5) by striking ‘‘a project for the elimination or control of combined sewer overflows’’ and inserting 

‘‘projects for the design, installation, enhancement, or repair 

of sewer systems’’; 

(2) in subsection (e)(1) by striking ‘‘$20,000,000’’ and 

inserting ‘‘$32,500,000’’; and 

(3) in subsection (f)— 

(A) by striking the undesignated paragraph relating 

to Charleston, South Carolina, and inserting the following: 

‘‘(72) CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$10,000,000 for 

wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection systems, and stormwater system improvements, Charleston, South 

Carolina.’’; 

(B) by redesignating the paragraph (71) relating to 

Placer and El Dorado Counties, California, as paragraph 

(73); 

(C) by redesignating the paragraph (72) relating to 

Lassen, Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and Nevada Counties, California, as paragraph (74); 

(D) by striking the paragraph (71) relating to Indianapolis, Indiana, and inserting the following: 

‘‘(75) INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.—$6,430,000 for environmental infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana.’’; 

(E) by redesignating the paragraph (73) relating to 

St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, as paragraph (76); 

(F) by redesignating paragraph (72), relating to Alpine, 

California, as paragraph (77); and 

(G) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(78) ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ALABAMA.—$5,000,000 for water 

related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Alabama. 

‘‘(79) CRAWFORD COUNTY, ARKANSAS.—$35,000,000 for 

water supply infrastructure, Crawford County, Arkansas. 

‘‘(80) ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.— 

$25,000,000 for recycled water treatment facilities within the 

East Bay Municipal Utility District service area, Alameda and 

Contra Costa Counties, California. 

‘‘(81) ALISO CREEK, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 

$5,000,000 for water related infrastructure, Aliso Creek, Orange 

County, California. 

‘‘(82) AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure, Amador County, 

California. 
H. R. 1495—219 

‘‘(83) ARCADIA, SIERRA MADRE, AND UPLAND, CALIFORNIA.— 

$33,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Arcadia, 

Sierra Madre, and Upland, California, including $13,000,000 

for stormwater infrastructure for Upland, California. 

‘‘(84) BIG BEAR AREA REGIONAL WASTEWATER AGENCY, CALIFORNIA.—$15,000,000 for water reclamation and distribution 

infrastructure, Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency, 

California. 

‘‘(85) BRAWLEY COLONIA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— 

$1,400,000 for water infrastructure to improve water quality 

in the Brawley Colonia Water District, Imperial County, California. 

‘‘(86) CALAVERAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for 

water supply and wastewater infrastructure improvement 

projects in Calaveras County, California, including wastewater 

reclamation, recycling, and conjunctive use projects. 

‘‘(87) CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA.— 

$23,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure for the 

Contra Costa Water District, California. 

‘‘(88) EAST BAY, SAN FRANCISCO, AND SANTA CLARA AREAS, 

CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for a desalination project to serve the 

East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara areas, California. 

‘‘(89) EAST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for a new 

pump station and stormwater management and drainage 

system, East Palo Alto, California. 

‘‘(90) IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for 

wastewater infrastructure, including a wastewater disinfection 

facility and polishing system, to improve water quality in the 

vicinity of Calexico, California, on the southern New River, 

Imperial County, California. 

‘‘(91) LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 

and water related infrastructure, city of La Habra, California. 

‘‘(92) LA MIRADA, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for the planning, 

design, and construction of a stormwater program in La Mirada, 

California. 

‘‘(93) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for 

wastewater and water related infrastructure, Diamond Bar, 

La Habra Heights, and Rowland Heights, Los Angeles County, 

California. 

‘‘(94) LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$20,000,000 for 

the planning, design, and construction of water related infrastructure for Santa Monica Bay and the coastal zone of Los 

Angeles County, California. 

‘‘(95) MALIBU, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for municipal 

wastewater and recycled water infrastructure, Malibu Creek 

Watershed Protection Project, Malibu, California. 

‘‘(96) MONTEBELLO, CALIFORNIA.—$4,000,000 for water 

infrastructure improvements in south Montebello, California. 

‘‘(97) NEW RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure to improve water quality in the New River, California. 

‘‘(98) ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$10,000,000 for wastewater and water related infrastructure, Anaheim, Brea, Mission 

Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Yorba Linda, Orange 

County, California. 
H. R. 1495—220 

‘‘(99) PORT OF STOCKTON, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.— 

$3,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure projects 

for Rough and Ready Island and vicinity, Stockton, California. 

‘‘(100) PERRIS, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for recycled water 

transmission infrastructure, Eastern Municipal Water District, 

Perris, California. 

‘‘(101) SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$9,000,000 

for wastewater and water related infrastructure, Chino and 

Chino Hills, San Bernardino County, California. 

‘‘(102) SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—$5,500,000 for 

an advanced recycling water treatment plant in Santa Clara 

County, California. 

‘‘(103) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA.—$3,000,000 for 

improving water system reliability, Santa Monica, California. 

‘‘(104) SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.— $15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the groundwater basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles 

County, California. 

‘‘(105) STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.—$33,000,000 for water 

treatment and distribution infrastructure, Stockton, California. 

‘‘(106) SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALI- FORNIA.—$375,000 to improve water quality and remove nonnative aquatic nuisance species from the Sweetwater Reservoir, 

San Diego County, California. 

‘‘(107) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—$8,000,000 for water, wastewater, and water related infrastructure, Whittier, California. 

‘‘(108) ARKANSAS VALLEY CONDUIT, COLORADO.—$10,000,000 

for the Arkansas Valley Conduit, Colorado. 

‘‘(109) BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO.—$10,000,000 for 

water supply infrastructure, Boulder County, Colorado. 

‘‘(110) MONTEZUMA AND LA PLATA COUNTIES, COLORADO.— $1,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure 

for the Ute Mountain project, Montezuma and La Plata Counties, Colorado. 

‘‘(111) OTERO, BENT, CROWLEY, KIOWA, AND PROWERS COUN- TIES, COLORADO.—$35,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure, Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and Prowers Counties, 

Colorado. 

‘‘(112) PUEBLO AND OTERO COUNTIES, COLORADO.— $34,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure, Pueblo and 

Otero Counties, Colorado. 

‘‘(113) ENFIELD, CONNECTICUT.—$1,000,000 for infiltration 

and inflow correction, Enfield, Connecticut. 

‘‘(114) LEDYARD AND MONTVILLE, CONNECTICUT.— $7,113,000 for water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, 

Connecticut. 

‘‘(115) NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT.—$300,000 for 

stormwater system improvements, New Haven, Connecticut. 

‘‘(116) NORWALK, CONNECTICUT.—$3,000,000 for the Keeler 

Brook Storm Water Improvement Project, Norwalk, Connecticut. 

‘‘(117) PLAINVILLE, CONNECTICUT.—$6,280,000 for wastewater treatment, Plainville, Connecticut. 

‘‘(118) SOUTHINGTON, CONNECTICUT.—$9,420,000 for water 

supply infrastructure, Southington, Connecticut. 

‘‘(119) ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MARYLAND.—$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure and 
H. R. 1495—221 

resource protection and development to enhance water quality 

and living resources in the Anacostia River watershed, District 

of Columbia and Maryland. 

‘‘(120) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—$35,000,000 for 

implementation of a combined sewer overflow long-term control 

plan in the District of Columbia. 

‘‘(121) CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$3,000,000 for water 

supply infrastructure, Charlotte County, Florida. 

‘‘(122) CHARLOTTE, LEE, AND COLLIER COUNTIES, FLORIDA.— 

$20,000,000 for water supply interconnectivity infrastructure, 

Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties, Florida. 

‘‘(123) COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$5,000,000 for water 

infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of the 

Gordon River, Collier County, Florida. 

‘‘(124) HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$6,250,000 for 

water infrastructure and supply enhancement, Hillsborough 

County, Florida. 

‘‘(125) JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.—$25,000,000 for wastewater related infrastructure, including septic tank replacements, Jacksonville, Florida. 

‘‘(126) SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$10,000,000 for water 

and wastewater infrastructure in Sarasota County, Florida. 

‘‘(127) SOUTH SEMINOLE AND NORTH ORANGE COUNTY, 

FLORIDA.—$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the 

South Seminole and North Orange Wastewater Transmission 

Authority, Florida. 

‘‘(128) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$6,250,000 for water 

reuse supply and a water transmission pipeline, Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. 

‘‘(129) PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.—$7,500,000 for water 

infrastructure, Palm Beach County, Florida. 

‘‘(130) ALBANY, GEORGIA.—$4,000,000 for a storm drainage 

system, Albany, Georgia. 

‘‘(131) BANKS COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water 

infrastructure improvements, Banks County, Georgia. 

‘‘(132) BERRIEN COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water 

infrastructure improvements, Berrien County, Georgia. 

‘‘(133) CHATTOOGA COUNTY, GEORGIA.—$8,000,000 for 

wastewater and drinking water infrastructure improvement, 

Chattooga County, Georgia. 

‘‘(134) CHATTOOGA, FLOYD, GORDON, WALKER, AND

WHITIFIELD COUNTIES, GEORGIA.—$10,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, Armuchee Valley, Chattooga, Floyd, 

Gordon, Walker, and Whitifield Counties, Georgia. 

‘‘(135) DAHLONEGA, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, Dahlonega, Georgia. 

‘‘(136) EAST POINT, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water infrastructure improvements, city of East Point, Georgia. 

‘‘(137) FAYETTEVILLE, GRANTVILLE, LAGRANGE, PINE MOUNTAIN (HARRIS COUNTY), DOUGLASVILLE, AND CARROLLTON, 

GEORGIA.—$24,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Fayetteville, Grantville, LaGrange, Pine Mountain (Harris 

County), Douglasville, and Carrollton, Georgia. 

‘‘(138) MERIWETHER AND SPALDING COUNTIES, GEORGIA.— 

$7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 

Meriwether and Spalding Counties, Georgia. 
H. R. 1495—222 

‘‘(139) MOULTRIE, GEORGIA.—$5,000,000 for water supply 

infrastructure, Moultrie, Georgia. 

‘‘(140) STEPHENS COUNTY/CITY OF TOCCOA, GEORGIA.— 

$8,000,000 water infrastructure improvements, Stephens 

County/city of Toccoa, Georgia. 

‘‘(141) NORTH VERNON AND BUTLERVILLE, INDIANA.— 

$1,700,000 for wastewater infrastructure, North Vernon and 

Butlerville, Indiana. 

‘‘(142) SALEM, WASHINGTON COUNTY, INDIANA.—$3,200,000 

for water supply infrastructure, Salem, Washington County, 

Indiana. 

‘‘(143) ATCHISON, KANSAS.—$20,000,000 to address combined sewer overflows, Atchison, Kansas. 

‘‘(144) CENTRAL KENTUCKY.—$10,000,000 for water related 

infrastructure and resource protection and development, Scott, 

Franklin, Woodford, Anderson, Fayette, Mercer, Jessamine, 

Boyle, Lincoln, Garrard, Madison, Estill, Powell, Clark, Montgomery, and Bourbon Counties, Kentucky. 

‘‘(145) LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA.—$1,200,000 for water and 

wastewater improvements, Lafayette, Louisiana. 

‘‘(146) LAFOURCHE PARISH, LOUISIANA.—$2,300,000 for 

measures to prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the freshwater system, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. 

‘‘(147) LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA.—$1,000,000 for water 

and wastewater improvements, Lake Charles, Louisiana. 

‘‘(148) NORTHWEST LOUISIANA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, 

LOUISIANA.—$2,000,000 for water and wastewater improvements, Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments, Louisiana. 

‘‘(149) OUACHITA PARISH, LOUISIANA.—$1,000,000 for water 

and wastewater improvements, Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. 

‘‘(150) PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.—$7,000,000 for sanitary 

sewer and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana. 

‘‘(151) RAPIDES AREA PLANNING COMMISSION, LOUISIANA.— 

$1,000,000 for water and wastewater improvements, Rapides, 

Louisiana. 

‘‘(152) SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.—$20,000,000 for water 

supply infrastructure in Shreveport, Louisiana. 

‘‘(153) SOUTH CENTRAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

COMMISSION, LOUISIANA.—$2,500,000 for water and wastewater 

improvements, South Central Planning and Development 

Commission, Louisiana. 

‘‘(154) UNION-LINCOLN REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, 

LOUISIANA.—$2,000,000 for the Union-Lincoln Regional Water 

Supply project, Louisiana. 

‘‘(155) CHESAPEAKE BAY IMPROVEMENTS, MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.—$30,000,000 for environmental infrastructure projects to benefit the Chesapeake Bay, 

including the nutrient removal project at the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment facility in the District of Columbia. 

‘‘(156) CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.— 

$40,000,000 for water pollution control, Chesapeake Bay 

Region, Maryland and Virginia. 

‘‘(157) MICHIGAN COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.— 

$35,000,000 for correction of combined sewer overflows, 

Michigan. 
H. R. 1495—223 

‘‘(158) CENTRAL IRON RANGE SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT, MINNESOTA.—$12,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure for the 

Central Iron Range Sanitary Sewer District to serve the cities 

of Hibbing, Chisholm, Buhl, and Kinney, and Balkan and Great 

Scott Townships, Minnesota. 

‘‘(159) CENTRAL LAKE REGION SANITARY DISTRICT, MINNESOTA.—$2,000,000 for sanitary sewer and wastewater infrastructure for the Central Lake Region Sanitary District, Minnesota, to serve Le Grande and Moe Townships, Minnesota. 

‘‘(160) GOODVIEW, MINNESOTA.—$3,000,000 for water 

quality infrastructure, Goodview, Minnesota. 

‘‘(161) GRAND RAPIDS, MINNESOTA.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Grand Rapids, Minnesota. 

‘‘(162) WILLMAR, MINNESOTA.—$15,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Willmar, Minnesota. 

‘‘(163) BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and 

wastewater related infrastructure, city of Biloxi, Mississippi. 

‘‘(164) CORINTH, MISSISSIPPI.—$7,500,000 for a surface 

water program, city of Corinth, Mississippi. 

‘‘(165) GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for water and 

wastewater related infrastructure, city of Gulfport, Mississippi. 

‘‘(166) HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.—$5,000,000 for 

water and wastewater related infrastructure, Harrison County, 

Mississippi. 

‘‘(167) JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI.—$25,000,000 for water and 

wastewater infrastructure, Jackson, Mississippi. 

‘‘(168) CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA.—$30,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Clark County, Nevada. 

‘‘(169) CLEAN WATER COALITION, NEVADA.—$50,000,000 for 

the Systems Conveyance and Operations Program, Clark 

County, Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas, Nevada. 

‘‘(170) GLENDALE DAM DIVERSION STRUCTURE, NEVADA.— $10,000,000 for water system improvements to the Glendale 

Dam Diversion Structure for the Truckee Meadows Water 

Authority, Nevada. 

‘‘(171) HENDERSON, NEVADA.—$13,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada. 

‘‘(172) INDIAN SPRINGS, NEVADA.—$12,000,000 for construction of wastewater system improvements for the Indian Springs 

community, Nevada. 

‘‘(173) RENO, NEVADA.—$13,000,000 for construction of a 

water conservation project for the Highland Canal, Mogul 

Bypass in Reno, Nevada. 

‘‘(174) WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA.—$14,000,000 for 

construction of water infrastructure improvements to the 

Huffaker Hills Reservoir Conservation Project, Washoe County, 

Nevada. 

‘‘(175) CRANFORD TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$6,000,000 for 

storm sewer improvements, Cranford Township, New Jersey. 

‘‘(176) MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.—$1,100,000 

for storm sewer improvements, Middletown Township, New 

Jersey. 

‘‘(177) PATERSON, NEW JERSEY.—$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Paterson, New Jersey. 

‘‘(178) RAHWAY VALLEY, NEW JERSEY.—$25,000,000 for sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements in the service area 

of the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority, New Jersey. 
H. R. 1495—224 

‘‘(179) BABYLON, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Town of Babylon, New York. 

‘‘(180) ELLICOTTVILLE, NEW YORK.—$2,000,000 for water 

supply, water, and wastewater infrastructure in Ellicottville, 

New York. 

‘‘(181) ELMIRA, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Elmira, New York. 

‘‘(182) ESSEX HAMLET, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Essex Hamlet, New York. 

‘‘(183) FLEMING, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for drinking water 

infrastructure, Fleming, New York. 

‘‘(184) KIRYAS JOEL, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for drinking 

water infrastructure, village of Kiryas Joel, New York. 

‘‘(185) NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Niagara Falls Water Board, New York. 

‘‘(186) PATCHOGUE, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, village of Patchogue, New York. 

‘‘(187) SENNETT, NEW YORK.—$1,500,000 for water infrastructure, town of Sennett, New York. 

‘‘(188) SPRINGPORT AND FLEMING, NEW YORK.—$10,000,000 

for water related infrastructure, including water mains, pump 

stations, and water storage tanks, Springport and Fleming, 

New York. 

‘‘(189) WELLSVILLE, NEW YORK.—$2,000,000 for water 

supply, water, and wastewater infrastructure in Wellsville, New 

York. 

‘‘(190) YATES COUNTY, NEW YORK.—$5,000,000 for drinking 

water infrastructure, Yates County, New York. 

‘‘(191) CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,500,000 

for water related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. 

‘‘(192) CARY, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 

for a water reclamation facility, Cary, Wake County, North 

Carolina. 

‘‘(193) CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$14,000,000 for the 

Briar Creek Relief Sewer project, city of Charlotte, North Carolina. 

‘‘(194) FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$6,000,000 for water and sewer upgrades, city of 

Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. 

‘‘(195) MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 for 

water and wastewater infrastructure improvements, town of 

Mooresville, North Carolina. 

‘‘(196) NEUSE REGIONAL WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, 

NORTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 for the Neuse regional drinking 

water facility, Kinston, North Carolina. 

‘‘(197) RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$13,500,000 

for water related infrastructure, Richmond County, North Carolina. 

‘‘(198) UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$6,000,000 for 

water related infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina. 

‘‘(199) WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.—$1,000,000 

for water and wastewater infrastructure, Washington County, 

North Carolina. 

‘‘(200) WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA.—$3,000,000 for 

stormwater upgrades, city of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 
H. R. 1495—225 

‘‘(201) NORTH DAKOTA.—$15,000,000 for water-related 

infrastructure, North Dakota. 

‘‘(202) DEVILS LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA.—$15,000,000 for water 

supply infrastructure, Devils Lake, North Dakota. 

‘‘(203) SAIPAN, NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.—$20,000,000 

for water related infrastructure, Saipan, Northern Mariana 

Islands. 

‘‘(204) AKRON, OHIO.—$5,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Akron, Ohio. 

‘‘(205) BURR OAK REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT, OHIO.— 

$4,000,000 for construction of a water line to extend from 

a well field near Chauncey, Ohio, to a water treatment plant 

near Millfield, Ohio. 

‘‘(206) CINCINNATI, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

‘‘(207) CLEVELAND, OHIO.—$2,500,000 for Flats East Bank 

water and wastewater infrastructure, city of Cleveland, Ohio. 

‘‘(208) COLUMBUS, OHIO.—$4,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Columbus, Ohio. 

‘‘(209) DAYTON, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Dayton, Ohio. 

‘‘(210) DEFIANCE COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Defiance County, Ohio. 

‘‘(211) FOSTORIA, OHIO.—$2,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Fostoria, Ohio. 

‘‘(212) FREMONT, OHIO.—$2,000,000 for construction of offstream water supply reservoir, Fremont, Ohio. 

‘‘(213) LAKE COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,500,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Lake County, Ohio. 

‘‘(214) LAWRENCE COUNTY, OHIO.—$5,000,000 for Union 

Rome wastewater infrastructure, Lawrence County, Ohio. 

‘‘(215) MEIGS COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,000,000 to extend the 

Tupper Plains Regional Water District water line to Meigs 

County, Ohio. 

‘‘(216) MENTOR-ON-LAKE, OHIO.—$625,000 for water and 

wastewater infrastructure, Mentor-on-Lake, Ohio. 

‘‘(217) VINTON COUNTY, OHIO.—$1,000,000 to construct 

water lines in Vinton and Brown Townships, Ohio. 

‘‘(218) WILLOWICK, OHIO.—$665,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Willowick, Ohio. 

‘‘(219) ADA, OKLAHOMA.—$1,700,000 for sewer improvements and other water infrastructure, city of Ada, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(220) ALVA, OKLAHOMA.—$250,000 for wastewater infrastructure improvements, city of Alva, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(221) ARDMORE, OKLAHOMA.—$1,900,000 for water and 

sewer infrastructure improvements, city of Ardmore, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(222) BARTLESVILLE, OKLAHOMA.—$2,500,000 for water 

supply infrastructure, city of Bartlesville, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(223) BETHANY, OKLAHOMA.—$1,500,000 for water 

improvements and water related infrastructure, city of Bethany, 

Oklahoma. 

‘‘(224) CHICKASHA, OKLAHOMA.—$650,000 for industrial 

park sewer infrastructure, city of Chickasha, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(225) DISNEY AND LANGLEY, OKLAHOMA.—$2,500,000 for 

water and sewer improvements and water related infrastructure, cities of Disney and Langley, Oklahoma. 
H. R. 1495—226 

‘‘(226) DURANT, OKLAHOMA.—$3,300,000 for bayou restoration and water related infrastructure, city of Durant, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(227) EASTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY, WILBERTON, 

OKLAHOMA.—$1,000,000 for sewer and utility upgrades and 

water related infrastructure, Eastern Oklahoma State University, Wilberton, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(228) GUYMON, OKLAHOMA.—$16,000,000 for water and 

wastewater related infrastructure, city of Guymon, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(229) KONAWA, OKLAHOMA.—$500,000 for water treatment 

infrastructure improvements, city of Konawa, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(230) LUGERT-ALTUS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, ALTUS, OKLAHOMA.—$5,000,000 for water related infrastructure improvements, Lugert-Altus Irrigation District, Altus, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(231) MIDWEST CITY, OKLAHOMA.—$2,000,000 for improvements to water related infrastructure, the City of Midwest 

City, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(232) MUSTANG, OKLAHOMA.—$3,325,000 for water 

improvements and water related infrastructure, city of Mustang, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(233) NORMAN, OKLAHOMA.—$10,000,000 for water related 

infrastructure, Norman, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(234) OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE STATE UNIVERSITY, GUYMON, 

OKLAHOMA.—$275,000 for water testing facility and water 

related infrastructure development, Oklahoma Panhandle State 

University, Guymon, Oklahoma. 

‘‘(235) WEATHERFORD, OKLAHOMA.—$500,000 for arsenic 

program and water related infrastructure, city of Weatherford, 

Oklahoma. 

‘‘(236) WOODWARD, OKLAHOMA.—$1,500,000 for water 

improvements and water related infrastructure, Woodward, 

Oklahoma. 

‘‘(237) ALBANY, OREGON.—$35,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure to improve habitat restoration, Albany, Oregon. 

‘‘(238) BEAVER CREEK RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA.— 

$3,000,000 for projects for water supply and related activities, 

Beaver Creek Reservoir, Clarion County, Beaver and Salem 

Townships, Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(239) HATFIELD BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.—$310,000 for 

wastewater related infrastructure for Hatfield Borough, 

Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(240) LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,000,000 for 

stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements, 

Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(241) NORTH WALES BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,516,584 

for wastewater related infrastructure for North Wales Borough, 

Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(242) PEN ARGYL, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,250,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(243) PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.—$1,600,000 for 

wastewater related infrastructure for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(244) STOCKERTON BOROUGH, TATAMY BOROUGH, AND

PALMER TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—$10,000,000 for stormwater 

control measures, particularly to address sinkholes, in the 

vicinity of Stockerton Borough, Tatamy Borough, and Palmer 

Township, Pennsylvania. 
H. R. 1495—227 

‘‘(245) VERA CRUZ, PENNSYLVANIA.—$5,500,000 for wastewater infrastructure, Vera Cruz, Pennsylvania. 

‘‘(246) COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO.—$35,000,000 for 

water and wastewater infrastructure in the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico. 

‘‘(247) CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$4,000,000 for 

stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements, 

Spring Street/Fishburne Street drainage project, Charleston, 

South Carolina. 

‘‘(248) CHARLESTON AND WEST ASHLEY, SOUTH CAROLINA.— 

$6,000,000 for wastewater tunnel replacement, Charleston and 

West Ashley, South Carolina. 

‘‘(249) CROOKED CREEK, MARLBORO COUNTY, SOUTH CARO- LINA.—$25,000,000 for a project for water storage and water 

supply infrastructure on Crooked Creek, Marlboro County, 

South Carolina. 

‘‘(250) MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$18,000,000 for 

environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, Myrtle 

Beach, South Carolina. 

‘‘(251) NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA.— $11,000,000 for environmental infrastructure, including ocean 

outfalls, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. 

‘‘(252) SURFSIDE, SOUTH CAROLINA.—$11,000,000 for 

environmental infrastructure, including stormwater system 

improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, South Carolina. 

‘‘(253) CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX RESERVATION (DEWEY AND

ZIEBACH COUNTIES) AND PERKINS AND MEADE COUNTIES, SOUTH

DAKOTA.—$65,000,000 for water related infrastructure, Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation (Dewey and Ziebach counties) 

and Perkins and Meade Counties, South Dakota. 

‘‘(254) ATHENS, TENNESSEE.—$16,000,000 for wastewater 

infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee. 

‘‘(255) BLAINE, TENNESSEE.—$500,000 for water supply and 

wastewater infrastructure, Blaine, Tennessee. 

‘‘(256) CLAIBORNE COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$1,250,000 for 

water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Claiborne County, 

Tennessee. 

‘‘(257) GILES COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$2,000,000 for water 

supply and wastewater infrastructure, county of Giles, Tennessee. 

‘‘(258) GRAINGER COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$1,250,000 for 

water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Grainger County, 

Tennessee. 

‘‘(259) HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$500,000 for water 

supply and wastewater infrastructure, Hamilton County, Tennessee. 

‘‘(260) HARROGATE, TENNESSEE.—$2,000,000 for water 

supply and wastewater infrastructure, city of Harrogate, Tennessee. 

‘‘(261) JOHNSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$600,000 for water 

supply and wastewater infrastructure, Johnson County, Tennessee. 

‘‘(262) KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE.—$5,000,000 for water 

supply and wastewater infrastructure, city of Knoxville, Tennessee. 

‘‘(263) NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.—$5,000,000 for water 

supply and wastewater infrastructure, Nashville, Tennessee. 
H. R. 1495—228 

‘‘(264) LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.—$2,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, counties of Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne, Tennessee. 

‘‘(265) OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE.—$4,000,000 for water 

supply and wastewater infrastructure, city of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

‘‘(266) PLATEAU UTILITY DISTRICT, MORGAN COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$1,000,000 for water supply and wastewater infrastructure, Morgan County, Tennessee. 

‘‘(267) SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE.—$4,000,000 for water 

related environmental infrastructure, county of Shelby, Tennessee. 

‘‘(268) CENTRAL TEXAS.—$20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure in Bosque, Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, Hill, 

Hood, Johnson, Madison, McLennan, Limestone, Robertson, and 

Somervell Counties, Texas. 

‘‘(269) EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS.—$25,000,000 for water 

related infrastructure and resource protection, including 

stormwater management, and development, El Paso County, 

Texas. 

‘‘(270) FT. BEND COUNTY, TEXAS.—$20,000,000 for water 

and wastewater infrastructure, Ft. Bend County, Texas. 

‘‘(271) DUCHESNE, IRON, AND UINTAH COUNTIES, UTAH.— 

$10,800,000 for water related infrastructure, Duchesne, Iron, 

and Uintah Counties, Utah. 

‘‘(272) NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.—$20,000,000 for water 

and wastewater infrastructure in Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, 

Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, 

Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, 

Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Ritchie Counties, West Virginia. 

‘‘(273) UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS.—$25,000,000 for 

wastewater infrastructure for the St. Croix Anguilla wastewater 

treatment plant and the St. Thomas Charlotte Amalie wastewater treatment plant, United States Virgin Islands.’’. 

TITLE VI—FLORIDA EVERGLADES 

SEC. 6001. HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FLORIDA. 

(a) MODIFICATION.—The project for Hillsboro and Okeechobee 

Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is modified 

to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total cost 

of $42,500,000. 

(b) TREATMENT.—Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended— 

(1) in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The 

project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), 

shall be treated for purposes of this section as being in the 

Plan, except that operation and maintenance costs of the project 

shall remain a non-Federal responsibility.’’; and 

(2) in clause (iii) by inserting after ‘‘subparagraph (B)’’ 

the following: ‘‘and the project for aquifer storage and recovery, 

Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer’’. 
H. R. 1495—229 

SEC. 6002. PILOT PROJECTS. 

Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended— 

(1) in the matter preceding clause (i)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘$69,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$71,200,000’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘$34,500,000’’ each place it appears 

and inserting ‘‘$35,600,000’’; and 

(2) in clause (i)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘$6,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$8,200,000’’; 

and 

(B) by striking ‘‘$3,000,000’’ each place it appears and 

inserting ‘‘$4,100,000’’. 

SEC. 6003. MAXIMUM COSTS. 

(a) MAXIMUM COST OF PROJECTS.—Section 601(b)(2)(E) of the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2683) is 

amended by inserting ‘‘and section (d)’’ before the period at the 

end. 

(b) MAXIMUM COST OF PROGRAM AUTHORITY.—Section 601(c)(3) 

of such Act (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(C) MAXIMUM COST OF PROGRAM AUTHORITY.—Section 

902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 

U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to the individual project funding 

limits in subparagraph (A) and the aggregate cost limits 

in subparagraph (B).’’. 

SEC. 6004. CREDIT. 

Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 2000 (114 Stat. 2685) is amended— 

(1) in clause (i)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subclause (I); 

(B) by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of subclause (II); and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(III) the credit is provided for work carried out 

before the date of the partnership agreement between 

the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor, as defined 

in an agreement between the Secretary and the nonFederal sponsor providing for such credit;’’; and 

(2) in clause (ii)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘design agreement or the project 

cooperation’’; and 

(B) by inserting before the semicolon the following: 

‘‘, including in the case of credit provided under clause 

(i)(III) conditions relating to design and construction’’. 

SEC. 6005. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE. 

Section 601(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (114 Stat. 2691) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES.—The Secretary may expend up to $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after 

September 30, 2004, to carry out this subsection.’’. 

SEC. 6006. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS. 

Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act 

of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) is amended— 
H. R. 1495—230 

(1) in clause (i) by striking ‘‘$75,000,000’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘$95,000,000’’; and 

(2) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(ii) FEDERAL SHARE.— ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subclause (II), the Federal share of the cost of carrying 

out a project under subparagraph (A) shall not 

exceed $25,000,000. 

‘‘(II) SEMINOLE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.— The Federal share of the cost of carrying out the 

Seminole water conservation plan shall not exceed 

$30,000,000.’’. 

SEC. 6007. REGIONAL ENGINEERING MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESTORATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall complete the development 

and testing of the regional engineering model for environmental 

restoration as expeditiously as practicable. 

(b) USAGE.—The Secretary shall consider using, as appropriate, 

the regional engineering model for environmental restoration in 

the development of future water resource projects, including projects 

developed pursuant to section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680). 

TITLE VII—LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 

SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title, the following definitions apply: 

(1) COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM.—The term ‘‘coastal 

Louisiana ecosystem’’ means the coastal area of Louisiana from 

the Sabine River on the west to the Pearl River on the east, 

including those parts of the Atchafalaya River Basin and the 

Mississippi River Deltaic Plain below the Old River Control 

Structure and the Chenier Plain included within the study 

area of the restoration plan. 

(2) GOVERNOR.—The term ‘‘Governor’’ means the Governor 

of the State of Louisiana. 

(3) RESTORATION PLAN.—The term ‘‘restoration plan’’ means 

the report of the Chief of Engineers for ecosystem restoration 

for the Louisiana Coastal Area dated January 31, 2005. 

(4) TASK FORCE.—The term ‘‘Task Force’’ means the Coastal 

Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force 

established by section 7003. 

(5) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—The term ‘‘comprehensive plan’’ 

means the plan developed under section 7002 and any revisions 

thereto. 

SEC. 7002. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Governor, shall develop a comprehensive plan for protecting, preserving, 

and restoring the coastal Louisiana ecosystem. 

(b) INTEGRATION OF PLAN INTO COMPREHENSIVE HURRICANE

PROTECTION STUDY.—In developing the comprehensive plan, the 

Secretary shall integrate the restoration plan into the analysis 

and design of the comprehensive hurricane protection study authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2247). 
H. R. 1495—231 

(c) CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE COASTAL PROTECTION

MASTER PLAN.—In developing the comprehensive plan, the Secretary shall ensure that the plan is not inconsistent with the 

goals, analysis, and design of the comprehensive coastal protection 

master plan authorized and defined pursuant to Act 8 of the First 

Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana State Legislature, 2005. 

(d) INCLUSIONS.—The comprehensive plan shall include a 

description of— 

(1) the framework of a long-term program integrated with 

hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, 

and navigation activities that provide for the comprehensive 

protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands, estuaries, barrier islands, shorelines, and related land and features 

of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including protection of critical resources, habitat, and infrastructure from the effects of 

a coastal storm, a hurricane, erosion, or subsidence; 

(2) the means by which a new technology, or an improved 

technique, can be integrated into the program referred to in 

paragraph (1); 

(3) the role of other Federal and State agencies and programs in carrying out such program; 

(4) specific, measurable success criteria (including 

ecological criteria) by which success of the plan will be measured; 

(5) proposed projects in order of priority as determined 

by their respective potential to contribute to— 

(A) creation of coastal wetlands; and 

(B) flood protection of communities ranked by population density and level of protection; and 

(6) efforts by Federal, State, and local interests to address 

sociological, economic, and related fields of law. 

(e) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing the comprehensive plan, 

the Secretary shall consider the advisability of integrating into 

the program referred to in subsection (d)(1)— 

(1) an investigation and study of the maximum effective 

use of the water and sediment of the Mississippi and 

Atchafalaya Rivers for coastal restoration purposes consistent 

with flood control and navigation; 

(2) a schedule for the design and implementation of largescale water and sediment reintroduction projects and an assessment of funding needs from any source; 

(3) an investigation and assessment of alterations in the 

operation of the Old River Control Structure, consistent with 

flood control and navigation purposes; 

(4) any related Federal or State project being carried out 

on the date on which the plan is developed; 

(5) any activity in the restoration plan; and 

(6) any other project or activity identified in one or more 

of— 

(A) the Mississippi River and Tributaries program; 

(B) the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation Plan; 

(C) the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Plan; 

(D) the plan of the State of Louisiana entitled 

‘‘Integrated Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane Protection—Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a 

Sustainable Coast’’; and 
H. R. 1495—232 

(E) other relevant reports as determined by the Secretary. 

(f) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.— (1) INITIAL REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 

a report containing the comprehensive plan. 

(2) UPDATES.—Not later than 5 years after the date of 

submission of a report under paragraph (1), and at least once 

every 5 years thereafter until implementation of the comprehensive plan is complete, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 

a report containing an update of the plan and an assessment 

of the progress made in implementing the plan. 

SEC. 7003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a program for 

ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers, 

dated January 31, 2005. 

(b) PRIORITIES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to— 

(A) any portion of the program identified in the report 

described in subsection (a) as a critical restoration feature; 

(B) any Mississippi River diversion project that— 

(i) will protect a major population area of the Pontchartrain, Pearl, Breton Sound, Barataria, or 

Terrebonne basins; and 

(ii) will produce an environmental benefit to the 

coastal Louisiana ecosystem; 

(C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline, project 

that— 

(i) will be carried out in conjunction with a Mississippi River diversion project; and 

(ii) will protect a major population area; 

(D) any project that will reduce storm surge and prevent or reduce the risk of loss of human life and the 

risk to public safety; and 

(E) a project to physically modify the Mississippi RiverGulf Outlet and to restore the areas affected by the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet in accordance with the comprehensive plan to be developed under section 7002(a) and 

consistent with sections 7006(c)(1)(A) and 7013. 

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

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a task force to be 

known as the Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Task Force’’). 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Task Force shall consist of the following 

members (or, in the case of the head of a Federal agency, a designee 

of the head of the agency at the level of Assistant Secretary or 

an equivalent level): 

(1) The Secretary. 

(2) The Secretary of the Interior. 

(3) The Secretary of Commerce. 

(4) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

(5) The Secretary of Agriculture. 
H. R. 1495—233 

(6) The Secretary of Transportation. 

(7) The Secretary of Energy. 

(8) The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

(9) The Commandant of the Coast Guard. 

(10) The Chair of the Coastal Protection and Restoration 

Authority of Louisiana. 

(11) Two representatives of the State of Louisiana selected 

by the Governor. 

(c) DUTIES.—The Task Force shall make recommendations to 

the Secretary regarding— 

(1) policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and activities for addressing conservation, protection, restoration, and 

maintenance of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; 

(2) financial participation by each agency represented on 

the Task Force in conserving, protecting, restoring, and 

maintaining the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including recommendations— 

(A) that identify funds from current agency missions 

and budgets; and 

(B) for coordinating individual agency budget requests; 

and 

(3) the comprehensive plan to be developed under section 

7002(a). 

(d) REPORT.—The Task Force shall submit to Congress a 

biennial report that summarizes the activities and recommendations 

of the Task Force. 

(e) WORKING GROUPS.— 

(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—The Task Force may establish 

such working groups as the Task Force determines to be necessary to assist the Task Force in carrying out this section. 

(2) HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA.— (A) INTEGRATION TEAM.—The Task Force shall establish a working group for the purpose of advising the Task 

Force of opportunities to integrate the planning, 

engineering, design, implementation, and performance of 

Corps of Engineers projects for hurricane and storm damage reduction, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and navigation in those areas in Louisiana for which 

a major disaster has been declared by the President as 

a result of Hurricane Katrina or Rita. 

(B) EXPERTISE; REPRESENTATION.—In establishing the 

working group under subparagraph (A), the Task Force 

shall ensure that the group— 

(i) has expertise in coastal estuaries, diversions, 

coastal restoration and wetlands protection, ecosystem 

restoration, hurricane protection, storm damage reduction systems, navigation, and ports; and 

(ii) represents the State of Louisiana and local 

governments in southern Louisiana. 

(C) DUTIES.—In developing its recommendations under 

this subsection, the working group shall— 

(i) review reports relating to the performance of, 

and recommendations relating to the future performance of, the hurricane, coastal, and flood protection 

systems in southern Louisiana, including the reports 

issued by the Interagency Performance Evaluation 
H. R. 1495—234 

Team, the National Academy of Sciences, the National 

Science Foundation, the American Society of Civil 

Engineers, and Team Louisiana for the purpose of 

advising the Task Force and the Secretary on 

opportunities to improve the performance of the protection systems; 

(ii) assist in providing reviews under section 2035; 

and 

(iii) carry out such other duties as the Task Force 

or the Secretary determines to be appropriate. 

(f) COMPENSATION.—Members of the Task Force and members 

of a working group established by the Task Force may not receive 

compensation for their services as members of the Task Force 

or working group, as the case may be. 

(g) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—Travel expenses incurred by members 

of the Task Force and members of a working group established 

by the Task Force, in the performance of their service on the 

Task Force or working group, as the case may be, shall be paid 

by the agency or entity that the member represents. 

(h) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Task Force or 

any working group established by the Task Force. 

SEC. 7005. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. 

(a) REVIEW.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the non-Federal interest of the project involved, shall review each Federallyauthorized water resources project in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem being carried out or completed as of the date of enactment 

of this Act to determine whether the project needs to be modified— 

(1) to take into account the program authorized by section 

7003 and the projects authorized by sections 7006(e) and 7013; 

or 

(2) to contribute to ecosystem restoration under section 

7003, 7006(e), or 7013. 

(b) MODIFICATIONS.—Subject to subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary may carry out the modifications described in subsection 

(a). 

(c) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT.—Before completing the 

report required under subsection (d), the Secretary shall provide 

an opportunity for public notice and comment. 

(d) REPORT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Before modifying an operation or feature 

of a project under subsection (b), the Secretary shall submit 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate a report describing the modification. 

(2) INCLUSION.—A report describing a modification under 

paragraph (1) shall include such information relating to the 

timeline for and cost of the modification, as the Secretary 

determines to be relevant. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000. 

SEC. 7006. CONSTRUCTION. 

(a) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.— 
H. R. 1495—235 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a coastal 

Louisiana ecosystem science and technology program substantially in accordance with the restoration plan at a total cost 

of $100,000,000. 

(2) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the program shall be— 

(A) to identify any uncertainty relating to the physical, 

chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; 

(B) to improve knowledge of the physical, chemical, 

geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in 

the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; 

(C) to identify and develop technologies, models, and 

methods to carry out this subsection; and 

(D) to advance and expedite the implementation of 

the comprehensive plan. 

(3) WORKING GROUPS.—The Secretary may establish such 

working groups as the Secretary determines to be necessary 

to assist the Secretary in carrying out this subsection. 

(4) CONTRACTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with a consortium of academic 

institutions in Louisiana with scientific or engineering expertise 

in the restoration of aquatic and marine ecosystems for coastal 

restoration and enhancement through science and technology. 

(5) APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ACT.—The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) 

shall not apply to a working group established under this 

subsection. 

(b) DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 

may carry out demonstration projects substantially in accordance with the restoration plan and within the coastal Louisiana 

ecosystem for the purpose of resolving critical areas of scientific 

or technological uncertainty related to the implementation of 

the comprehensive plan. 

(2) MAXIMUM COST.— 

(A) TOTAL COST.—The total cost for planning, design, 

and construction of all projects under this subsection shall 

not exceed $100,000,000. 

(B) INDIVIDUAL PROJECT.—The total cost of any single 

project under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000. 

(c) INITIAL PROJECTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out 

the following projects substantially in accordance with the restoration plan: 

(A) Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet environmental restoration at a total cost of $105,300,000, but not including 

those elements of the project that produce navigation benefits. 

(B) Small diversion at Hope Canal at a total cost 

of $68,600,000. 

(C) Barataria basin barrier shoreline restoration at 

a total cost of $242,600,000. 

(D) Small Bayou Lafourche reintroduction at a total 

cost of $133,500,000. 

(E) Medium diversion at Myrtle Grove with dedicated 

dredging at a total cost of $278,300,000. 
H. R. 1495—236 

(2) MODIFICATIONS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out each project under 

paragraph (1), the Secretary shall carry out such modifications as may be necessary to the ecosystem restoration 

features identified in the restoration plan— 

(i) to address the impacts of Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita on the areas of the project; and 

(ii) to ensure consistency with the project authorized by section 7013 (including work in and around 

the vicinity of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet). 

(B) INTEGRATION.—The Secretary shall ensure that 

each modification under subparagraph (A) is taken into 

account in conducting the study of comprehensive hurricane 

protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2247). 

(C) MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET.—In carrying out 

the project under paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall 

carry out such modifications as may be necessary to make 

the project consistent with and complementary to the closure and restoration of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet 

authorized by section 7013. 

(3) CONSTRUCTION REPORTS.—Before the Secretary may 

begin construction of any project under this subsection, the 

Secretary shall submit a report documenting any modifications 

to the project, including cost changes, to the Committee on 

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

of the Senate. 

(4) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER PROVISIONS.—Notwithstanding 

section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 

(33 U.S.C. 2280), the cost of a project under this subsection, 

including any modifications to the project, shall not exceed 

150 percent of the cost of such project set forth in paragraph 

(1). 

(d) BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, substantially in accordance with the restoration plan, shall implement in the coastal 

Louisiana ecosystem a program for the beneficial use of material dredged from federally maintained waterways at a total 

cost of $100,000,000. 

(2) CONSIDERATION.—In carrying out the program under 

paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider the beneficial use 

of sediment from the Illinois River System for wetlands restoration in wetlands-depleted watersheds of the coastal Louisiana 

ecosystem. 

(e) ADDITIONAL PROJECTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out 

the following projects referred to in the restoration plan if 

the Secretary determines such projects are feasible: 

(A) Land Bridge between Caillou Lake and the Gulf 

of Mexico at a total cost of $56,300,000. 

(B) Gulf Shoreline at Point Au Fer Island at a total 

cost of $43,400,000. 

(C) Modification of Caernarvon Diversion at a total 

cost of $20,700,000. 

(D) Modification of Davis Pond Diversion at a total 

cost of $64,200,000. 
H. R. 1495—237 

(2) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary shall submit feasibility reports on the projects described 

in paragraph (1) to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. 

(3) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO REPORTS.— 

(A) FEASIBILITY REPORTS.—Not later than December 

31, 2008, the Secretary shall submit to Congress feasibility 

reports on the following projects referred to in the restoration plan: 

(i) Multipurpose Operation of Houma Navigation 

Lock at a total cost of $18,100,000. 

(ii) Terrebonne Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration at a total cost of $124,600,000. 

(iii) Small Diversion at Convent/Blind River at 

a total cost of $88,000,000. 

(iv) Amite River Diversion Canal Modification at 

a total cost of $5,600,000. 

(v) Medium Diversion at White’s Ditch at a total 

cost of $86,100,000. 

(vi) Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern 

Terrebonne Marshes at a total cost of $221,200,000. 

(B) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary may carry out the 

projects under subparagraph (A) substantially in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers if 

a favorable report of the Chief is completed by not later 

than December 31, 2010. 

(4) CONSTRUCTION.—No appropriations shall be made to 

construct any project under this subsection if the report under 

paragraph (2) or paragraph (3), as the case may be, has not 

been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on 

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

of the Senate. 

SEC. 7007. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE. 

(a) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit, in accordance with 

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

toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a study or project 

under this title the cost of work carried out in the coastal Louisiana 

ecosystem by the non-Federal interest for the project before the 

date of the execution of the partnership agreement for the study 

or project. 

(b) SOURCES OF FUNDS.—The non-Federal interest may use, 

and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided by a Federal agency 

under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, 

the non-Federal share of the cost of the study or project if the 

Federal agency that provides the funds determines that the funds 

are authorized to be used to carry out the study or project. 

(c) NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.—A nongovernmental 

organization shall be eligible to contribute all or a portion of the 

non-Federal share of the cost of a project under this title. 

(d) TREATMENT OF CREDIT BETWEEN PROJECTS.—Any credit 

provided under this section toward the non-Federal share of the 

cost of a study or project under this title may be applied toward 
H. R. 1495—238 

the non-Federal share of the cost of any other study or project 

under this title. 

(e) PERIODIC MONITORING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—To ensure that the contributions of the 

non-Federal interest equal the non-Federal share of the cost 

of a study or project under this title during each 5-year period 

beginning after the date of commencement of the first study 

or project under this title, the Secretary shall— 

(A) monitor for each study or project under this title 

the non-Federal provision of cash, in-kind services and 

materials, and land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, 

and disposal areas; and 

(B) manage the requirement of the non-Federal interest 

to provide for each such study or project cash, in-kind 

services and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-way, 

relocations, and disposal areas. 

(2) OTHER MONITORING.—The Secretary shall conduct monitoring separately for the study phase, construction phase, 

preconstruction engineering and design phase, and planning 

phase for each project authorized on or after the date of enactment of this Act for all or any portion of the coastal Louisiana 

ecosystem. 

(f) AUDITS.—Credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas (including land value and incidental costs) 

provided under this section, and the cost of work provided under 

this section, shall be subject to audit by the Secretary. 

SEC. 7008. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962–2) or any other provision 

of law, in carrying out any project or activity under this title 

or any other provision of law to protect, conserve, and restore 

the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, the Secretary may determine 

that— 

(1) the project or activity is justified by the environmental 

benefits derived by the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and 

(2) no further economic justification for the project or 

activity shall be required if the Secretary determines that the 

project or activity is cost effective. 

(b) LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall not 

apply to any separable element of a project intended to produce 

benefits that are predominantly unrelated to the protection, 

preservation, and restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem. 

SEC. 7009. INDEPENDENT REVIEW. 

The Secretary shall establish a council, to be known as the 

‘‘Louisiana Water Resources Council’’, which shall serve as the 

exclusive peer review panel for activities conducted by the Corps 

of Engineers in the areas in the State of Louisiana declared as 

major disaster areas in accordance with section 401 of the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

5170) in response to Hurricane Katrina or Rita of 2005, in accordance with the requirements of section 2034. 
H. R. 1495—239 

SEC. 7010. EXPEDITED REPORTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall expedite completion of 

the reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a project is feasible, proceed directly to project 

preconstruction engineering and design: 

(1) The projects identified in the study of comprehensive 

hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2447). 

(2) The projects identified in the Southwest Coastal Louisiana hurricane and storm damage reduction study authorized 

by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives on December 7, 2005. 

(b) SUBMISSION OF REPORTS.—Upon completion of the reports 

identified in subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit the reports 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

House of Representatives. 

SEC. 7011. REPORTING. 

Not later than 6 years after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report, 

including a description of— 

(1) the projects authorized and undertaken under this title; 

(2) the construction status of the projects; 

(3) the cost to date and the expected final cost of each 

project undertaken under this title; and 

(4) the benefits and environmental impacts of the projects. 

SEC. 7012. NEW ORLEANS AND VICINITY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to— 

(1) raise levee heights where necessary and otherwise 

enhance the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and the 

West Bank and Vicinity project to provide the level of protection 

necessary to achieve the certification required for a 100-year 

level of flood protection in accordance with the national flood 

insurance program under the base flood elevations current at 

the time of construction of the levee; 

(2) modify the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London 

Avenue drainage canals in the city of New Orleans and install 

pumps and closure structures at or near the lakefront at Lake 

Pontchartrain; 

(3) armor critical elements of the New Orleans hurricane 

and storm damage reduction system; 

(4) modify the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to increase 

the reliability of the flood protection system for the city of 

New Orleans; 

(5) replace or modify certain non-Federal levees in 

Plaquemines Parish to incorporate the levees into the New 

Orleans to Venice Hurricane Protection project; 

(6) reinforce or replace flood walls in the existing Lake 

Pontchartrain and Vicinity project and the existing West Bank 

and Vicinity project to improve performance of the flood and 

storm damage reduction systems; 
H. R. 1495—240 

(7) perform one time stormproofing of interior pump stations to ensure the operability of the stations during hurricanes, 

storms, and high water events; 

(8) repair, replace, modify and improve non-Federal levees 

and associated protection measures in Terrebonne Parish; and 

(9) reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater New 

Orleans metropolitan area by restoring the surrounding wetlands through measures to begin to reverse wetland losses 

in areas affected by navigation, oil and gas, and other channels 

and through modification of the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion structure or its operations. 

(b) COST SHARING.—Activities authorized by subsection (a) and 

section 7013 shall be carried out in a manner that is consistent 

with the cost-sharing requirements specified in the Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on 

Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109–234). 

(c) CONDITIONS.—The Secretary shall notify the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

if estimates for the expenditure of funds on any single project 

or activity identified in subsection (a) exceeds the amount specified 

for that project or activity in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane 

Recovery, 2006. No appropriation in excess of 25 percent above 

the amount specified for a project or activity in such Act may 

be made until an increase in the level of expenditure has been 

approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. 

SEC. 7013. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET. 

(a) DEAUTHORIZATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Effective beginning on the date of submission of the plan required under paragraph (3), the navigation 

channel portion of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet element 

of the project for navigation, Mississippi River, Baton Rouge 

to the Gulf of Mexico, authorized by the Act entitled ‘‘An 

Act to authorize construction of the Mississippi River-Gulf 

outlet’’, approved March 29, 1956 (70 Stat. 65) and modified 

by section 844 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

1986 (100 Stat. 4177) and section 326 of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3717), which extends from 

the Gulf of Mexico to Mile 60 at the southern bank of the 

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, is not authorized. 

(2) SCOPE.—Nothing in this paragraph modifies or 

deauthorizes the Inner Harbor navigation canal replacement 

project authorized by that Act of March 29, 1956. 

(3) CLOSURE AND RESTORATION PLAN.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 

the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a final report 

on the deauthorization of the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet, 

as described under the heading ‘‘INVESTIGATIONS’’ under 
H. R. 1495—241 

chapter 3 of title II of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and 

Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (120 Stat. 453). 

(B) INCLUSIONS.—At a minimum, the report under 

subparagraph (A) shall include— 

(i) a plan to physically modify the Mississippi 

River-Gulf Outlet and restore the areas affected by 

the navigation channel; 

(ii) a plan to restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm 

surge; 

(iii) a plan to prevent the intrusion of saltwater 

into the waterway; 

(iv) efforts to integrate the recommendations of 

the report with the program authorized under section 

7003 and the analysis and design authorized by title 

I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2247); and 

(v) consideration of— 

(I) use of native vegetation; and 

(II) diversions of fresh water to restore the 

Lake Borgne ecosystem. 

(4) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary shall carry out a plan 

to close the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet and restore and protect the ecosystem substantially in accordance with the plan 

required under paragraph (3), if the Secretary determines that 

the project is cost-effective, environmentally acceptable, and 

technically feasible. 

SEC. 7014. HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION. 

(a) REPORTS.—With respect to the projects identified in the 

analysis and design of comprehensive hurricane protection authorized by title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 

Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2247), the Secretary shall submit, to the 

maximum extent practicable, specific project recommendations in 

a report developed under that title. 

(b) EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—If the President determines that a project 

recommended in the analysis and design of comprehensive 

hurricane protection under title I of the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act, 2006 could— 

(A) address an imminent threat to life and property; 

(B) prevent a dangerous storm surge from reaching 

a populated area; 

(C) prevent the loss of coastal areas that reduce the 

impact of storm surge; 

(D) benefit national energy security; 

(E) protect emergency hurricane evacuation routes or 

shelters; or 

(F) address inconsistencies in hurricane protection 

standards, 

the President may submit to the President pro tempore of 

the Senate for authorization a legislative proposal relating to 

the project, as the President determines to be appropriate. 

(2) PRIORITIZATION.—In submitting legislative proposals 

under paragraph (1), the President shall give priority to any 

project that, as determined by the President, would— 
H. R. 1495—242 

(A) to the maximum extent practicable, reduce the 

risk— 

(i) of loss of human life; 

(ii) to public safety; and 

(iii) of damage to property; and 

(B) minimize costs and environmental impacts. 

(3) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Beginning after December 31, 2008, 

any legislative proposal submitted by the President under 

paragraph (1) shall be eligible for expedited consideration 

in accordance with this paragraph. 

(B) INTRODUCTION.—As soon as practicable after the 

date of receipt of a legislative proposal under paragraph 

(1), the Chairman of the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate shall introduce the proposal 

as a bill, by request, in the Senate. 

(C) REFERRAL.—A bill introduced under subparagraph 

(B) shall be referred to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works of the Senate. 

(D) COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 45 legislative days 

after a bill under subparagraph (B) is referred to the 

committee in accordance with subparagraph (C), the 

committee shall act on the bill. 

(ii) FAILURE TO ACT.—If the committee fails to 

act on a bill by the date specified in clause (i), the 

bill shall be discharged from the committee and placed 

on the calendar of the Senate. 

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The requirements of, and authorities 

under, this subsection shall expire on December 31, 2010. 

SEC. 7015. LAROSE TO GOLDEN MEADOW. 

(a) REPORT.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report describing any modification required to the project 

for flood damage reduction, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana, 

to provide the level of protection necessary to achieve the certification required for a 100-year level of flood protection in accordance 

with the national flood insurance program. 

(b) MODIFICATIONS.—The Secretary is authorized to carry out 

a modification described in subsection (a) if— 

(1) the Secretary determines that the modification in the 

report under subsection (a) is feasible; and 

(2) the total cost of the modification does not exceed 

$90,000,000. 

(c) REQUIREMENT.—No appropriation shall be made to construct 

any modification under this section if the report under subsection 

(a) has not been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives. 

SEC. 7016. LOWER JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a project for 

flood damage reduction in Lower Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. 
H. R. 1495—243 

(b) EXISTING STUDIES.—In carrying out the project, the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, existing studies 

for projects for flood damage reduction in the vicinity of Lower 

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, prepared under section 205 of the 

Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). 

(c) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary may proceed to construction 

or complete the construction of projects in Lower Jefferson Parish 

if the projects are being developed or carried out under section 

205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 as of the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated $100,000,000 to carry out this section. 

TITLE VIII—UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

AND ILLINOIS WATER-WAY SYSTEM 

SEC. 8001. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title, the following definitions apply: 

(1) PLAN.—The term ‘‘Plan’’ means the project for navigation and ecosystem improvements for the Upper Mississippi 

River and Illinois Waterway System: Report of the Chief of 

Engineers, dated December 15, 2004. 

(2) UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY

SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 

Waterway System’’ means the projects for navigation and ecosystem restoration authorized by Congress for— 

(A) the segment of the Mississippi River from the confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper 

St. Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, 

River Mile 854.0; and 

(B) the Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the 

Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to 

T.J. O’Brien Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0. 

SEC. 8002. NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTORATION. 

Except as modified by this title, the Secretary shall undertake 

navigation improvements and restoration of the ecosystem for the 

Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System substantially 

in accordance with the Plan and subject to the conditions described 

therein. 

SEC. 8003. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAVIGATION 

IMPROVEMENTS. 

(a) SMALL SCALE AND NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— 

(A) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 

20, 22, 24, and LaGrange Lock or other alternative locations that are economically and environmentally feasible; 

(B) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and 

(C) conduct development and testing of an appointment 

scheduling system. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—The total cost of 

projects authorized under this subsection shall be $256,000,000. 

Such costs are to be paid half from amounts appropriated 

from the general fund of the Treasury and half from amounts 
H. R. 1495—244 

appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Such 

sums shall remain available until expended. 

(b) NEW LOCKS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall construct new 1,200- 

foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper Mississippi River and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the 

Illinois Waterway. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—The total cost of 

projects authorized under this subsection shall be 

$1,948,000,000. Such costs are to be paid half from amounts 

appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and half 

from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust 

Fund. Such sums shall remain available until expended. 

(c) CONCURRENCE.—The mitigation required for the projects 

authorized under subsections (a) and (b), including any acquisition 

of lands or interests in lands, shall be undertaken or acquired 

concurrently with lands and interests in lands for the projects 

authorized under subsections (a) and (b), and physical construction 

required for the purposes of mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with the physical construction of such projects. 

SEC. 8004. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZATION. 

(a) OPERATION.—To ensure the environmental sustainability 

of the existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 

System, the Secretary shall modify, consistent with requirements 

to avoid adverse effects on navigation, the operation of the Upper 

Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System to address the 

cumulative environmental impacts of operation of the system and 

improve the ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River 

and Illinois River. 

(b) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out, consistent 

with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain the sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and 

Illinois River in accordance with the general framework outlined in the Plan. 

(2) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—Ecosystem restoration projects 

may include— 

(A) island building; 

(B) construction of fish passages; 

(C) floodplain restoration; 

(D) water level management (including water drawdown); 

(E) backwater restoration; 

(F) side channel restoration; 

(G) wing dam and dike restoration and modification; 

(H) island and shoreline protection; 

(I) topographical diversity; 

(J) dam point control; 

(K) use of dredged material for environmental purposes; 

(L) tributary confluence restoration; 

(M) spillway, dam, and levee modification to benefit 

the environment; and 

(N) land and easement acquisition. 

(3) COST SHARING.— 
H. R. 1495—245 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraphs 

(B) and (C), the Federal share of the cost of carrying 

out an ecosystem restoration project under this subsection 

shall be 65 percent. 

(B) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RESTORATION PROJECTS.— 

In the case of a project under this section for ecosystem 

restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying out 

the project shall be 100 percent if the project— 

(i) is located below the ordinary high water mark 

or in a connected backwater; 

(ii) modifies the operation of structures for navigation; or 

(iii) is located on federally owned land. 

(C) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this subsection 

affects the applicability of section 906(e) of the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)). 

(D) NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.—In accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 

(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b), for any project carried out under 

this title, a non-Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit 

entity, with the consent of the affected local government. 

(4) LAND ACQUISITION.—The Secretary may acquire land 

or an interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project 

from a willing seller through conveyance of— 

(A) fee title to the land; or 

(B) a flood plain conservation easement. 

(c) MONITORING.—The Secretary shall carry out a long term 

resource monitoring, computerized data inventory and analysis, 

and applied research program for the Upper Mississippi River and 

Illinois River to determine trends in ecosystem health, to understand systemic changes, and to help identify restoration needs. 

The program shall consider and adopt the monitoring program 

established under section 1103(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(1)(A)(ii)). 

(d) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

AND DESIGN.— 

(1) RESTORATION DESIGN.—Before initiating the construction of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the Secretary shall— 

(A) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify 

specific performance measures designed to demonstrate 

ecosystem restoration; 

(B) establish the without-project condition or baseline 

for each performance indicator; and 

(C) for each separable element of the ecosystem restoration, identify specific target goals for each performance 

indicator. 

(2) OUTCOMES.—Performance measures identified under 

paragraph (1)(A) shall include specific measurable environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality, hydrology, 

or the well-being of indicator species the population and distribution of which are representative of the abundance and 

diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic and terrestrial species. 

(3) RESTORATION DESIGN.—Restoration design carried out 

as part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring 
H. R. 1495—246 

plan for the performance measures identified under paragraph 

(1)(A), including— 

(A) a timeline to achieve the identified target goals; 

and 

(B) a timeline for the demonstration of project completion. 

(e) CONSULTATION AND FUNDING AGREEMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the environmental 

sustainability, ecosystem restoration, and monitoring activities 

authorized in this section, the Secretary shall consult with 

the Secretary of the Interior and the States of Illinois, Iowa, 

Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. 

(2) FUNDING AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary is authorized 

to enter into agreements with the Secretary of the Interior, 

the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, and natural 

resource and conservation agencies of the States of Illinois, 

Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to provide for the 

direct participation of and transfer of funds to such entities 

for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of projects 

and programs established by this section. 

(f) SPECIFIC PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out this subsection $1,717,000,000, of which not more 

than $245,000,000 shall be available for projects described in 

subsection (b)(2)(B) and not more than $48,000,000 shall be 

available for projects described in subsection (b)(2)(J). Such 

sums shall remain available until expended. 

(2) LIMITATION ON AVAILABLE FUNDS.—Of the amounts 

made available under paragraph (1), not more than $35,000,000 

in any fiscal year may be used for land acquisition under 

subsection (b)(4). 

(3) INDIVIDUAL PROJECT LIMIT.—Other than for projects 

described in subparagraphs (B) and (J) of subsection (b)(2), 

the total cost of any single project carried out under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000. 

(4) MONITORING.—In addition to amounts authorized under 

paragraph (1), there are authorized $10,420,000 per fiscal year 

to carry out the monitoring program under subsection (c) if 

such sums are not appropriated pursuant to section 1103(e)(4) 

the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 

652(e)(4)). 

(g) IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than June 30, 2009, and every 

4 years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 

Representatives an implementation report that— 

(A) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities 

for ecosystem restoration projects; and 

(B) measures the progress in meeting the goals. 

(2) ADVISORY PANEL.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall appoint and convene an advisory panel to provide independent guidance 

in the development of each implementation report under 

paragraph (1). 

(B) PANEL MEMBERS.—Panel members shall include— 
H. R. 1495—247 

(i) one representative of each of the State resource 

agencies (or a designee of the Governor of the State) 

from each of the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, 

Missouri, and Wisconsin; 

(ii) one representative of the Department of Agriculture; 

(iii) one representative of the Department of 

Transportation; 

(iv) one representative of the United States 

Geological Survey; 

(v) one representative of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service; 

(vi) one representative of the Environmental 

Protection Agency; 

(vii) one representative of affected landowners; 

(viii) two representatives of conservation and 

environmental advocacy groups; and 

(ix) two representatives of agriculture and industry 

advocacy groups. 

(C) CHAIRPERSON.—The Secretary shall serve as chairperson of the advisory panel. 

(D) APPLICATION OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ACT.—The Advisory Panel and any working group established by the Advisory Panel shall not be considered an 

advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (5 U.S.C. App.). 

(h) RANKING SYSTEM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed 

projects. 

(2) PRIORITY.—The ranking system shall give greater 

weight to projects that restore natural river processes, including 

those projects listed in subsection (b)(2). 

SEC. 8005. COMPARABLE PROGRESS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering, 

design, and construction for projects authorized under this title, 

the Secretary shall— 

(1) select appropriate milestones; 

(2) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the 

projects are being carried out at comparable rates; and 

(3) make an annual report to Congress, beginning in fiscal 

year 2009, regarding whether the projects are being carried 

out at a comparable rate. 

(b) NO COMPARABLE RATE.—If the Secretary or Congress determines under subsection (a)(2) that projects authorized under this 

title are not moving toward completion at a comparable rate, annual 

funding requests for the projects shall be adjusted to ensure that 

the projects move toward completion at a comparable rate in the 

future. 
H. R. 1495—248 

TITLE IX—NATIONAL LEVEE SAFETY 

PROGRAM 

SEC. 9001. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘National Levee Safety Act 

of 2007’’. 

SEC. 9002. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title, the following definitions apply: 

(1) COMMITTEE.—The term ‘‘committee’’ means the Committee on Levee Safety established by section 9003(a). 

(2) INSPECTION.—The term ‘‘inspection’’ means an actual 

inspection of a levee— 

(A) to establish the global information system location 

of the levee; 

(B) to determine the general condition of the levee; 

and 

(C) to estimate the number of structures and population at risk and protected by the levee that would be 

adversely impacted if the levee fails or water levels exceed 

the height of the levee. 

(3) LEVEE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘levee’’ means an embankment, including floodwalls— 

(i) the primary purpose of which is to provide 

hurricane, storm, and flood protection relating to seasonal high water, storm surges, precipitation, and other 

weather events; and 

(ii) that normally is subject to water loading for 

only a few days or weeks during a year. 

(B) INCLUSION.—The term includes structures along 

canals that constrain water flows and are subject to more 

frequent water loadings but that do not constitute a barrier 

across a watercourse. 

(4) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means— 

(A) a State; 

(B) the District of Columbia; 

(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and 

(D) any other territory or possession of the United 

States. 

(5) STATE LEVEE SAFETY AGENCY.—The term ‘‘State levee 

safety agency’’ means the agency of a State that has regulatory 

authority over the safety of any non-Federal levee in the State. 

(6) UNITED STATES.—The term ‘‘United States’’, when used 

in a geographical sense, means all of the States. 

SEC. 9003. COMMITTEE ON LEVEE SAFETY. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established a committee to be 

known as the ‘‘Committee on Levee Safety’’. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The committee shall be composed of 16 members as follows: 

(1) The Secretary (or the Secretary’s designee), who shall 

serve as the chairperson of the Committee. 

(2) The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or the Administrator’s designee). 

(3) The following 14 members appointed by the Secretary: 
H. R. 1495—249 

(A) Eight representatives of State levee safety agencies, 

one from each of the eight civil works divisions of the 

Corps of Engineers. 

(B) Two representatives of the private sector who have 

expertise in levee safety. 

(C) Two representatives of local and regional governmental agencies who have expertise in levee safety. 

(D) Two representatives of Indian tribes who have 

expertise in levee safety. 

(c) DUTIES.— 

(1) DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATIONAL

LEVEE SAFETY PROGRAM.—The committee shall develop 

recomendations for a national levee safety program, including 

a strategic plan for implementation of the program. 

(2) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the committee shall submit to the Secretary, 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 

recommendations developed under paragraph (1). 

(d) PURPOSES.—In developing recommendations under subsection (c)(1), the committee shall ensure that the national levee 

safety program meets the following goals: 

(1) Ensuring the protection of human life and property 

by levees through the development of technologically, economically, socially, and environmentally feasible programs and 

procedures for hazard reduction and mitigation relating to 

levees. 

(2) Encouraging use of the best available engineering policies and procedures for levee site investigation, design, 

construction, operation and maintenance, and emergency 

preparedness. 

(3) Encouraging the establishment and implementation of 

an effective national levee safety program that may be delegated to qualified States for implementation, including identification of incentives and disincentives for State levee safety 

programs. 

(4) Ensuring that levees are operated and maintained in 

accordance with appropriate and protective standards by conducting an inventory and inspection of levees. 

(5) Developing and supporting public education and awareness projects to increase public acceptance and support of State 

and national levee safety programs. 

(6) Building public awareness of the residual risks associated with living in levee protected areas. 

(7) Developing technical assistance materials for State and 

national levee safety programs. 

(8) Developing methods to provide technical assistance 

relating to levee safety to non-Federal entities. 

(9) Developing technical assistance materials, seminars, 

and guidelines relating to the physical integrity of levees in 

the United States. 

(e) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.—A member of the committee 

shall serve without compensation. 

(f) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—To the extent amounts are made available in advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary shall 

reimburse a member of the committee for travel expenses, including 
H. R. 1495—250 

per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee 

of a Federal agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 

5, United States Code, while away from the home or regular place 

of business of the member in performance of services for the committee. 

(g) APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.— The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 

apply to the committee. 

SEC. 9004. INVENTORY AND INSPECTION OF LEVEES. 

(a) LEVEE DATABASE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish and 

maintain a database with an inventory of the Nation’s levees. 

(2) CONTENTS.—The database shall include— 

(A) location information of all Federal levees in the 

Nation (including global information system information) 

and, for non-Federal levees, such information on levee location as is provided to the Secretary by State and local 

governmental agencies; 

(B) utilizing such information as is available, the general condition of each levee; and 

(C) an estimate of the number of structures and population at risk and protected by each levee that would be 

adversely impacted if the levee fails or water levels exceed 

the height of the levee. 

(3) AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.— (A) AVAILABILITY TO FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL

GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.—The Secretary shall make all 

of the information in the database available to appropriate 

Federal, State, and local governmental agencies. 

(B) AVAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC.—The Secretary shall 

make the information in the database described in paragraph (2)(A), and such other information in the database 

as the Secretary determines appropriate, available to the 

public. 

(b) INVENTORY AND INSPECTION OF LEVEES.— (1) FEDERAL LEVEES.—The Secretary, at Federal expense, 

shall establish an inventory and conduct an inspection of all 

federally owned and operated levees. 

(2) FEDERALLY CONSTRUCTED, NONFEDERALLY OPERATED

AND MAINTAINED LEVEES.—The Secretary shall establish an 

inventory and conduct an inspection of all federally constructed, 

non-federally operated and maintained levees, at the original 

cost share for the project. 

(3) PARTICIPATING LEVEES.—For non-Federal levees the 

owners of which are participating in the emergency response 

to natural disasters program established under section 5 of 

the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the construction of certain 

public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for 

other purposes’’, approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), 

the Secretary shall establish an inventory and conduct an 

inspection of each such levee if the owner of the levee requests 

such inspection. The Federal share of the cost of an inspection 

under this paragraph shall be 65 percent. 

SEC. 9005. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. 

Nothing in this title shall be construed as— 
H. R. 1495—251 

(1) creating any liability of the United States or its officers 

or employees for the recovery of damages caused by an action 

or failure to act; or 

(2) relieving an owner or operator of a levee of a legal 

duty, obligation, or liability incident to the ownership or operation of a levee. 

SEC. 9006. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 

carry out this title $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 

2013. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.