SEC. 2027. 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 end 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 in-
clude— 
‘‘(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 monitoring 
and, to the extent practicable, the entities re-
sponsible 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 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 miti-
gation. 
(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 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. 2029. 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
additional measures, 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 additional measures, 
a separate project, or separable project element to 
achieve those benefits. 
(3) RULES
APPLICABLE
TO
CERTAIN
MEAS-
URES, PROJECTS, AND ELEMENTS.—Any additional 
measures, separate project, or separable element 
identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and rec-
ommended 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 additional measures, project, or separable 
element. 
(c) CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR 
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.—A feasibility