(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 consideration 
any alternatives the Secretary determines are not rea-
sonable 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 so-
licit, 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 car-
rying 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 establish 
benchmarks for determining the length of time it should take 
to conduct a feasibility study for a water resources develop-
ment project and its associated review process under the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 
et seq.). Benchmarks may be established for activities based 
on project type, size, cost, and complexity. The Chief of En-
gineers shall use such benchmarks as a management tool 
to make the feasibility study process more efficient in all 
districts of the Army Corps of Engineers. 
SEC. 2026. LAKES PROGRAM. 
Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) 
is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at end of paragraph (18);
(2) by striking the period at the end of 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) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, 
New Jersey, removal of silt and measures to address 
water quality; 
‘‘(22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New 
Jersey, removal of silt and restoration of structural 
integrity; 
‘‘(23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jer-
sey, removal of silt and aquatic growth; 
‘‘(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, 
removal of silt and excessive nutrients and restoration 
of structural integrity; and 
‘‘(25) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.’’. 
SEC. 2027. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES. 
(a) MITIGATION PLAN CONTENTS.—Section 906(d) of 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
2283(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) CONTENTS.—A mitigation plan shall in-
clude—
‘‘(A) a description of the physical action to 
be undertaken to achieve the mitigation objectives 
within the watershed in which such losses occur 
and, in any case in which mitigation must take 
place outside the watershed, a justification de-
tailing the rationale for undertaking the mitiga-
tion 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 monitoring 
and, to the extent practicable, the entities respon-
sible 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 en-
tity 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 identi-
fied in the partnership agreement entered into with 
the non-Federal interest.’’. 
(b) 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 Program 
for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report 
on the status of construction of projects that require 
mitigation under section 906 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283; 100 Stat. 
4186) and the status of such mitigation. 
(2) PROJECTS
INCLUDED.—The status report 
shall include the status of all projects that are under 
construction, all projects for which the President 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. 2028. 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 restoration to 
carry out such design and construction on behalf of the Sec-
retary. 
(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 car-
ried out under cooperative agreements under this sec-
tion may not exceed $5,000,000 in any fiscal year. 
SEC. 2029. PROJECT PLANNING. 
(a) OBJECTIVES.—
(1) FLOOD
DAMAGE
REDUCTION, NAVIGATION, 
AND
HURRICANE
AND
STORM
DAMAGE
REDUCTION 
PROJECTS.—The Federal objective of any study of the 
feasibility of a water resources project carried out by 
the Secretary for flood damage reduction, navigation, 
or hurricane and storm damage reduction shall be to
maximize the net national economic development ben-
efits associated with the project, consistent with pro-
tecting 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 car-
ried out by the Secretary shall be to maximize the net 
national ecosystem restoration benefits associated 
with the project, consistent with national economic 
development. 
(3) PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE PURPOSES.—In 
the case of a study that includes multiple project pur-
poses, the primary and other project purposes shall be 
evaluated, based on the relevant Federal objective 
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 de-
velopment benefits may be if the Secretary deter-
mines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, that 
an alternative plan is feasible and achieves the 
project purposes while providing greater eco-
system restoration benefits. 
(C) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.—
With respect to a water resources project de-
scribed in paragraph (2), an overriding reason 
for selecting a plan other than the plan that 
maximizes national ecosystem restoration bene-
fits may be if the Secretary determines, and the 
non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative 
plan is feasible and achieves the project purposes 
while providing greater economic development 
benefits. 
(b) 
IDENTIFYING
ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS
AND 
PROJECTS.—
(1) PRIMARILY
ECONOMIC
BENEFITS.—In 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 ob-
taining the participation of a non-Federal interest, 
may study and recommend construction of additional 
measures, a separate project, or separable project ele-
ment to achieve those benefits. 
(2) PRIMARILY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BENE-
FITS.—In conducting a study of the feasibility of a 
project where the primary benefits are expected to be 
associated with ecosystem restoration, the Secretary 
may identify economic benefits that may be achieved 
in the study area and, after obtaining the participa-
tion of a non-Federal interest, may study and rec-
ommend construction of additional measures, a sepa-
rate project, or separable project element to achieve 
those benefits. 
(3) RULES APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN MEASURES, 
PROJECTS, AND ELEMENTS.—Any additional meas-
ures, separate project, or separable element identified 
under paragraph (1) or (2) and recommended for 
construction shall not be considered integral to the 
underlying project and, if authorized, shall be subject 
to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-
Federal interest agrees to share in the cost of the ad-
ditional measures, project, or separable element. 
(c) CALCULATION
OF BENEFITS
AND COSTS
FOR 
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.—A feasibility
study for a project for flood damage reduction shall include, 
as part of the calculation of benefits and costs—
(1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding 
following completion of the proposed project; 
(2) a calculation of any upstream or down-
stream impacts of the proposed project; and 
(3) calculations to ensure that the benefits and 
costs associated with structural and nonstructural al-
ternatives are evaluated in an equitable manner. 
SEC. 2030. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW. 
(a) PROJECT STUDIES SUBJECT
TO INDEPENDENT 
PEER REVIEW.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Project studies shall be subject 
to a peer review by an independent panel of experts 
as determined under this section. 
(2) SCOPE.—The peer review may include a 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 in-
tegrating risk and uncertainty, models used in eval-
uation of economic or environmental impacts of pro-
posed projects, and any biological opinions of the 
project study.