SEC. 2012. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is
amended by striking subsections (c) through (g) and in-
serting the following:
‘‘(c) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out
projects to transport and place suitable material dredged
in connection with the construction, operation, or mainte-
nance of an authorized navigation project at locations se-
lected by a non-Federal entity for use in the construction,
repair, or rehabilitation of projects determined by the Sec-
retary to be in the public interest and associated with navi-
gation, flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power, mu-
nicipal and industrial water supply, agricultural water
supply, recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction,
aquatic plant control, and environmental protection and
restoration.
‘‘(d) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—Any project un-
dertaken pursuant to this section shall be initiated only
after non-Federal interests have entered into an agree-
ment with the Secretary in which the non-Federal inter-
ests agree to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of con-
struction of the project and 100 percent of the cost of
operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of
the project in accordance with section 103 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE.—Construction of a project
under subsection (a) for the protection and restoration of
aquatic and ecologically related habitat the cost of which
does not exceed $750,000 and which will be located in a
disadvantaged community as determined by the Secretary
may be carried out at Federal expense.
‘‘(f) DETERMINATION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.—
Costs associated with construction of a project under this
section shall be limited solely to construction costs that
are in excess of those costs necessary to carry out the
dredging for construction, operation, or maintenance of
the authorized navigation project in the most cost effective
way, consistent with economic, engineering, and environ-
mental criteria.
‘‘(g) SELECTION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
METHOD.—In developing and carrying out a project for
navigation involving the disposal of dredged material, the
Secretary may select, with the consent of the non-Federal
interest, a disposal method that is not the least-cost option
if the Secretary determines that the incremental costs of
such disposal method are reasonable in relation to the en-
vironmental benefits, including the benefits to the aquatic
environment to be derived from the creation of wetlands
and control of shoreline erosion. The Federal share of such
incremental costs shall be determined in accordance with
subsection (d).
‘‘(h) NONPROFIT ENTITIES.—Notwithstanding sec-
tion 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d–5b), for any project carried out under this section,
a non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity, with
the consent of the affected local government.
‘‘(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 annually for
projects under this section of which not more than
$3,000,000 annually may be used for construction of
projects described in subsection (e). Such sums shall re-
main available until expended.
‘‘(j) REGIONAL
SEDIMENT
MANAGEMENT
PLAN-
NING.—In consultation with appropriate State and Fed-
eral agencies, the Secretary may develop, at Federal ex-
pense, plans for regional management of material dredged
in conjunction with the construction, operation, or mainte-
nance of navigation projects, including potential beneficial
uses of dredged material for construction, repair, or reha-
bilitation of public projects for navigation, flood damage
reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial
water supply, agricultural water supply, recreation, hurri-
cane and storm damage reduction, aquatic plant control,
and environmental protection and restoration.’’.
(b) REPEAL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 145 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C.
426j) is repealed.
(2) HOLD
HARMLESS.—The repeal made by
paragraph (1) shall not affect the authority of the
Secretary to complete any project being carried out
under such section 145 on the day before the date
of enactment of this Act.
(c) PRIORITY AREAS.—In carrying out section 204
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33
U.S.C. 2326), the Secretary shall give priority to a project
for the beaches of Bogues Bank in the vicinity of More-
head City, North Carolina, and a project in the vicinity
of the Smith Point Park Pavilion and the TWA Flight
800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New York.
SEC. 2013. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN
AREAS.
Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2310; 100 Stat. 4256) is amended
to read as follows:
‘‘SEC. 1156. COST SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN
AREAS.
‘‘The Secretary shall waive local cost-sharing require-
ments up to $500,000 for all studies and projects in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and
the United States Virgin Islands, in Indian country (as
defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code,
and including lands that are within the jurisdictional area
of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the Sec-
retary of the Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary
of the Interior as eligible for trust land status under part
151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations) or on land
in the State of Alaska owned by an Alaska Native Re-
gional Corporation or an Alaska Native Village Corpora-
tion (as those terms are defined in the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)) or the
Metlakatla Indian community.’’.
SEC. 2014. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREE-
MENT.
Upon authorization by law of an increase in the max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for
a project or an increase in the total cost of a project au-
thorized to be carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary
shall revise the project partnership agreement for the
project to take into account the change in Federal partici-
pation in the project.
SEC. 2015. COST SHARING.
An increase in the maximum amount of Federal
funds that may be allocated for a project or an increase
in the total cost of a project authorized to be carried out
by the Secretary shall not affect any cost sharing require-
ment applicable to the project under title I of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et
seq.).
SEC. 2016. CREDIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PART-
NERSHIP AGREEMENT.
If the Secretary is authorized to credit toward the
non-Federal share the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest before the date of the partnership agree-
ment for the project and such work has not been carried
out as of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall enter into an agreement with the non-Federal inter-
est for the project under which the non-Federal interest
shall carry out such work, and the credit shall apply only
to work carried out under the agreement.
SEC. 2017. RECREATION USER FEE REVENUES.
Section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 297–298) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ‘‘During fis-
cal years 1999 through 2002, the’’ and inserting
‘‘The’’; and
(2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ‘‘September
30, 2005’’ and inserting ‘‘expended’’.
SEC. 2018. 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 mag-
nitude to warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the
President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and
Emergency Relief Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
SEC. 2019. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 729 of the Water Re-
sources 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 para-
graph (4);
(B) by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (5) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(6) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Cali-
fornia.’’;
(2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f)
and inserting the following:
‘‘(1) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal
share of the costs of an assessment carried out
under this section on or after December 11, 2000,
shall be 25 percent.’’; and
(3) by striking subsection (g).
(b) REVISION OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.—The
Secretary shall revise the partnership agreement for any
assessment being carried out under such section 729 to
take into account the change in non-Federal participation
in the assessment as a result of the amendments made
by subsection (a).
SEC. 2020. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269(b)(1)(B); 114 Stat.
2589) is amended by inserting after ‘‘Code’’ the following
‘‘, and including lands that are within the jurisdictional
area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the Sec-
retary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status under
part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations’’.
SEC. 2021. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SEPARABLE ELE-
MENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—If, in carrying out a water re-
sources project, the Secretary identifies a separable ele-
ment that would advance a primary mission of the Corps
of Engineers, with benefits that could be achieved more
cost-effectively if carried out in conjunction with the
project, the Secretary, in consultation with the non-Fed-
eral interest, may carry out such separable element at
Federal expense if the cost of such separable element does
not exceed 3 percent of the Federal project cost and does
not exceed $1,000,000.
(b) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—Operation and
maintenance of a separable element of a project carried
out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsi-
bility.
(c) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—
Nothing in this section shall be construed to increase the
amount authorized to be appropriated for a project beyond
that amount authorized by law or to provide a separate
authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2022. PROSECUTION OF WORK.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of Sep-
tember 22, 1922 (33 U.S.C. 621; 42 Stat. 1043), is
amended by inserting after ‘‘harbors’’ the following: ‘‘, in-
cluding any planning, engineering, design, construction,
operation, and maintenance,’’.
SEC. 2023. 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. 2024. CREDIT FOR NONCONSTRUCTION SERVICES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to
allow a non-Federal interest credit toward its share of
project costs for any authorized water resources develop-
ment project for the cost of materials and in-kind services,
including design and management services but not includ-
ing construction, provided by the non-Federal interest for
implementation of the project.
(b) LIMITATION.—Credit authorized under sub-
section (a)—
(1) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of
project costs;
(2) shall not alter any other requirements that
require a non-Federal interest to provide lands, ease-
ments, rights-of-way, and dredged material disposal
areas for the project;
(3) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable
costs of the materials or in-kind services provided by
the non-Federal interest, as determined by the Sec-
retary; and
(4) shall not be allowed unless the Secretary
has determined that such materials or services are
compatible with and necessary for the project.
SEC. 2025. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 22 of Water Resources Development Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–16) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘The Sec-
retary’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(a) FEDERAL STATE COOPERATION.—
‘‘(1) 
COMPREHENSIVE
PLANS.—The 
Sec-
retary’’;
(2) by inserting after the last sentence in sub-
section (a) the following:
‘‘(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—At the request of
a governmental agency or non-Federal in-
terest, the Secretary may provide, at Fed-
eral expense, technical assistance to such
agency or non-Federal interest in man-
aging water resources.
‘‘(B) TYPES OF ASSISTANCE.—Tech-
nical assistance under this paragraph may
include provision and integration of hydro-
logic, economic, and environmental data
and analyses.’’
(3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘this sec-
tion’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘subsection
(a)(1)’’;
(4) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘(c) There is’’
and inserting the following:
‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
‘‘(1) FEDERAL
AND
STATE
COOPERATION.—
There is’’;
(5) in subsection (c) strike ‘‘the provisions of
this section’’ and insert ‘‘subsection (a)(1);’’; and
(6) by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the
following:
‘‘(2) TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE.—There is au-
thorized 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.’’.
SEC. 2026. CENTERS OF SPECIALIZED PLANNING EXPER-
TISE.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary is authorized
to establish centers to provide specialized planning exper-
tise for water resources projects to be carried out by the
Secretary to enhance and supplement the capabilities of
the districts of the Army Corps of Engineers.
(b) DUTIES.—A center of expertise shall have the fol-
lowing duties:
(1) Providing technical and managerial assist-
ance to district engineers for project planning, devel-
opment, and implementation.
(2) Providing peer reviews of new major sci-
entific, engineering, or economic methods, models or
analyses that will be used to support decisions of the
Secretary with respect to feasibility studies.
(3) Providing support for external peer review
panels convened by the Secretary.
(4) Performing such other duties as prescribed
by the Secretary.
SEC. 2027. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL ACTIONS.
(a) NOTICE OF INTENT.—Upon request of the non-
Federal interest in the form of a written notice of intent
to construct or modify a non-Federal water supply, waste-
water infrastructure, flood damage reduction, environ-
mental restoration, or navigation project that requires the
approval of the Secretary, the Secretary shall initiate, sub-
ject to subsection (g)(1), procedures to establish a sched-
ule for consolidating Federal, State, and local agency and
Indian tribe environmental assessments, project reviews,
and issuance of all permits for the construction or modi-
fication of the project. The non-Federal interest shall sub-
mit to the Secretary, with the notice of intent, studies and
documentation, including environmental reviews, that may
be required by Federal law for decisionmaking on the pro-
posed project. All States and Indian tribes having jurisdic-
tion over the proposed project shall be invited by the Sec-
retary, but shall not be required, to participate in carrying
out this section with respect to the project.
(b) PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.—Within 15 days
after receipt of notice under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall publish such notice in the Federal Register. The Sec-
retary also shall provide written notification of the receipt
of a notice under subsection (a) to all State and local
agencies and Indian tribes that may be required to issue
permits for the construction of the project or related ac-
tivities. The Secretary shall solicit the cooperation of those
agencies and request their entry into a memorandum of
agreement described in subsection (c) with respect to the
project. Within 30 days after publication of the notice in
the Federal Register, State and local agencies and Indian
tribes that intend to enter into the memorandum of agree-
ment with respect to the project shall notify the Secretary
of their intent in writing.
(c) SCHEDULING
AGREEMENT.—Within 90 days
after the date of receipt of notice under subsection (a)
with respect to a project, the Secretary of the Interior,
the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, as necessary, and any
State or local agencies that have notified the Secretary
under subsection (b) shall enter into an agreement with
the Secretary establishing a schedule of decisionmaking
for approval of the project and permits associated with
the project and with related activities.
(d) CONTENTS OF AGREEMENT.—An agreement en-
tered into under subsection (c) with respect to a project,
to the extent practicable, shall consolidate hearing and
comment periods, procedures for data collection and re-
port preparation, and the environmental review and per-
mitting processes associated with the project and related
activities. The agreement shall detail, to the extent pos-
sible, the non-Federal interest’s responsibilities for data
development and information that may be necessary to
process each permit required for the project, including a
schedule when the information and data will be provided
to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency or In-
dian tribe.
(e) REVISION OF AGREEMENT.—The Secretary may
revise an agreement entered into under subsection (c) with
respect to a project once to extend the schedule to allow
the non-Federal interest the minimum amount of addi-
tional time necessary to revise its original application to
meet the objections of a Federal, State, or local agency
or Indian tribe that is a party to the agreement.
(f) FINAL DECISION.—Not later than the final day
of a schedule established by an agreement entered into
under subsection (c) with respect to a project, the Sec-
retary shall notify the non-Federal interest of the final de-
cision on the project and whether the permit or permits
have been issued.
(g) REIMBURSEMENT.—
(1) COSTS OF COORDINATION.—The costs in-
curred 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.
(2) COSTS INCURRED TO EXPEDITE PERMITS
AND REVIEWS.—
(A) 
ACCEPTANCE
OF
NON-FEDERAL
FUNDS.—The Secretary may accept funds from
the non-Federal interest to hire additional staff
or obtain the services of consultants, or to pro-
vide financial, technical, and administrative
support to agencies that have entered into an
agreement with the Secretary under subsection
(c) with respect to a project in order to facili-
tate the timely processing, review, and comple-
tion of applicable Federal, State, and local
agency and Indian tribe environmental assess-
ments, project reviews, and permits for the
project.
(B) USE
OF
FUNDS.—Funds accepted
under this paragraph shall be used to supple-
ment existing resources of the Secretary or a
participating agency.
(C) ASSURANCE
OF
LEVEL
OF
SERVICE
AND
IMPARTIALITY.—The Secretary shall en-
sure that the Department of the Army and any
participating agency that accepts funds under
this paragraph shall continue to provide the
same level of service to other projects and other
responsibilities not covered by this section as it
would provide notwithstanding any activities
carried out under this section and that accept-
ance of such funds will not impact impartial de-
cisionmaking either substantively or proce-
durally.
(h) REPORT ON TIMESAVINGS METHODS.—Not later
than 3 years after the date of enactment of this section,
the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to Congress a
report estimating the time required for the issuance of all
Federal, State, local, and tribal permits for the construc-
tion of non-Federal projects for water supply, wastewater
infrastructure, flood damage reduction, environmental res-
toration, and navigation. The Secretary shall include in
that report recommendations for further reducing the
amount of time required for the issuance of those permits,
including any proposed changes in existing law.
SEC. 2028. PROJECT STREAMLINING.
(a) POLICY.—The benefits of water resources
projects are important to the Nation’s economy and envi-
ronment, and recommendations to Congress regarding
such projects should not be delayed due to uncoordinated
and sequential environmental 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 Re-
sources 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 environ-
mental impact statement under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(c) WATER RESOURCES PROJECT REVIEW PROC-
ESS.—The Secretary shall develop and implement a co-
ordinated review process for water resources projects.
(d) COORDINATED REVIEWS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The coordinated review proc-
ess under this section shall provide that all environ-
mental 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 a water resources project will be conducted
concurrently, to the maximum extent practicable,
and completed within a time period established by
the Secretary, in cooperation with the agencies iden-
tified under subsection (e) with respect to the
project.
(2) AGENCY
PARTICIPATION.—Each Federal
agency identified under subsection (e) shall formu-
late and implement administrative, policy, and pro-
cedural mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure
completion of environmental reviews, analyses, opin-
ions, permits, licenses, and approvals described in
paragraph (1) in a timely and environmentally re-
sponsible manner.
(e) IDENTIFICATION
OF
JURISDICTIONAL
AGEN-
CIES.—With respect to each water resources project, the
Secretary shall identify, as soon as practicable, all Fed-
eral, State, and local government agencies and Indian
tribes that may have jurisdiction over environmental-re-
lated matters that may be affected by the project or may
be required by law to conduct an environmental-related
review or analysis of the project or determine whether to
issue an environmental-related permit, license, or approval
for the project.
(f) STATE AUTHORITY.—If a coordinated review
process is being implemented under this section by the
Secretary with respect to a water resources project within
the boundaries of a State, the State, consistent with State
law, may choose to participate in such process and provide
that all State agencies that have jurisdiction over environ-
mental-related matters that may be affected by the project
or may be required by law to conduct an environmental-
related review or analysis of the project or determine
whether to issue an environmental-related permit, license,
or approval for the project, be subject to the process.
(g) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—The co-
ordinated review process developed under this section may
be incorporated into a memorandum of understanding for
a project between the Secretary and the heads of other
Federal, State, and local government agencies and Indian
tribes identified under subsection (e) with respect to the
project and the non-Federal interest for the project.
(h) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—
(1) NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS AND CEQ.—If
the Secretary determines that a Federal, State, or
local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-Fed-
eral interest that is participating in a coordinated
review process under this section with respect to a
project has not met a deadline established under
subsection (d) for the project, the Secretary shall no-
tify, within 30 days of the date of such determina-
tion, the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives, the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate, the Council on Environmental Quality, and
the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest in-
volved 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 shall
submit a report to the Secretary, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate, and the Council on En-
vironmental Quality explaining why the agency, In-
dian tribe, or non-Federal interest did not meet the
deadline and what actions it intends to take to com-
plete or issue the required review, analysis, opinion,
permit, license, or approval.
(i) PURPOSE AND NEED AND DETERMINATION OF
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—As an official of the lead
Federal agency that is responsible for carrying out
a study to which this section applies and its associ-
ated process for meeting the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and as the Federal agency with
expertise in water resources development, the Sec-
retary, in carrying out such study and process,
shall—
(A) define the purpose and need for the
proposed water resources project; and
(B) determine which alternatives are rea-
sonable and may be reasonably anticipated to
meet project purposes and needs.
(2) STREAMLINING
STUDY.—To streamline a
study to which this section applies and its associated
process for meeting the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.), the Secretary may eliminate from consider-
ation any alternatives the Secretary determines are
not reasonable or are not reasonably anticipated to
meet project purposes and needs.
(j) SOLICITATION
AND CONSIDERATION
OF COM-
MENTS.—In applying subsection (i), the Secretary shall
solicit, consider, and respond to comments from interested
persons and governmental entities.
(k) CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS.—Not later than 120
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall develop and publish a list of categorical exclusions
from the requirement that an environmental assessment
or an environmental impact statement be prepared under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) for water resources projects.
(l) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section shall pre-
empt or interfere with—
(1) any practice of 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
(42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and the regulations issued
by the Council on Environmental Quality to carry
out such Act.
(m) BENCHMARKS.—Within 12 months of the date
of enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall es-
tablish benchmarks for determining the length of time it
should take to conduct a feasibility study for a water re-
sources development project and its associated review
process under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). Benchmarks may be estab-
lished for activities based on project type, size, cost, and
complexity. The Chief of Engineers shall use such bench-
marks as a management tool to make the feasibility study
process more efficient in all districts of the Army Corps
of Engineers.
SEC. 2029. 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 para-
graph (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) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New
Jersey, removal of silt and restoration of structural
integrity;
‘‘(22) Greenwood Lake, Greenwood Lake, New
York, removal of silt and aquatic growth; and
‘‘(23) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Caro-
lina, removal of silt and excessive nutrients and res-
toration of structural integrity.’’.
SEC. 2030. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.
(a) COMPLETION OF MITIGATION.—Section 906(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2283(a)) is amended by adding at the following:
‘‘(3) COMPLETION
OF
MITIGATION.—In those
instances in which it is not technically practicable to
complete mitigation concurrent with the last day of
project construction because of the nature of the
mitigation to be undertaken, the Secretary shall
complete the required mitigation as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no case later than the last day of
the first fiscal year beginning after the last day of
construction of the project or separable element of
the project.’’.
(b) MITIGATION PLAN CONTENTS.—Section 906(d)
of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
‘‘(3) CONTENTS.—A mitigation plan shall
include—
‘‘(A) a description of the physical action to
be undertaken to achieve the mitigation objec-
tives within the watershed in which such losses
occur and, in any case in which mitigation must
take place outside the watershed, a justification
detailing the rationale for undertaking the miti-
gation outside of the watershed;
‘‘(B) a description of the lands or interests
in lands to be acquired for mitigation and the
basis for a determination that such lands are
available for acquisition;
‘‘(C) the type, amount, and characteristics
of the habitat being restored;
‘‘(D) success criteria for mitigation based
on replacement of lost functions and values of
the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative
characteristics; and
‘‘(E) a plan for any necessary monitoring
to determine the success of the mitigation, in-
cluding the cost and duration of any moni-
toring, and to the extent practicable, the enti-
ties responsible for any monitoring.
‘‘(4) RESPONSIBILITY
FOR
MONITORING.—In
any case in which it is not practicable to identify in
a mitigation plan for a water resources project, the
entity responsible for monitoring at the time of a
final report of the Chief of Engineers or other final
decision document for the project, such entity shall
be identified in the partnership agreement entered
into with the non-Federal interest.’’.
(c) STATUS REPORT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Concurrent with the Presi-
dent’s submission to Congress of the President’s re-
quest for appropriations for the Civil Works Pro-
gram for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on the Environment and Public Works of the Senate
a report on the status of construction of projects
that require mitigation under section 906 of Water
Resources Development Act 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283;
100 Stat. 4186) and the status of such mitigation.
(2) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—The status report
shall include the status of all projects that are under
construction, all projects for which the President re-
quests funding for the next fiscal year, and all
projects that have completed construction, but have
not completed the mitigation required under section
906 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986.
SEC. 2031. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of expediting the
cost-effective design and construction of wetlands restora-
tion 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 restora-
tion to carry out such design and construction on behalf
of the Secretary.
(b) LIMITATIONS.—
(1) PER PROJECT LIMIT.—A cooperative agree-
ment under this section shall not obligate the Sec-
retary 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. 2032. PROJECT PLANNING.
(a) OBJECTIVES.—
(1) FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, AND HURRI-
CANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.—
The Federal objective of any study of the feasibility
of a water resources project carried out by the Sec-
retary for flood damage reduction, navigation, or
hurricane and storm damage reduction shall be to
maximize the net national economic development
benefits associated with the project, consistent with
protecting the Nation’s environment.
(2) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.—The
Federal objective of any study of the feasibility of a
water resources project for ecosystem restoration
carried out by the Secretary shall be to maximize
the net national ecosystem restoration benefits asso-
ciated with the project, consistent with national eco-
nomic development.
(3) PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE PURPOSES.—In
the case of a study that includes multiple project
purposes, the primary and other project purposes
shall be evaluated, based on the relevant Federal ob-
jective identified under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(4) SELECTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the
Federal objectives identified in this subsection,
the Secretary may select a project alternative
that does not maximize net benefits if there is
an overriding reason based upon other Federal,
State, local, or international concerns.
(B) FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, NAVIGA-
TION, AND HURRICANE STORM DAMAGE REDUC-
TION PROJECTS.—With respect to a water re-
sources project described in paragraph (1), an
overriding reason for selecting a plan other
than the plan that maximizes national economic
development benefits may be if the Secretary
determines, and the non-Federal interest con-
curs, that an alternative plan is feasible and
achieves the project purposes while providing
greater ecosystem restoration benefits.
(C) 
ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION
PROJECTS.—With respect to a water resources
project described in paragraph (2), an over-
riding reason for selecting a plan other than the
plan that maximizes national ecosystem restora-
tion benefits may be if the Secretary deter-
mines, and the non-Federal interest concurs,
that an alternative is feasible and achieves the
project purpose while providing greater eco-
nomic development benefits.
(b) IDENTIFYING
ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS
AND
PROJECTS.—
(1) PRIMARILY ECONOMIC BENEFITS.—In con-
ducting a study of the feasibility of a project where
the primary benefits are expected to be economic,
the Secretary may identify ecosystem restoration
benefits that may be achieved in the study area and,
after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal in-
terest, may study and recommend construction of a
separate project or separable project element to
achieve those benefits.
(2) PRIMARILY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BEN-
EFITS.—In conducting a study of the feasibility of a
project where the primary benefits are expected to
be associated with ecosystem restoration, the Sec-
retary may identify economic benefits that may be
achieved in the study area and, after obtaining the
participation of a non-Federal interest, may study
and recommend construction of a separate project or
separable project element to achieve those benefits.
(3) RULES APPLICABLE TO IDENTIFIED SEPA-
RATE
PROJECTS
AND
ELEMENTS.—Any separate
project or separable element identified under para-
graph (1) or (2) and recommended for construction
shall not be considered integral to the underlying
project under study and, if authorized, shall be sub-
ject to a separate partnership agreement, unless a
non-Federal interest agrees to share in the cost of
both projects or separable elements.
(c) CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.—A feasibility
study for a project for flood damage reduction shall in-
clude, as part of the calculation of benefits and costs—
(1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding
following completion of the proposed project;
(2) a calculation of any upstream or down-
stream impacts of the proposed project; and
(3) calculations to ensure that the benefits and
costs associated with structural and nonstructural
alternatives are evaluated in an equitable manner.
SEC. 2033. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.
(a) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT TO INDEPENDENT
PEER REVIEW.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Project studies shall be sub-
ject to a peer review by an independent panel of ex-
perts as determined under this section.
(2) SCOPE.—The peer review may include a re-
view of the economic and environmental assumptions
and projections, project evaluation data, economic
analyses, environmental analyses, engineering anal-
yses, 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 RE-
VIEW.—
(A) MANDATORY.—A project study shall
be subject to peer review under paragraph (1)
if the project has an estimated total cost of
more than $50,000,000, including mitigation
costs, and is not determined by the Chief of
Engineers to be exempt from peer review under
paragraph (6).
(B) DISCRETIONARY.—A project study
may be subject to peer review if—
(i) the Governor of an affected State
requests a peer review by an independent
panel of experts;
(ii) 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 en-
vironmental, cultural, or other resources
under the jurisdiction of the agency after
implementation of proposed mitigation
plans and requests a peer review by an
independent panel of experts; or
(iii) the Chief of Engineers determines
that the project study is controversial.
(4) CONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS.—Upon receipt
of a written request under paragraph (3)(B) or on
the initiative of the Chief of Engineers, the Chief of
Engineers shall determine whether a project study is
controversial.
(5) FACTORS
TO
CONSIDER.—In determining
whether a project study is controversial, the Chief of
Engineers shall consider if—
(A) there is a significant public dispute as
to the size, nature, or effects of the project; or
(B) there is a significant public dispute as
to the economic or environmental costs or bene-
fits of the project.
(6) PROJECT STUDIES EXCLUDED FROM PEER
REVIEW.—Project studies that may be excluded from
peer review under paragraph (1) are—
(A) a study for a project the Chief of En-
gineers determines—
(i) is not controversial;
(ii) has no more than negligible ad-
verse impacts on scarce or unique cultural,
historic, or tribal resources;
(iii) has no substantial adverse im-
pacts 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 neg-
ligible adverse impact on a species listed as
endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1539 et seq.) or the critical habitat
of such species designated under such Act;
and
(B) a study for a project pursued under
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the Flood Con-
trol 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 Fed-
eral participation in the cost of protecting the
shores of publicly owned property’’, approved
August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), section 111
of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33
U.S.C. 426i), section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An
Act authorizing the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers
and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved
March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 1135
of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
U.S.C. 2330), or section 204 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C.
2326).
(7) APPEAL.—The decision of the Chief of En-
gineers whether to peer review a project study shall
be published in the Federal Register and shall be
subject to appeal by a person referred to in para-
graph (3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the Secretary of the
Army if such appeal is made within the 30-day pe-
riod following the date of such publication.
(8) DETERMINATION OF PROJECT COST.—For
purposes of determining the estimated total cost of
a project under paragraph (3)(A), the project cost
shall be based upon the reasonable estimates of the
Chief of Engineers at the completion of the recon-
naissance study for the project. If the reasonable es-
timate of project costs is subsequently determined to
be in excess of the amount in paragraph (3)(A), the
Chief of Engineers shall make a determination
whether a project study should be reviewed under
this section.
(b) TIMING OF PEER REVIEW.—The Chief of Engi-
neers shall determine the timing of a peer review of a
project study under subsection (a). In all cases, the peer
review shall occur during the period beginning on the date
of the completion of the reconnaissance study for the
project and ending on the date the draft report of the
Chief of Engineers for the project is made available for
public comment. Where the Chief of Engineers has not
initiated a peer review of a project study, the Chief of En-
gineers shall consider, at a minimum, whether to initiate
a peer review at the time that—
(1) the without project conditions are identified;
(2) the array of alternatives to be considered
are identified; and
(3) the preferred alternative is identified.
with a strong financial or organizational interest in
the project.
(4) 
CONGRESSIONAL
NOTIFICATION.—Upon
identification of a project study for peer review
under this section, but prior to initiation of any re-
view, the Chief of Engineers shall notify the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives of
such review.
(d) DUTIES OF PANELS.—A panel of experts estab-
lished for a peer review for a project study under this sec-
tion shall, consistent with the scope of the referral for
review—
(1) conduct a peer review for the project study
submitted to the panel for review;
(2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the
economic and environmental methods, models, and
analyses used by the Chief of Engineers;
(3) provide timely written and oral comments to
the Chief of Engineers throughout the development
of the project study, as requested; and
(4) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final re-
port containing the panel’s economic, engineering,
and environmental analysis of the project study, in-
cluding the panel’s assessment of the adequacy and
acceptability of the economic and environmental
methods, models, and analyses used by the Chief of
Engineers, to accompany the publication of the
project study.
(e) DURATION
OF
PROJECT
STUDY
PEER
RE-
VIEWS.—
(1) DEADLINE.—A panel of experts shall—
(A) complete its peer review under this sec-
tion for a project study and submit a report to
the Chief of Engineers under subsection (d)(4)
within 180 days after the date of establishment
of the panel, or, if the Chief of Engineers deter-
mines that a longer period of time is necessary,
such period of time established by the Chief of
Engineers, but in no event later than 90 days
after the date a draft project study is made
available for public review; and
(B) terminate on the date of submission of
the report.
(2) FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE.—If a panel
does not complete its peer review of a project study
under this section and submit a report to the Chief
of Engineers under subsection (d)(4) on or before
the deadline established by paragraph (1) for the
project study, the Chief of Engineers shall continue
the project study for the project that is subject to
peer review by the panel without delay.
(f) RECOMMENDATIONS OF PANEL.—
(1) CONSIDERATION BY THE CHIEF OF ENGI-
NEERS.—After receiving a report on a project study
from a panel of experts under this section and be-
fore entering a final record of decision for the
project, the Chief of Engineers shall consider any
recommendations contained in the report and pre-
pare 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 avail-
able to the public; and
(B) transmit to Congress a copy of the re-
port, together with any such written response,
on the date of a final report of the Chief of En-
gineers or other final decision document for a
project study that is subject to peer review by
the panel.
(g) COSTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The costs of a panel of ex-
perts 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 para-
graph (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 consid-
ered has not been identified; and
(2) project studies initiated during the period
beginning on such date of enactment and ending 4
years after such date of enactment.
(i) REPORT.—Within 4 1/2 years of the date of enact-
ment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit
a report to Congress on the implementation of this section.
(j) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Ad-
visory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to
any peer review panel established under this section.
(k) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect any authority of the Chief of Engi-
neers to cause or conduct a peer review of a water re-
sources project existing on the date of enactment of this
section.
(l) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defi-
nitions apply:
(1) PROJECT
STUDY.—The term ‘‘project
study’’ means a feasibility study or reevaluation
study for a project. The term also includes any other
study associated with a modification or update of a
project that includes an environmental impact state-
ment, including the environmental impact statement.
(2) AFFECTED
STATE.—The term ‘‘affected
State’’, as used with respect to a project, means a
State all or a portion of which is within the drainage
basin in which the project is or would be located and
would be economically or environmentally affected as
a consequence of the project.
(3) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘‘eligi-
ble 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 ad-
ministering peer review panels.
SEC. 2034. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 2361 of
title 10, United States Code, the Secretary is authorized
to provide assistance through contracts, cooperative agree-
ments, and grants to—
(1) the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Ten-
nessee, for establishment and operation of the
Southeastern Water Resources Institute to study
sustainable development and utilization of water re-
sources in the Southeastern United States; and
(2) Lewis and Clark Community College, Illi-
nois, 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 collabo-
rative 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, devel-
oping watershed and river management strategies,
and educating students and the public on river
issues.
(b) AUTHORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry
out subsection (a)(1) $5,000,000 and to carry out sub-
section (a)(2) $5,000,000. Such sums shall remain avail-
able until expended.
TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED
PROVISIONS
SEC. 3001. COOK INLET, ALASKA.
(a) ANCHORAGE HARBOR.—The project for naviga-
tion improvements, Cook Inlet, Alaska (Anchorage Har-
bor, Alaska), authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299) and modified by sec-
tion 199 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976
(90 Stat. 2944), is further modified to direct the Secretary
to establish a harbor depth of minus 45 feet mean lower
low water for a length of 5,200 feet at the modified Port
of Anchorage intermodal marine facility at each phase as
such phases are completed and thereafter as the entire
project is completed, at a total cost of $8,175,000. Federal
maintenance shall continue for the existing facility until
the modified facility is completed. Federal maintenance of
the modified project shall be in accordance with such sec-
tion 101; except that the project shall be maintained at
a depth of minus 45 feet mean lower low water for such
5,200 feet, at an estimated annual cost of $6,000,000.
(b) NAVIGATION CHANNEL.—The Secretary shall
modify the channel depth to run the entire length of Fire
Island Range and Point Woronzof Range maintaining the
same width and modifying the depth to minus 45 feet
mean lower low water in the existing Cook Inlet Naviga-
tion Channel approach to Anchorage Harbor, Alaska, at
a total cost of $21,525,000. The project shall be main-
tained at a depth of minus 45 mean lower low water, at
an estimated annual cost of $3,000,000.
SEC. 3002. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be
expended for the project for navigation, King Cove Har-
bor, Alaska, being carried out under section 107 of the
River Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be
$8,000,000.
SEC. 3003. SITKA, ALASKA.
The Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, element of the
project for navigation Southeast Alaska Harbors of Ref-
uge, Alaska, authorized by section 101 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4801), is
modified to direct the Secretary to take such action as
may be necessary to correct design deficiencies in such ele-
ment, at a Federal expense of $6,300,000.
SEC. 3004. 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 Har-
bor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $10,000,000.
SEC. 3005. NOGALES WASH AND TRIBUTARIES, ARIZONA.
The project for flood control, Nogales Wash and trib-
utaries, Arizona, authorized by section 101(a)(4) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat.
4606) and modified by section 303 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3711) and section
302 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2600), is further modified to direct the Sec-
retary to use the Mexico Plan-1st Added Increment, as
described in the limited reevaluation report dated Sep-
tember 13, 2002, to determine the cost allocation and cost
apportionment for the project.
SEC. 3006. GRAND PRAIRIE REGION AND BAYOU METO
BASIN, ARKANSAS.
The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation
report for the Bayou Meto basin element of the project
for Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkan-
sas, reauthorized by section 363(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3730), and
make a determination of whether the element is feasible,
regardless of mission priorities.
SEC. 3007. SAINT FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS.
The project for flood control, Saint Francis Basin,
Missouri and Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the
Flood Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to construct improvements along
Ditch No. 1 that consist of a gated culvert through the
Saint Francis Levee and related channel improvements.
SEC. 3008. AMERICAN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS, CALI-
FORNIA.
The project for flood damage reduction, American
and Sacramento Rivers, California, authorized by section
101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3662–3663) and modified by section 366
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 319–320), is further modified to direct the Secretary
to carry out the project, at a total cost of $205,000,000.
SEC. 3009. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin,
California, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Re-
sources 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 city of Woodland’s storm drainage system, includ-
ing all appurtenant features, erosion control measures,
and environmental protection features. Such mitigation
shall restore the city’s preproject capacity (1,360 cubic
feet per second) to release water to the Yolo Bypass, in-
cluding channel improvements, an outlet work through the
west levee of the Yolo Bypass, and a new low-flow cross
channel to handle city and county storm drainage and set-
tling basin flows (1,760 cubic feet per second) when the
Yolo Bypass is in a low flow condition.
SEC. 3010. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER’S CREEK, CALI-
FORNIA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Gray-
son 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 to direct the
Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that
the work is integral to the project and to authorize the
Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration bene-
fits in determining the Federal interest in the project.
SEC. 3011. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCK-
TON SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stock-
ton, California, authorized by section 301 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) is modified—
(1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the
cost of the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and
Stockton Ship Channel element of the project may
be provided in the form of in-kind services and ma-
terials; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of such element the
cost of planning and design work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of an agreement
for such planning and design if the Secretary deter-
mines that such work is integral to such element.
SEC. 3012. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALI-
FORNIA.
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 prepare a
limited reevaluation report to determine whether mainte-
nance of the project is feasible. If the Secretary deter-
mines that maintenance of the project is feasible, the Sec-
retary shall carry out the maintenance.
SEC. 3013. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, LOS ANGELES, CALI-
FORNIA.
The project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, Los
Angeles, California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2577), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of the planning, design, and construction work carried out
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partner-
ship agreement for the project if the Secretary determines
the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3014. NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, NAPA
RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
In carrying out the feasibility study for the project
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh
Restoration, Napa and Sonoma Counties, California, the
Secretary shall determine whether work carried out by the
non-Federal interest is integral to the project. In any case
in which the work is determined to be integral to the
project before completion of the final report of the Chief
of Engineers on the project, such work shall be included
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that
the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3017. 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 Oper-
ation for Prado Dam for Seasonal Additional Water Con-
servation between the Department of the Army and the
Orange County Water District (including all the condi-
tions and stipulations in the memorandum) shall remain
in effect for volumes of water made available prior to such
modifications.
SEC. 3018. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL,
CALIFORNIA.
The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water
Ship Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4092), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of planning and design work carried out by the non-Fed-
eral interest before the date of the partnership agreement
for the project if the Secretary determines that the work
is integral to the project.
SEC. 3019. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALI-
FORNIA.
The project for flood control, Sacramento River, Cali-
fornia, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act
to provide for the control of the floods of the Mississippi
River and of the Sacramento River, California, and for
other purposes’’, approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 949),
and modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water De-
velopment Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), sec-
tion 301(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3110), title I of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841),
and section 305 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 299), is further modified to direct the
Secretary to credit the non-Federal interest up to
$4,000,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project for costs incurred by the non-Federal interest
in carrying out activities (including the provision of lands,
easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged mate-
rial disposal areas) associated with environmental compli-
ance for the project if the Secretary determines that the
activities are integral to the project.
SEC. 3020. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood control, San Lorenzo River,
California, authorized by section 101(a)(5) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3663), is
modified to direct the Secretary to credit not more than
$2,000,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project for the cost of the work carried out by the
non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines the
work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3021. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.
The project for flood damage reduction and recre-
ation, Upper Guadalupe River, California, described as the
Bypass Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers dated Au-
gust 19, 1998, 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, at a total cost of $140,328,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $70,164,000, and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $70,164,000. The non-Federal share of
the cost of the project shall be subject to section 103(a)(3)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2213(a)(3)).
SEC. 3022. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wal-
nut Creek Channel, California, being carried out under
section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary
to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal
interest before the date of the partnership agreement for
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project and to authorize the Secretary to
consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in deter-
mining the Federal interest in the project.
SEC. 3023. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALI-
FORNIA.
The project for improvement of the quality of the en-
vironment, Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California,
being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is
modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of
the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3024. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALI-
FORNIA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wild-
cat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California, being carried
out under section 206 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct
the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of
the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by
the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that
the work is integral to the project and to authorize the
Secretary to consider national ecosystem restoration bene-
fits in determining the Federal interest in the project.
SEC. 3025. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.
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 shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the project the cost of nourishment and renourish-
ment associated with the shore protection project 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. 3026. 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 Develop-
ment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301), is further modified to
direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of mitigation con-
struction and derelict erosion control structure removal
carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of
the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3027. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.
The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and
Estero Island segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized
under 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 De-
velopment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2602), is further modi-
fied to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Fed-
eral share of the cost of the project the cost of work car-
ried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the
partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary de-
termines that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3028. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Jacksonville Harbor,
Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the naviga-
tion features in accordance with the Report of the Chief
of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of
$14,658,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$9,636,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$5,022,000.
SEC. 3029. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.
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 Develop-
ment 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 Sec-
retary to construct the project in accordance with the fea-
sibility report of October 2002, at a total cost of
$12,632,200, with an estimated Federal cost of
$7,882,493 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,749,702, and at an estimated average annual cost of
$1,044,400 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year life
of the project, with an estimated annual Federal cost of
$651,706 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost of
$392,694.
SEC. 3030. MANATEE HARBOR, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Manatee Harbor, Florida,
authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093) and modified by
section 102(j) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1990 (104 Stat. 4612), is further modified—
(1) to include the construction of an extension
of the south channel a distance of approximately
1584 feet consistent with the general reevaluation
report, dated April 2002, prepared by the Jackson-
ville District Corps of Engineers, at a total cost of
$11,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$8,475,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$2,825,000;
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of in-kind services and materials provided for the
project by the non-Federal interest;
(3) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of planning, design, and construction work carried
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of
the partnership agreement for the project if the Sec-
retary determines that the work is integral to the
project; and
(4) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the
project as modified at a total cost of $61,500,000.
SEC. 3031. MIAMI HARBOR, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel,
Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and
modified by section 315 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 302), is further modified to
include as a project purpose environmental mitigation re-
quired before July 18, 2003, by a Federal, State, or local
environmental agency for unauthorized or unanticipated
environmental impacts within, or in the vicinity of, the au-
thorized project.
SEC. 3032. TAMPA HARBOR, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida,
referred to in section 4 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1042), is modified to
direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, de-
sign, and construction work carried out by the non-Fed-
eral interest before the date of the partnership agreement
for the project if the Secretary determines that the work
is integral to the project.
SEC. 3033. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA.
The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend
Channel, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
276) is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward
100
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of planning, design, and construction work carried out by
the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership
agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that
the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3034. TAMPA HARBOR-CUT B, FLORIDA.
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 Sec-
retary to construct passing lanes in an area approximately
3.5 miles long and centered on Tampa Bay Cut B if the
Secretary determines that such improvements are nec-
essary for navigation safety.
SEC. 3035. LITTLE WOOD RIVER, GOODING, IDAHO.
The project for flood damage reduction, Little Wood
River, Gooding, Idaho, being carried out under section
205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s),
is modified—
(1) to authorize the non-Federal interest to pro-
vide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project in the form of services, materials, sup-
plies, or other in-kind contributions;
(2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to use
funds made available under any other Federal pro-
gram toward the non-Federal share of the cost of
101
the project if such use of the funds is permitted
under the other Federal program; and
(3) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project, to make
a determination under section 103(m) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C.
2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest’s ability to
pay.
SEC. 3036. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, ILLINOIS.
(a) ONGOING PROJECT.—The project for improve-
ment of the quality of the environment, Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal, Illinois, being carried out under section
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2309a) to provide for a dispersal barrier for
invasive species, is modified to allow that Federal assist-
ance made available through other Federal agencies may
be used toward payment of the non-Federal share of the
costs of the project.
(b) NEW WORK.—The Secretary shall conduct a
study of a project for the improvement of the quality of
the environment, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illi-
nois, and if the Secretary determines that the project is
appropriate, shall carry out a project under section 1135
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2309a), including upgrades or improvements to the
102
existing barrier for aquatic invasive species. Federal as-
sistance made available by other Federal agencies may be
used toward payment of the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project.
SEC. 3037. HENNEPIN-HOPPER LAKES, ILLINOIS.
(a) PROJECT PURPOSE.—The project for flood con-
trol, Hennepin levees, Illinois, authorized by the Flood
Control Act of June 26, 1936 (35 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, Hennepin-
Hopper Lakes, 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 assist-
ance under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act au-
thorizing 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. 3038. MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND BIG MUDDY RIVER, ILLI-
NOIS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood control, Mis-
sissippi River and Big Muddy River, Illinois, authorized
103
by the Flood Control Act of 1938, is modified to authorize
the Secretary to carry out repair and rehabilitation of the
project at a total cost of $22,600,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $16,950,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $5,650,000, and to perform operation and
maintenance of the project thereafter.
(b) OTHER ASSISTANCE.—Federal assistance made
available through the Department of Agriculture may be
used toward payment of the non-Federal share of the costs
of the repair and rehabilitation under this section.
(c) UNITED STATES LANDS.—Costs under this sec-
tion for the repair and rehabilitation allocable to the pro-
tection of lands owned by the United States shall be a
Federal responsibility. The Secretary shall seek reimburse-
ment from the Secretary of Agriculture for the costs allo-
cated to protecting lands owned by the Department of Ag-
riculture.
(d) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF NON-FED-
ERAL LANDS.—The cost of operation and maintenance
under this section allocated to protecting non-Federal
lands shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
SEC. 3039. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS.
(a) PROJECT PURPOSE.—The project for flood con-
trol at Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, authorized by section 5
of the Flood Control Act of June 26, 1936 (35 Stat.
104
1584), 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 assist-
ance under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act au-
thorizing 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. 3040. 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 De-
velopment 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 assist-
ance under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act au-
thorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers
105
and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes’’,
approved August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).
SEC. 3041. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.
The project for flood control, Little Calumet River,
Indiana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the
project in accordance with the postauthorization change
report dated August 2000, at a total cost of
$186,300,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$136,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$49,700,000.
SEC. 3042. 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 con-
trol, and other purposes’’, approved June 22, 1936 (49
Stat. 1586), and modified by section 323 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and
section 322 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 303–304), is further modified to author-
ize the Secretary to undertake the riverfront alterations
described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront Concept
Plan, dated February 1994, for the Fall Creek Reach fea-
107
to provide a 100-year level of flood protection for the city
of Prestonsburg.
SEC. 3045. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA,
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED.
The project for flood damage reduction and recre-
ation, 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 Divi-
sion D of Public Law 108–7 (117 Stat. 140), is further
modified to direct the Secretary to carry out the project
with the cost sharing for the project determined in accord-
ance with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effect on
October 11, 1996.
SEC. 3046. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 315(a)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603–
2604) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(1) is authorized to study, design, construct,
operate, and maintain, at Federal expense, a Type
A Regional Visitor Center in the vicinity of Morgan
City, Louisiana, in consultation with the State of
Louisiana, to provide information to the public on
the Atchafalaya River system and other associated
108
waterways that have influenced surrounding commu-
nities, and national and local water resources devel-
opment of the Army Corps of Engineers in South
Central Louisiana; and’’.
(b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 315(b) of
such Act is amended by striking ‘‘(a)’’ and inserting
‘‘(a)(2)’’.
(c) DONATIONS.—Section 315 of such Act is amend-
ed by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(c) DONATIONS.—In carrying out subsection (a)(1),
the Mississippi River Commission is authorized to accept
the donation of cash, funds, lands, materials, and services
from non-Federal governmental entities and nonprofit cor-
porations.’’.
SEC. 
3047. 
PUBLIC 
ACCESS, 
ATCHAFALAYA 
BASIN
FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA.
The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin
Floodway System, Louisiana, project, authorized by the
Water Resources Development Act 1986 (100 Stat. 4142),
is modified to authorize the Secretary to acquire from will-
ing sellers the fee interest, exclusive of oil, gas, and min-
erals, of an additional 20,000 acres of land within the
Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for the public access
feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, to en-
109
hance fish and wildlife resources, at a total cost of
$4,000,000.
SEC. 3048. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI
RIVER TO SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.
The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses,
J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to
Shreveport, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.
4142) and modified by section 4(h) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), sec-
tion 102(p) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 301(b)(7) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), and
section 316 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2572), is further modified to authorize
the purchase and reforesting of lands which have been
cleared or converted to agricultural uses.
SEC. 3049. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA.
The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, au-
thorized as part of the project for hurricane-flood protec-
tion on Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, by section 204 of
the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077) and modi-
fied by section 365 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3739), is further modified to direct
the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of
110
the cost of the project the costs of relocating oyster beds
in the Davis Pond project area if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the Mississippi Delta Region
project.
SEC. 3050. NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LOUISIANA.
The New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana, project for
hurricane protection, authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1184), is modified
to authorize the Secretary to carry out the work on the
St. Jude to City Price, Upper Reach A back levee. The
Federal share of the cost of such work shall be 70 percent.
SEC. 3051. 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 mainte-
nance’’ and inserting ‘‘operation, maintenance,
rehabilitation, repair, and replacement’’; and
(B) by striking ‘‘Algiers Channel’’ and in-
serting ‘‘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.’’.
111
SEC. 3052. 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
$10,000,000.
SEC. 3053. UNION RIVER, MAINE.
The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, au-
thorized 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 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 de-
grees 27 minutes 20.71 seconds west about 132.34 feet
to a point N316,038.37, E1,004,308.61.
SEC. 3054. CASS RIVER, SPAULDING TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage re-
duction, Cass River, Spaulding Township, Saginaw Coun-
ty, Michigan, being carried out under section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified
to incorporate flood control works constructed by the non-
Federal interests between Sheridan Road and East Street
112
(M–13) if the Secretary determines that the inclusion of
such flood control works is feasible and to authorize the
Secretary to carry out the project in accordance with the
report prepared by the non-Federal interest if the Sec-
retary determines that the report meets the evaluation and
design standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the
project is feasible.
(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of
work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the
date of the partnership agreement for the project if the
Secretary determines that the work is integral to the
project.
SEC. 3055. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHI-
GAN.
(a) IN
GENERAL.—The project for emergency
streambank and shoreline protection, Detroit River Shore-
line, 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 max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for
the project shall be $3,000,000.
113
SEC. 3056. WATER RESOURCES INSTITUTE, MUSKEGON,
MICHIGAN.
(a) IN
GENERAL.—The project for emergency
streambank and shoreline protection, Water Resources In-
stitute, Muskegon, Michigan, being carried out under sec-
tion 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C.
701r), is modified to provide for completion of shoreline
protection measures in accordance with the approved
plans and specifications for Grand Valley State University,
Lake Michigan Center, dated August 6, 2001.
(b) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for
the project shall be $2,000,000.
(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of
design and implementation of shoreline protection meas-
ures 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. 3057. SAGINAW RIVER, BAY CITY, MICHIGAN.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be
expended for the project for emergency streambank pro-
tection, Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan, being carried
out under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946
(33 U.S.C. 701r), shall be $2,000,000.
114
SEC. 3058. ADA, MINNESOTA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood damage re-
duction, Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried
out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948
(33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to authorize the Secretary
to consider national ecosystem restoration benefits in de-
termining the Federal interest in the project.
(b) EVALUATION
OF BENEFITS
AND COSTS.—In
evaluating the economic benefits and costs for the project,
the Secretary shall not consider the emergency levee adja-
cent to Judicial Ditch No. 51 in the determination of con-
ditions existing prior to construction of the project.
(c) SPECIAL RULE.—In evaluating and implementing
the project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal in-
terest to participate in the financing of the project in ac-
cordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources De-
velopment 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.
SEC. 3059. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Du-
luth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota, being carried out
under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960
(33 U.S.C. 577) and modified by section 321 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), is
further modified to authorize the Secretary to provide
115
public access and recreational facilities as generally de-
scribed in the Detailed Project Report and Environmental
Assessment, McQuade Road Harbor of Refuge, Duluth,
Minnesota, dated August 1999.
(b) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall provide credit to-
ward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for
the costs of design work carried out before the date of
the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary
determines that the work is integral to the project.
(c) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for
the project shall be $5,000,000.
SEC. 3060. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.
The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-
Federal share of the cost of the navigation project for
Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota, carried out under sec-
tion 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C.
577) and modified by section 312 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), for the costs
of design work carried out before the date of the partner-
ship agreement for the project if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3061. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is directed to im-
plement under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
116
1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) the locally preferred plan for flood
damage reduction, Granite Falls, Minnesota, substantially
in accordance with the detailed project report dated 2002,
at a total cost of $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $8,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,000,000.
(b) PROJECT FINANCING.—In evaluating and imple-
menting the project under this section, the Secretary shall
allow the non-Federal interests to participate in the fi-
nancing of the project in accordance with section 903(c)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4184), to the extent that the detailed project report
evaluation indicates that applying such section is nec-
essary to implement the project.
(c) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit toward the
non-Federal share of the project the cost of design and
construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest
before date of execution of a partnership agreement for
the project if the Secretary determines that the work is
integral to the project.
(d) MAXIMUM FUNDING.—The maximum amount of
Federal funds that may be expended for the flood damage
reduction shall be $8,000,000.
117
SEC. 3062. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.
Section 527 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2657) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by inserting after ‘‘June
30, 1999’’ the following ‘‘, and including Hennepin
Island and adjacent areas on the east side of the
Mississippi River’’; and
(2) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’
and inserting ‘‘$25,000,000’’.
SEC. 3063. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.
The project for flood control, Red Lake River at
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 adja-
cent and interconnected areas generally known as the
Sampson and Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance
with the Feasibility Report Supplement, Local Flood Pro-
tection, 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. 3064. 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
118
operation and maintenance of the general navigation fa-
cilities as a Federal responsibility.
SEC. 3065. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.
The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Min-
nesota, carried out under section 107 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to in-
clude operation and maintenance of the general navigation
facilities as a Federal responsibility.
SEC. 3066. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Two
Harbors, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107
of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577),
is modified to include construction of a dredged material
disposal facility, including actions required to clear the
site.
(b) LANDS, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY.—
Non-Federal interests shall be responsible for providing all
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary
for the construction of the dredged material disposal facil-
ity.
(c) MAXIMUM FEDERAL EXPENDITURE.—The max-
imum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for
the project shall be $5,000,000.
119
SEC. 3067. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island,
Harrison County, Mississippi, being carried out under sec-
tion 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992
(33 U.S.C. 2326) is modified to authorize the non-Federal
interest to provide any portion of the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project in the form of services, materials,
supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
SEC. 3068. BOIS BRULE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT,
MISSOURI.
The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be
expended for the project for flood damage reduction, Bois
Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, being car-
ried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of
1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), shall be $25,000,000.
SEC. 3069. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA.
The project for ecosystem restoration and flood dam-
age reduction, Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska,
authorized by section 101(b)(20) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified—
(1) to direct the Secretary to provide credit to-
ward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project
or reimbursement for the costs of any work that has
been or will be performed by the non-Federal inter-
est before, on, or after the approval of the project
partnership agreement, including work performed by
120
the non-Federal interest in connection with the de-
sign and construction of 7 upstream detention stor-
age structures, if the Secretary determines that the
work is integral to the project;
(2) to require that in-kind work to be credited
under paragraph (1) be subject to audit; and
(3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance
funds from the non-Federal interest as needed to
maintain the project schedule.
SEC. 3070. ALAMOGORDO, NEW MEXICO.
The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation
report, dated March 1999, for the project for flood protec-
tion, Alamogordo, New Mexico, authorized by section 203
of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 85), and deter-
mine if the locally preferred flood detention basin would
provide the same level of flood protection for the north
side of the city of Alamogordo at a cost that is not greater
than the cost of authorized channel improvements. If the
Secretary determines that the flood detention basin is fea-
sible, would not provide a lesser level of flood protection,
and can be constructed at the no additional cost, the Sec-
retary may construct the flood detention basin instead of
the channel improvements. The Federal share of the cost
of the flood detention basin alternative shall be calculated
121
in the same manner as if the channel improvements
project was being constructed.
SEC. 3071. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.
The project for shoreline protection, Orchard Beach,
Bronx, New York, authorized by section 554 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781), is
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project, at a total cost of $18,200,000.
SEC. 3072. TIMES BEACH, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.
The project for improvement of the quality of the en-
vironment, Times Beach, Buffalo, New York, being car-
ried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4251), is modified to direct
the Secretary to credit not more than $750,000 toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the
cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partner-
ship agreement for the project if the Secretary determines
the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3073. 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—
122
(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 tem-
porary storage facility to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives, the Committee on Environ-
ment 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 ma-
terial generated in connection with the project
suitable for beneficial reuse will be used at sites
in the State of New Jersey to the extent that
there are sufficient sites available; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of construction of the temporary storage facility if
the Secretary determines that the work is integral to
the project.
123
SEC. 3074. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.
Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended to read as fol-
lows:
‘‘(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, Ca-
yuga-Seneca, Oswego, and Champlain Canals and the his-
toric alignments of these canals, including the cities of Al-
bany and Buffalo.’’.
SEC. 3075. 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 Con-
tract Number DACW56–79–C–002 shall satisfy the obli-
gations of the city under that contract.
SEC. 3076. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL,
MCKENZIE SUBBASIN, OREGON.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for environmental
restoration, Willamette River Temperature Control,
McKenzie Subbasin, Oregon, authorized by section
101(a)(25) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 (110 Stat. 3665) and modified by section 344 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat.
124
308), is further modified to direct the Secretary to pay,
subject to the availability of appropriations, compensation
for losses to small business attributable to the implemen-
tation of the drawdown conducted as a part of project im-
plementation in 2002.
(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—Not later than
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec-
retary shall establish, and provide public notice of, a
program—
(1) to receive claims for compensation for losses
to small business attributable to the implementation
of the drawdown conducted as a part of project im-
plementation in 2002;
(2) to evaluate claims for such losses; and
(3) to pay claims for such losses.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION
OF PROGRAM.—In carrying
out the program established under subsection (b), the Sec-
retary shall provide—
(1) public notice of the existence of the pro-
gram sufficient to reach those in the area that may
have suffered losses to small businesses;
(2) a period for the submission of claims of not
fewer than 45 days and not greater than 75 days
from the date of the first public notice of the exist-
ence of the program;
125
(3) for the evaluation of each claim submitted
to the Secretary under the program and a deter-
mination of whether the claim constitutes a loss to
a small business on or before the last day of the 30-
day period beginning on the date of submission of
the claim; and
(4) for the payment of each claim that the Sec-
retary determines constitutes a loss to a small busi-
ness on or before the last day of the 30-day period
beginning on the date of the Secretary’s determina-
tion.
(d) LOSS TO A SMALL BUSINESS DEFINED.—In this
section, the term ‘‘loss to a small business’’ means docu-
mented financial losses associated with commercial activ-
ity of a small business that can be attributed to the tur-
bidity levels in the McKenzie River being higher than
those anticipated in the original planning documents and
public announcements existing before the initiation of the
drawdown in 2002. Commercial losses include decline in
sales, loss of revenue (including loss of revenue from can-
celed or delayed reservations at lodging establishments),
and any other financial losses that can be shown to be
associated with the elevated turbidity levels in the
McKenzie River in 2002.
126
(e) PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.—The payment of claims
for losses to small businesses shall be a Federal responsi-
bility.
SEC. 3077. FRENCH CREEK, UNION CITY DAM, PENNSYL-
VANIA.
The project for flood control French Creek, Union
City Dam, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1189), is modified
to include recreation as a project purpose.
SEC. 3078. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT OLYPHANT, PENNSYL-
VANIA.
The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at
Olyphant, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(16) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4803), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct
the project, at a total cost of $20,000,000.
SEC. 3079. LACKAWANNA RIVER AT SCRANTON, PENNSYL-
VANIA.
The project for flood control, Lackawanna River at
Scranton, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(17) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat.
4803), is modified to authorize the Secretary to construct
the project, at a total cost of $23,000,000.
127
SEC. 3080. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.
The Secretary may take such action as may be nec-
essary, including construction of a breakwater, to prevent
shoreline erosion between .07 and 2.7 miles south of Penn-
sylvania State Route 994 on the east shore of Raystown
Lake, Pennsylvania.
SEC. 3081. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS
CREEK, 
ALLEGHENY 
COUNTY, 
PENNSYL-
VANIA.
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration,
Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, being carried out under section 206
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33
U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to credit
up to $400,000 toward the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project for planning and design work carried out
by the non-Federal interest before the date of the partner-
ship agreement for the project if the Secretary determines
that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3082. SOLOMON’S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYL-
VANIA.
The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, Penn-
sylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is
modified to include as a project element the project for
128
flood control for Solomon’s Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsyl-
vania.
SEC. 3083. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.
Section 313(h)(2) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4847; 109 Stat. 407; 117
Stat. 142) is amended by striking ‘‘Allegheny, Armstrong,
Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, Franklin,
Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Mifflin,
Somerset, Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland Coun-
ties’’ and inserting ‘‘Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford,
Blair, Cambria, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hun-
tingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Somerset, Washington, and
Westmoreland Counties’’.
SEC. 3084. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.
In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyo-
ming Valley, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 4124), the Secretary shall coordinate with non-Fed-
eral interests to review opportunities for increased public
access.
SEC. 3085. LITTLE LIMESTONE CREEK, JONESBOROUGH,
TENNESSEE.
In evaluating and implementing the project for flood
damage reduction, Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough,
Tennessee, under section 205 of the Flood Control Act
129
of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), the Secretary shall allow the
non-Federal interest to participate in the financing of the
project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), to the
extent that the Secretary’s evaluation indicates that apply-
ing such section is necessary to implement the project.
SEC. 3086. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—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—
(1) to authorize the Secretary to carry out the
project to a depth of 10 feet by 100 feet wide from
mile 2.5 to mile 11 on Cedar Bayou if the Secretary
determines that the project is feasible; and
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of planning and design work carried out by the non-
Federal interest for the project if the Secretary de-
termines that such work is integral to the project.
(b) COST SHARING.—Cost sharing for construction
and operation and maintenance of the project shall be de-
termined in accordance with section 101 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).
130
SEC. 3087. 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 improve-
ment 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 own-
ers of a Lake Kemp improvement, their lessees, or occu-
pants 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 flow-
age easement of Lake Kemp, Texas, below elevation 1159
feet mean sea level.
SEC. 3088. 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—
131
(1) to include as part of the project flood pro-
tection works to reroute drainage to Raymondville
Drain constructed by the non-Federal interests in
Hidalgo County in the vicinity Edinburg, Texas, if
the Secretary determines that such work meets fea-
sibility requirements;
(2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project the cost
of planning, design, and construction work carried
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of
the partnership agreement for the project if the Sec-
retary determines that the work is integral to the
project; and
(3) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the
non-Federal share of the cost of the project, to make
a determination within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, under section 103(m) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33
U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest’s abil-
ity to pay.
SEC. 3089. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY,
TEXAS.
The project for ecosystem restoration and storm dam-
age reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay,
Texas, authorized by section 556 of the Water Resources
132
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), is modified to
include recreation as a project purpose.
SEC. 3090. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS.
The Secretary is authorized to convert flowage ease-
ments to fee simple title in the subdivisions of Buffalo
Springs and Frees Lakeview, and adjacent areas, located
within the boundaries necessary for the operation of the
Proctor Lake project, Texas, authorized by section 203
of the Flood Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and
to purchase all improved and unimproved properties with-
in such boundaries and to pay relocation assistance bene-
fits to qualified landowners as applicable under the provi-
sions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et
seq.).
SEC. 3091. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.
The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel,
Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act
of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259) as part of the comprehensive plan
for flood protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio
Rivers in Texas and modified by section 103 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and
section 335 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is further modified to authorize
the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of
133
the cost of the project the cost of design and construction
work carried out by the non-Federal interest for the
project if the Secretary determines that the work is inte-
gral to the project.
SEC. 3092. ELIZABETH RIVER, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.
Section 358 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking ‘‘Sep-
tember 30, 1999’’ and inserting ‘‘May 4, 1997’’.
SEC. 3093. ROANOKE RIVER UPPER BASIN, VIRGINIA.
The project for flood control, Roanoke River Upper
Basin, Virginia, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4126) and
modified by section 110 of the Energy and Water Develop-
ment Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 650), is further
modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the
project, at a total cost of $64,300,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $42,100,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $22,200,000.
SEC. 3094. BLAIR AND SITCUM WATERWAYS, TACOMA HAR-
BOR, WASHINGTON.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The project for navigation, Blair
and Sitcum Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington, au-
thorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4096) and deepened to
51 feet under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act
134
of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to direct the Sec-
retary to review the locally prepared plan for the Blair
and Sitcum Waterways, Washington, 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, to authorize the Secretary to carry out the
plan, at a Federal cost of $4,240,000.
(b) NON-FEDERAL WORK.—The Secretary shall pro-
vide credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of
the project, or reimbursement for, the cost of work carried
out by the non-Federal interest before the date of the part-
nership agreement for the project if the Secretary deter-
mines that the work is integral to the project.
SEC. 3095. 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 ‘‘$89,000,000’’.
SEC. 3096. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.
The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wis-
consin, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of August
30, 1852, 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 $300,000.
135
SEC. 3097. 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 ac-
cordance with water control regulation manuals (or revi-
sions thereto) developed by the Secretary, after consulta-
tion with the Governor of Minnesota and affected tribal
governments, landowners, and commercial and rec-
reational users. The water control regulation manuals
(and any revisions thereto) shall be effective when the Sec-
retary 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 nec-
136
essary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety
of the dam or where the drawdown of lake levels is in an-
ticipation of flood control operations.’’.
SEC. 3098. 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, Fall River Har-
bor, Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731); ex-
cept that the authorized depth of that portion of the
project extending riverward of the Charles M.
Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and Som-
erset, Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet.
(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).
(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 enact-
ment of this Act, unless, during such period, funds have
been obligated for the construction (including planning
and design) of the project.
137
SEC. 3099. 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, MICHI-
GAN AND WISCONSIN.—The project for navigation,
Menominee Harbor and River, Michigan and Wis-
consin, authorized by section 101 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized
on April 15, 2002, in accordance with section
1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)).
(2) MANITOWOC
HARBOR, WISCONSIN.—That
portion of the project for navigation, Manitowoc
Harbor, Wisconsin, consisting of the channel in the
south part of the outer harbor, deauthorized by sec-
tion 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76
Stat. 1176).
SEC. 3100. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The following projects are not au-
thorized 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 River and
Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), con-
138
sisting 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 north-
westerly 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 east limit of the existing channel,
N125,133.87, E482,488.19, thence running south-
westerly about 1,588.98 feet to the point of origin.
(2) NORWALK
HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The
following portions a 10-foot channel of the project
for navigation, Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, au-
thorized by the first section of the Rivers and Har-
bors Appropriations Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat.
1276):
(A) An approximate 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 fol-
lows: 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 run-
139
ning south 00 degrees 38 minutes 06 seconds
east 87.84 feet to a point N103,717.49,
E417,825.07, thence running north 24 degrees
06 minutes 55 seconds west 480.00 feet, to a
point N104,155.59, E417.628.96, thence run-
ning north 73 degrees 05 minutes 25 seconds
east 35.28 feet to the point of origin.
(B) An area having the approximate shape
of a parallelogram along the northeasterly por-
tion of the channel, southeast of the area de-
scribed in subparagraph (A). This area is 20-
feet wide and about 260-feet long and is further
described as follows: 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 run-
ning 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.
140
(3) CHICAGO RIVER AND HARBOR, CHICAGO, IL-
LINOIS.—Those portions of the projects for naviga-
tion, Chicago River and Chicago Harbor, Chicago,
Illinois, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of
March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1129), extending 50 feet
riverward of the existing dock wall on the south side
of the channel from Lake Street to Franklin Street
and 25 feet riverward of the existing dock wall on
the south side of the channel from Franklin Street
to Wabash Avenue, and those areas within 20 feet
of the bridge abutments on the south side of the
channel for the length of the protection bridge piers
from the Franklin Street Bridge to the Michigan
Avenue Bridge.
(4) MUSCATINE, IOWA.—The Mississippi River
at Muscatine, Iowa project, authorized by section
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat.
164).
(5) 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
141
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.
(6) 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 north-
east 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 south-
east about 25 feet to a point N507,921.71,
E721,534.66, thence running southwest about 354
142
feet to a point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence
running southwest about 357 feet to the point of ori-
gin.
(7) CITY WATERWAY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON.—
The portion of the project for navigation, City Wa-
terway, 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 wa-
terway beginning at Station 70+00 and ending at
Station 80+00.
(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 southwest-
erly 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
143
northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet to the point of origin,
shall be redesignated as an anchorage area.
(c) NORWALK HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.—The 10-foot
channel portion of the Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut, navi-
gation project described in subsection (a)(2) is modified
to authorize the Secretary to realign the channel to include
a new section immediately north of the area described in
subsection (a)(2)(B). The new triangular shaped section
is described as follows: Commencing at a point
N103,968.35, E417,815.29, thence running south 17 de-
grees 05 minutes 15 seconds east 118.09 feet to a point
N103,855.48, E417,849.99, thence running north 33 de-
grees 07 minutes 30 seconds west 36.76 feet to a point
N103,886.27, E417.829.90, thence running north 10 de-
grees 05 minutes 26 seconds west 83.37 feet to the point
of origin.
(d) CHICAGO RIVER AND HARBOR, CHICAGO, ILLI-
NOIS.—The projects for navigation, Chicago River and
Chicago Harbor referred to in subsection (a)(3) are modi-
fied to direct the Secretary to redefine the Federal naviga-
tion channel for the North Branch Canal portion extend-
ing from 100 feet downstream of the Halsted Street
Bridge to 100 feet upstream of the Division Street Bridge
to be no wider than 66 feet.
144
(e) ADDITIONAL
DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—The fol-
lowing projects are not authorized after the date of enact-
ment of this Act, except with respect to any portion of
such a project which portion has been completed before
such date or is under construction on such date:
(1) The project for flood damage reduction,
Cache Creek Basin, Clear Lake Outlet Channel,
California, authorized by the Water Resources De-
velopment Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662).
(2) The project for flood control, Goleta and Vi-
cinity, California, authorized by the Flood Control
Act of 1970.
(3) The project to modify the Central and
Southern Florida project to improve water supply to
the Everglades National Park, Florida, authorized
by the Flood Control Act of 1954 (Public Law 83–
780) and the Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public
Law 90–483).
(4) The project for flood control, Central and
Southern Florida Project, Shingle Creek Basin,
Florida, authorized by the Flood Control Act of
1962.
(5) The project for flood control, Middle Wa-
bash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by sec-
tion 10 of the Flood Control Act of 1946.
145
(6) The project for flood damage reduction,
Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section
602 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (Public Law 99–662).
(7) The project for flood damage reduction,
Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2,
Iowa, authorized by the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986, deauthorized in fiscal year 1991,
and reauthorized by the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–580).
(8) The project for flood damage reduction,
Hazard, Kentucky, authorized by section 3 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public
Law 100–676) and section 108 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–
640).
(9) The recreation portion of the project for
flood control, Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky, author-
ized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of
1966.
(10) The project for flood control, West Ken-
tucky Tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by the
Flood Control Acts of 1965 and 1970 and the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986.
146
(11) The project for flood damage reduction,
Bayou Cocodrie and Tributaries, Louisiana, author-
ized by the Flood Control Act of 1941 and the
Water Resources Development Act of 1974.
(12) The project for flood control, Eastern
Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Lou-
isiana, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1970
(Public Law–611).
(13) The project for Red River Waterway,
Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, au-
thorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (Pub-
lic Law 90–483).
(14) The project for flood damage reduction
Brockton, Massachusetts, authorized by section
401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (Public Law 99–662).
(15) The project for navigation, Grand Haven
Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 202 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public
Law 99–662).
(16) The project for navigation, Greenville Har-
bor, Mississippi, authorized by section 601 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public
Law 99–662).
147
(17) The project for hydropower, Libby Dam,
Montana, (Units 6–8), authorized by section 549 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(Public Law 104–303).
(18) The project for flood damage reduction,
Platte River Flood and Related Streambank Erosion
Control, Nebraska, authorized by section 603 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public
Law 99–662).
(19) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor,
Buffalo, New York, authorized by section 110 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992.
(20) The project for flood damage reduction,
Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Caro-
lina, authorized by section 401 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–
662).
(21) The project for flood control and recre-
ation, Fairfield, Ohio, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(Public Law 99–662).
(22) The project for shoreline protection,
Maumee Bay, Lake Erie, Ohio, authorized by sec-
tion 501(a) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986.
148
(23) The project for flood control and water
supply, Parker Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Okla-
homa, authorized by the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662).
(24) The project for the Columbia River, Sea-
farers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon, authorized by
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act of 1991.
(25) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset
Point-Davisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section
571 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996.
(26) The project for flood damage reduction,
Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, au-
thorized by section 102 of the Water Resources De-
velopment Acts of 1976 and 1986.
(27) The project for flood damage reduction,
Arroyo Colorado, Texas, authorized by the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law
99–662).
(28) The project for flood damage reduction,
Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas, authorized by the
Water Resources Development Act of 1988.
(29) The project for flood damage reduction,
East Fork Channel Improvement, Increment 2, East
149
Fork of the Trinity River, Texas, authorized by the
Flood Control Act of 1962.
(30) The project for flood damage reduction,
Falfurrias, Texas, authorized by the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1988.
(31) The project for bank erosion, Kanawha
River, Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by sec-
tion 603(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–662).
(f) CONDITIONS.—The first sentence of section
1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)) is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘two years’’ and inserting
‘‘year’’; and
(2) by striking ‘‘7’’ and inserting ‘‘5’’.
SEC. 3101. LAND CONVEYANCES.
(a) MILFORD, KANSAS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the provisions of
this section, the Secretary shall convey by quitclaim
deed without consideration to the Geary County Fire
Department, Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and in-
terest of the United States in and to a parcel of land
consisting of approximately 7.4 acres located in
Geary County, Kansas, for construction, operation,
and maintenance of a fire station.
150
(2) SURVEY TO OBTAIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—
The exact acreage and the description of the real
property referred to in paragraph (1) shall be deter-
mined by a survey that is satisfactory to the Sec-
retary.
(3) REVERSION.—If the Secretary determines
that the property conveyed under paragraph (1)
ceases to be held in public ownership or to be used
for any purpose other than 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.
(b) 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 insert-
ing ‘‘the Boardman Park and Recreation District,
Boardman,’’; and
(2) by striking ‘‘such city’’ and inserting ‘‘the
city of Boardman’’.
(c) GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—
(1) APPLICABILITY OF PROPERTY SCREENING
PROVISIONS.—Section 2696 of title 10, United
States Code, shall not apply to any conveyance
under this section.
151
(2) 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 ap-
propriate and necessary to protect the interests of
the United States.
(3) 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
compliance costs, associated with the conveyance.
(4) LIABILITY.—An entity to which a convey-
ance is made under this section shall hold the
United States harmless from any liability with re-
spect 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. 3102. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTER-
ESTS AND USE RESTRICTIONS.
(a) IDAHO.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to each deed
listed in paragraph (2), the reversionary interests
170
(15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara
County, New York.
(16) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York.
(17) Oswego River basin, New York.
(18) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
(19) Fountain Creek and tributaries, Colorado.
(20) Schuylkill River watershed, Pennsylvania.
(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 assist-
ance to enhance dam safety at the following locations:
(1) Mountain Park Dam, Mountain Park, Geor-
gia.
(2) Barber Dam, Ada County, Idaho.
(3) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
(4) Lost Valley Dam, Adams County, Idaho.
(5) Salmon Falls Dam, Twin Falls County,
Idaho.
(6) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
(7) Lake Carl Blackwell Dam, Stillwater, Okla-
homa.
(8) Dams in Mountain Lakes Park, Princeton
Township, New Jersey.