IIB 
108TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 2557
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2003
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works 
AN ACT 
To provide for the conservation and development of water 
and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the 
Army to construct various projects for improvements to 
rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other 
purposes.
HR 2557 RFS 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 
‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 2003’’. 
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for 
this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 
Sec. 2. Definition of secretary. 
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS 
Sec. 1001. Project authorizations. 
Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction. 
Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection. 
Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation. 
Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the environment. 
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration. 
Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection. 
Sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal. 
TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 
Sec. 2001. Annual passes for recreation. 
Sec. 2002. Non-Federal contributions. 
Sec. 2003. Harbor cost sharing. 
Sec. 2004. Funding to process permits. 
Sec. 2005. National shoreline erosion control development and demonstration 
program. 
Sec. 2006. Written agreement for water resources projects. 
Sec. 2007. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse. 
Sec. 2008. Compilation of laws. 
Sec. 2009. Dredged material disposal. 
Sec. 2010. Wetlands mitigation. 
Sec. 2011. Remote and subsistence harbors. 
Sec. 2012. Beneficial uses of dredged material. 
Sec. 2013. Cost sharing provisions for certain areas. 
Sec. 2014. Revision of project partnership agreement. 
Sec. 2015. Cost sharing. 
Sec. 2016. Credit for work performed before partnership agreement. 
Sec. 2017. Recreation user fee revenues. 
Sec. 2018. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction. 
Sec. 2019. Watershed and river basin assessments. 
Sec. 2020. Tribal partnership program. 
Sec. 2021. Treatment of certain separable elements. 
Sec. 2022. Prosecution of work. 
Sec. 2023. Wildfire firefighting. 
Sec. 2024. Credit for nonconstruction services.
HR 2557 RFS 
Sec. 2025. Technical assistance. 
Sec. 2026. Centers of specialized planning expertise. 
Sec. 2027. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local actions. 
Sec. 2028. Project streamlining. 
Sec. 2029. Lakes program. 
Sec. 2030. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses. 
Sec. 2031. Cooperative agreements. 
Sec. 2032. Project planning. 
Sec. 2033. Independent peer review. 
Sec. 2034. Support of Army civil works program. 
TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS 
Sec. 3001. Cook Inlet, Alaska. 
Sec. 3002. King Cove Harbor, Alaska. 
Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska. 
Sec. 3004. Tatitlek, Alaska. 
Sec. 3005. Nogales Wash and tributaries, Arizona. 
Sec. 3006. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas. 
Sec. 3007. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas. 
Sec. 3008. American and Sacramento Rivers, California. 
Sec. 3009. Cache Creek Basin, California. 
Sec. 3010. Grayson Creek/Murderer’s Creek, California. 
Sec. 3011. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, Cali-
fornia. 
Sec. 3012. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California. 
Sec. 3013. Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California. 
Sec. 3014. Napa River Salt Marsh Restoration, Napa River, California. 
Sec. 3015. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California. 
Sec. 3016. Pinole Creek, California. 
Sec. 3017. Prado Dam, California. 
Sec. 3018. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California. 
Sec. 3019. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California. 
Sec. 3020. San Lorenzo River, California. 
Sec. 3021. Upper Guadalupe River, California. 
Sec. 3022. Walnut Creek Channel, California. 
Sec. 3023. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California. 
Sec. 3024. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California. 
Sec. 3025. Brevard County, Florida. 
Sec. 3026. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida. 
Sec. 3027. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida. 
Sec. 3028. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida. 
Sec. 3029. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida. 
Sec. 3030. Manatee Harbor, Florida. 
Sec. 3031. Miami Harbor, Florida. 
Sec. 3032. Tampa Harbor, Florida. 
Sec. 3033. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida. 
Sec. 3034. Tampa Harbor-Cut B, Florida. 
Sec. 3035. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho. 
Sec. 3036. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois. 
Sec. 3037. Hennepin-Hopper Lakes, Illinois. 
Sec. 3038. Mississippi River and Big Muddy river, Illinois. 
Sec. 3039. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois. 
Sec. 3040. Emiquon, Illinois. 
Sec. 3041. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
HR 2557 RFS 
Sec. 3042. White River, Indiana. 
Sec. 3043. Wolf Lake, Indiana. 
Sec. 3044. Prestonsburg, Kentucky. 
Sec. 3045. Amite River and tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish 
Watershed. 
Sec. 3046. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. 
Sec. 3047. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana. 
Sec. 3048. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, 
Louisiana. 
Sec. 3049. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana. 
Sec. 3050. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana. 
Sec. 3051. West Bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), Lou-
isiana. 
Sec. 3052. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine. 
Sec. 3053. Union River, Maine. 
Sec. 3054. Cass River, Spaulding Township, Michigan. 
Sec. 3055. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan. 
Sec. 3056. Water Resources Institute, Muskegon, Michigan. 
Sec. 3057. Saginaw River, Bay City, Michigan. 
Sec. 3058. Ada, Minnesota. 
Sec. 3059. Duluth Harbor, Mcquade Road, Minnesota. 
Sec. 3060. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota. 
Sec. 3061. Granite Falls, Minnesota. 
Sec. 3062. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
Sec. 3063. Red Lake River, Minnesota. 
Sec. 3064. Silver Bay, Minnesota. 
Sec. 3065. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota. 
Sec. 3066. Two Harbors, Minnesota. 
Sec. 3067. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi. 
Sec. 3068. Bois Brule Drainage and Levee District, Missouri. 
Sec. 3069. Sand Creek Watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska. 
Sec. 3070. Alamogordo, New Mexico. 
Sec. 3071. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York. 
Sec. 3072. Times Beach, Buffalo, New York. 
Sec. 3073. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey. 
Sec. 3074. New York state Canal System. 
Sec. 3075. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma. 
Sec. 3076. Willamette River Temperature Control, Mckenzie Subbasin, Oregon. 
Sec. 3077. French Creek, Union City Dam, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 3078. Lackawanna River at Olyphant, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 3079. Lackawanna River at Scranton, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 3080. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 3081. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, 
Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 3082. Solomon’s Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 3083. South Central Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 3084. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 3085. Little Limestone Creek, Jonesborough, Tennessee. 
Sec. 3086. Cedar Bayou, Texas. 
Sec. 3087. Lake Kemp, Texas. 
Sec. 3088. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas. 
Sec. 3089. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas. 
Sec. 3090. Proctor Lake, Texas. 
Sec. 3091. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas. 
Sec. 3092. Elizabeth River, Chesapeake, Virginia.
HR 2557 RFS 
Sec. 3093. Roanoke River Upper Basin, Virginia. 
Sec. 3094. Blair and Sitcum Waterways, Tacoma Harbor, Washington. 
Sec. 3095. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia. 
Sec. 3096. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin. 
Sec. 3097. Mississippi River Headwaters Reservoirs. 
Sec. 3098. Continuation of project authorizations. 
Sec. 3099. Project reauthorizations. 
Sec. 3100. Project deauthorizations. 
Sec. 3101. Land conveyances. 
Sec. 3102. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use restrictions. 
Sec. 3103. Land exchange, disposal and acquisition of lands, Allatoona Lake, 
Georgia. 
TITLE IV—STUDIES 
Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes basin program. 
Sec. 4002. Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow Rivers Watershed, Alabama. 
Sec. 4003. St. George Harbor, Alaska. 
Sec. 4004. Susitna River, Alaska. 
Sec. 4005. Searcy County, Arkansas. 
Sec. 4006. Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway, Illinois, Iowa, Min-
nesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. 
Sec. 4007. Hamilton, California. 
Sec. 4008. Napa River, St. Helena, California. 
Sec. 4009. Oceanside, California. 
Sec. 4010. Sacramento River, California. 
Sec. 4011. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. 
Sec. 4012. Tybee Island, Georgia. 
Sec. 4013. Calumet Harbor, Illinois. 
Sec. 4014. Chicago, Illinois. 
Sec. 4015. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois. 
Sec. 4016. Paducah, Kentucky. 
Sec. 4017. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana. 
Sec. 4018. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. 
Sec. 4019. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts. 
Sec. 4020. City of Mackinac Island, Michigan. 
Sec. 4021. Northeast Mississippi. 
Sec. 4022. Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico. 
Sec. 4023. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey. 
Sec. 4024. Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma. 
Sec. 4025. Sutherlin, Oregon. 
Sec. 4026. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon. 
Sec. 4027. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon. 
Sec. 4028. Northeastern Pennsylvania aquatic ecosystem restoration and pro-
tection. 
Sec. 4029. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina. 
Sec. 4030. Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas. 
Sec. 4031. Grand County and Moab, Utah. 
Sec. 4032. Chehalis River Basin, Washington. 
Sec. 4033. Sprague, Lincoln County, Washington. 
Sec. 4034. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia. 
Sec. 4035. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. 
Sec. 4036. Lake Erie Dredged Material Disposal Sites. 
TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
HR 2557 RFS 
Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels. 
Sec. 5002. Watershed management. 
Sec. 5003. Dam safety. 
Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations. 
Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas. 
Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects. 
Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain 
projects. 
Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects. 
Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment. 
Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program. 
Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project. 
Sec. 5012. Membership of Missouri River Trust. 
Sec. 5013. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration. 
Sec. 5014. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River basins. 
Sec. 5015. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program. 
Sec. 5016. Montgomery, Alabama. 
Sec. 5017. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama. 
Sec. 5018. Alaska. 
Sec. 5019. Akutan Small Boat Harbor, Alaska. 
Sec. 5020. Fort Yukon, Alaska. 
Sec. 5021. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska. 
Sec. 5022. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska. 
Sec. 5023. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5024. Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5025. Loomis Landing, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5026. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation project, Arkansas and 
Oklahoma. 
Sec. 5027. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri. 
Sec. 5028. Cambria, California. 
Sec. 5029. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; Mallard 
Slough, Pittsburg, California. 
Sec. 5030. East San Joaquin County, California. 
Sec. 5031. Placer and El Dorado Counties, California. 
Sec. 5032. Sacramento Area, California. 
Sec. 5033. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California. 
Sec. 5034. San Francisco, California. 
Sec. 5035. San Francisco, California, Waterfront Area. 
Sec. 5036. San Pablo Bay Watershed and Suisun Marsh Ecosystem Restora-
tion. 
Sec. 5037. Stockton, California. 
Sec. 5038. Upper Klamath Basin, California. 
Sec. 5039. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, Connecticut. 
Sec. 5040. Everglades restoration, Florida. 
Sec. 5041. Florida Keys water quality improvements. 
Sec. 5042. Lake Worth, Florida. 
Sec. 5043. Lake Lanier, Georgia. 
Sec. 5044. Riley Creek recreation area, Idaho. 
Sec. 5045. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects. 
Sec. 5046. Cook County, Illinois. 
Sec. 5047. Kaskaskia River basin, Illinois, restoration. 
Sec. 5048. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois. 
Sec. 5049. Peoria riverfront development, Peoria, Illinois. 
Sec. 5050. Illinois River basin restoration. 
Sec. 5051. Southwest Illinois.
HR 2557 RFS 
Sec. 5052. Calumet region, Indiana. 
Sec. 5053. Rathbun Lake, Iowa. 
Sec. 5054. Cumberland River Basin, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5055. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5056. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5057. Southern and Eastern Kentucky. 
Sec. 5058. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration. 
Sec. 5059. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 
Sec. 5060. Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. 
Sec. 5061. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. 
Sec. 5062. Chesapeake Bay shoreline, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and 
Delaware. 
Sec. 5063. Delmarva conservation corridor, Maryland. 
Sec. 5064. Detroit River, Michigan. 
Sec. 5065. Oakland County, Michigan. 
Sec. 5066. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan. 
Sec. 5067. Crookston, Minnesota. 
Sec. 5068. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota. 
Sec. 5069. Northeastern Minnesota. 
Sec. 5070. Desoto County, Mississippi. 
Sec. 5071. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. 
Sec. 5072. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois. 
Sec. 5073. St. Louis, Missouri. 
Sec. 5074. Delaware River, Trenton, New Jersey. 
Sec. 5075. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey. 
Sec. 5076. Atlantic Coast of New York. 
Sec. 5077. College Point, New York City, New York. 
Sec. 5078. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York. 
Sec. 5079. Gateway Point, North Tonawanda, New York. 
Sec. 5080. Little Neck Bay, Village of Kings Point, New York. 
Sec. 5081. Onondaga Lake, New York. 
Sec. 5082. Times Beach Dike, Buffalo, New York. 
Sec. 5083. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina. 
Sec. 5084. Stanly County, North Carolina. 
Sec. 5085. Central Riverfront Park, Cincinnati, Ohio. 
Sec. 5086. Piedmont Lake Dam, Ohio. 
Sec. 5087. Ohio. 
Sec. 5088. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma. 
Sec. 5089. Columbia River, Oregon. 
Sec. 5090. Eugene, Oregon. 
Sec. 5091. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and Washington. 
Sec. 5092. Lowell, Oregon. 
Sec. 5093. Hagerman’s Run, Williamsport, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 5094. Northeast Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 5095. Susquehannock Campground access road, Raystown Lake, Pennsyl-
vania. 
Sec. 5096. Upper Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and New York. 
Sec. 5097. Washington, Greene, Westmoreland, and Fayette Counties, Pennsyl-
vania. 
Sec. 5098. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 
Sec. 5099. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina. 
Sec. 5100. Cooper River, South Carolina. 
Sec. 5101. Lakes Marion and Moultrie, South Carolina. 
Sec. 5102. Upper Big Sioux River, Watertown, South Dakota. 
Sec. 5103. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
HR 2557 RFS 
Sec. 5104. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Ohio River Basin, Tennessee. 
Sec. 5105. Memphis, Tennessee. 
Sec. 5106. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee. 
Sec. 5107. East Tennessee. 
Sec. 5108. Tennessee River partnership. 
Sec. 5109. Clear Creek and tributaries, Harris, Galveston, and Brazoria Coun-
ties, Texas. 
Sec. 5110. Harris County, Texas. 
Sec. 5111. Harris Gully, Harris County, Texas. 
Sec. 5112. Onion Creek, Texas. 
Sec. 5113. Pelican Island, Texas. 
Sec. 5114. Front Royal, Virginia. 
Sec. 5115. Richmond National Battlefield Park, Richmond, Virginia. 
Sec. 5116. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington. 
Sec. 5117. Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington. 
Sec. 5118. Hamilton Island Campground, Washington. 
Sec. 5119. Puget Island, Washington. 
Sec. 5120. Bluestone, West Virginia. 
Sec. 5121. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control. 
Sec. 5122. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia. 
Sec. 5123. Central West Virginia. 
Sec. 5124. Southern West Virginia. 
Sec. 5125. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests. 
Sec. 5126. Bridge authorization. 
Sec. 5127. Additional assistance for critical projects. 
Sec. 5128. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet. 
Sec. 5129. Wage surveys. 
Sec. 5130. Purchase of American-made equipment and products.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY. 
In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Sec-
retary of the Army. 
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES 
PROJECTS 
SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 
(a) PROJECTS WITH CHIEF’S REPORTS.—Except as 
otherwise provided in this section, the following projects 
for water resources development and conservation and 
other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Sec-
retary substantially in accordance with the plans, and sub-
HR 2557 RFS 
ject to the conditions, described in the respective reports 
designated in this section: 
(1) TANQUE
VERDE
CREEK, ARIZONA.—The 
project for environmental restoration, Tanque Verde 
Creek, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $4,878,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $3,170,700 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,707,300. 
(2) 
AMERICAN
RIVER
WATERSHED, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for flood 
damage reduction and environmental restora-
tion, American River Watershed, California: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers, dated November 
5, 2002, at a total cost of $257,300,000, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $201,200,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,100,000; 
except that the Secretary is authorized to ac-
cept funds from State and local governments 
and other Federal agencies for the purpose of 
constructing a permanent bridge instead of the 
temporary bridge described in the recommended 
plan and may construct such permanent bridge 
if all additional costs for such bridge, above the 
$36,000,000 provided for in the recommended
HR 2557 RFS 
plan for bridge construction, are provided by 
such governments or agencies. 
(B) EXPEDITING
BRIDGE
DESIGN
AND 
CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary, in cooperation 
with appropriate non-Federal interests, shall 
immediately commence appropriate studies for, 
and the design of, a permanent bridge (includ-
ing an evaluation of potential impacts of bridge 
construction on traffic patterns and identifica-
tion of alternatives for mitigating such impacts) 
and, upon execution of a cost-sharing agree-
ment with such non-Federal interests, shall pro-
ceed to construction of the bridge as soon as 
practicable; except that such studies, design, 
and construction shall not adversely affect the 
schedule of design or construction of authorized 
projects for flood damage reduction. 
(3) PINE
FLAT
DAM
AND
RESERVOIR, CALI-
FORNIA.—The project for environmental restoration, 
Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, Fresno County, Cali-
fornia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 
19, 2002, at a total cost of $38,480,000, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $24,930,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $13,550,000.
HR 2557 RFS 
(4) SOUTH
PLATTE
RIVER, DENVER, COLO-
RADO.—The project for environmental restoration 
Denver County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, 
Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated 
May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $17,997,000, with 
an estimated Federal cost of $11,698,000 and an es-
timated non-Federal cost of $6,299,000. 
(5) 
PEORIA
RIVERFRONT, 
ILLINOIS.—The 
project for environmental restoration, Peoria River-
front, Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
dated July 28, 2003, at a total cost of $15,182,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $9,868,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,314,000. 
(6) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOU-
ISIANA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurri-
cane and storm damage reduction, Morganza to 
the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the 
Chief of Engineers, dated August 23, 2002, and 
July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $719,000,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $467,000,000 
and 
an 
estimated 
non-Federal 
cost 
of 
$252,000,000.
(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the
HR 2557 RFS 
project the cost of work carried out by the non-
Federal interest for interim flood protection 
after March 31, 1989, if the Secretary deter-
mines that the work is integral to the project. 
(7) SMITH
ISLAND, MARYLAND.—The project 
for environmental restoration and protection, Smith 
Island, Maryland: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
dated October 29, 2001, at a total cost of 
$8,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$5,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$2,800,000. 
(8) SOUTH RIVER, NEW JERSEY.—The project 
for hurricane and storm damage reduction and envi-
ronmental restoration, South River, New Jersey: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, 
at a total cost of $103,268,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $67,124,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $36,144,000. 
(9) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS 
CHRISTI, TEXAS.—The project for navigation and 
environmental restoration, Corpus Christi Ship 
Channel, Texas, Channel Improvement Project: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, 
at a total cost of $153,808,000, with an estimated
HR 2557 RFS 
Federal cost of $73,554,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $80,254,000. 
(10) MATAGORDA BAY, TEXAS.—The project for 
navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos 
River to Port O’Connor, Matagorda Bay Re-Route, 
Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated De-
cember 4, 2002, at a total cost of $14,515,000. The 
costs of construction of the project are to be paid 1⁄2 
from amounts appropriated from the general fund of 
the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated 
from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. 
(11) 
RIVERSIDE
OXBOW, 
FORT
WORTH, 
TEXAS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for envi-
ronmental restoration, Riverside Oxbow, Fort 
Worth, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
dated May 29, 2003, at a total cost of 
$22,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$9,180,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $13,020,000. 
(B) CREDIT.—The Secretary shall credit 
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project the cost of design and construction work 
carried out on the Beach Street Dam and asso-
ciated features by the non-Federal interest be-
HR 2557 RFS 
fore the date of the partnership agreement for 
the project if the Secretary determines that the 
work is integral to the project. 
(12) DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.—
The project for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 
Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Vir-
ginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 
3, 2003, at a total cost of $22,178,000.
(b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO FINAL REPORT.—The 
following projects for water resources development and 
conservation and other purposes are authorized to be car-
ried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with 
the plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in 
a final report of the Chief of Engineers if a favorable re-
port of the Chief is completed not later than December 
31, 2003: 
(1) BEL MARIN KEYS UNIT V, CALIFORNIA.—
The project for environmental restoration, Bel Marin 
Keys Unit V, California, at a total cost of 
$133,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$100,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$33,400,000. 
(2) 
IMPERIAL
BEACH, 
CALIFORNIA.—The 
project for storm damage reduction, Imperial Beach, 
California, at a total cost of $11,922,000, with an
HR 2557 RFS 
estimated Federal cost of $7,630,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $4,292,000. 
(3) GWYNNS FALLS, MARYLAND.—The project 
for environmental restoration, Gwynns Falls, Mary-
land, at a total cost of $14,660,000. 
(4) MANASQUAN TO BARNEGAT INLETS, NEW 
JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm dam-
age reduction, Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets, New 
Jersey, at a total cost of $60,649,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $39,422,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $21,227,000. 
(5) CENTRALIA, 
CHEHALIAS
RIVER, 
WASH-
INGTON.—The project for flood damage reduction, 
Centralia, Chehalias River, Washington, at a total 
cost of $86,872,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
of $56,467,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $30,405,000. 
SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUC-
TION. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a 
study for each of the following projects and, if the Sec-
retary determines that a project is feasible, may carry out 
the project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s):
HR 2557 RFS 
(1) CACHE RIVER BASIN, GRUBBS, ARKANSAS.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Cache River 
basin, Grubbs, Arkansas. 
(2) SANTA
ANA
RIVER
BASIN
AND
ORANGE 
COUNTY STREAMS, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood 
damage reduction, Santa Ana River basin and Or-
ange County streams, California. 
(3) STONY
CREEK, OAK
LAWN, ILLINOIS.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Stony Creek, 
Oak Lawn, Illinois. 
(4) OLIVE HILL AND VICINITY, KENTUCKY.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Olive Hill and 
vicinity, Kentucky. 
(5) NASHUA
RIVER, FITCHBURG, MASSACHU-
SETTS.—Project for flood damage reduction, Nashua 
River, Fitchburg, Massachusetts. 
(6) SAGINAW RIVER, HAMILTON DAM, FLINT, 
MICHIGAN.—Project for flood damage reduction, 
Saginaw River, Hamilton Dam, Flint, Michigan.
(7) MARSH
CREEK, MINNESOTA.—Project for 
flood damage reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota. 
(8) ROSEAU
RIVER, ROSEAU, MINNESOTA.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Roseau River, 
Roseau, Minnesota.
HR 2557 RFS 
(9) SOUTH BRANCH OF THE WILD RICE RIVER, 
BORUP, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood damage re-
duction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, 
Borup, Minnesota. 
(10) TWIN VALLEY LAKE, WILD RICE RIVER, 
MINNESOTA.—Project for flood damage reduction, 
Twin Valley Lake, Wild Rice River, Minnesota. 
(11) BLACKSNAKE
CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MIS-
SOURI.—Project for flood damage reduction, Black-
snake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri. 
(12) MCKEEL BROOK, NEW JERSEY.—Project 
for flood damage reduction, McKeel Brook, New 
Jersey. 
(13) EAST RIVER, SILVER BEACH, NEW YORK 
CITY, NEW YORK.—Project for flood damage reduc-
tion, East River, Silver Beach, New York City, New 
York. 
(14) RAMAPO RIVER, TOWN OF MONROE AND 
VILLAGES
OF
MONROE, KIRYAS
JOEL, AND
HAR-
RIMAN, NEW YORK.—Project for flood damage re-
duction, Ramapo River, Town of Monroe and Vil-
lages of Monroe, Kiryas Joel, and Harriman, New 
York.
HR 2557 RFS 
(15) LITTLE
MILL
CREEK, 
SOUTHAMPTON, 
PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduc-
tion, Little Mill Creek, Southampton, Pennsylvania. 
(16) LITTLE NESHAMINY CREEK, WARRENTON, 
PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduc-
tion, Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrenton, Pennsyl-
vania. 
(17) SURFSIDE
BEACH, SOUTH
CAROLINA.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Surfside Beach 
and vicinity, South Carolina. 
(b) SPECIAL RULES.—In carrying out the project for 
flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice 
River, Borup, Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a)(9) 
the Secretary may consider national ecosystem restoration 
benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project 
and shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in 
the financing of the project in accordance with section 
903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary’s evalua-
tion indicates that applying such section is necessary to 
implement the project. 
SEC. 
1003. 
SMALL 
PROJECTS 
FOR 
EMERGENCY 
STREAMBANK PROTECTION. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that
HR 2557 RFS 
a project is feasible, may carry out the project under sec-
tion 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
701r): 
(1) OUACHITA
AND
BLACK
RIVERS, ARKAN-
SAS.—Project for emergency streambank protection, 
Ouachita and Black Rivers, Arkansas. 
(2) MELVINA
DITCH, CHICAGO
RIDGE, ILLI-
NOIS.—Project for emergency streambank protection 
for the east side of Melvina Ditch in the vicinity of 
96th Street and Nashville Avenue, Chicago Ridge, 
Illinois. 
(3) RED LAKE FALLS, MINNESOTA.—Project for 
emergency streambank protection, Red Lake River, 
Red Lake Falls, Minnesota. 
(4) MIDDLE
FORK
GRAND
RIVER, GENTRY 
COUNTY, 
MISSOURI.—Project 
for 
emergency 
streambank protection, Middle Fork Grand River, 
Gentry County, Missouri. 
(5) SHREWSBURY RIVER, RUMSON, NEW JER-
SEY.—Project for emergency streambank protection, 
Shrewsbury River, Rumson, New Jersey.
(6) KOWAWESE
UNIQUE
AREA
AND
HUDSON 
RIVER, NEW
WINDSOR, NEW
YORK.—Project for 
emergency streambank protection, Kowawese Unique 
Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.
HR 2557 RFS 
SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that 
a project is feasible, may carry out the project under sec-
tion 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
577): 
(1) BLYTHEVILLE
COUNTY
HARBOR, ARKAN-
SAS.—Project for navigation, Blytheville County 
Harbor, Arkansas. 
(2) PALM BEACH HARBOR, FLORIDA.—Project 
for navigation, Palm Beach Harbor, Florida. 
(3) EVANSTON, ILLINOIS.—Project for naviga-
tion, Evanston, Illinois. 
(4) MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
SHIP
CHANNEL, LOU-
ISIANA.—Project for navigation, Mississippi River 
Ship Channel, Louisiana. 
(5) AU SABLE RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for 
navigation, Au Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, 
Michigan. 
(6) NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION AU-
THORITY
BOAT
HARBOR, BUFFALO, NEW
YORK.—
Project for navigation, Niagara Frontier Transpor-
tation Authority Boat Harbor, Buffalo, New York. 
(7) WOODLAWN
MARINA, LACKAWANNA, NEW 
YORK.—Project for navigation, Woodlawn Marina, 
Lackawanna, New York.
HR 2557 RFS 
(8) BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASH-
INGTON.—Project for navigation, Baker Bay and 
Ilwaco Harbor, Washington. 
SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE 
QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following 
project and, if the Secretary determines that the project 
is appropriate, may carry out the project under section 
1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
(33 U.S.C. 2309a): Project for improvement of the quality 
of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri. 
SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM 
RESTORATION. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
following projects and, if the Secretary determines that 
a project is appropriate, may carry out the project under 
section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330): 
(1) COLORADO
RIVER, 
YUMA, 
ARIZONA.—
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Colorado 
River, Yuma, Arizona. 
(2) CHINO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for 
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chino Valley, Cali-
fornia.
HR 2557 RFS 
(3) NEW AND ALAMO RIVERS, IMPERIAL COUN-
TY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic ecosystem res-
toration, New and Alamo Rivers, Imperial County, 
California, including efforts to address invasive 
aquatic plant species. 
(4) SAN
DIEGO
RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—Project 
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, San Diego River, 
California, including efforts to address invasive 
aquatic plant species. 
(5) STOCKTON
DEEP
WATER
SHIP
CHANNEL 
AND
LOWER
SAN
JOAQUIN
RIVER, CALIFORNIA.—
Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Stockton 
Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San Joaquin 
River, California. 
(6) SWEETWATER
RESERVOIR, 
SAN
DIEGO 
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.—Project for aquatic eco-
system restoration, Sweetwater Reservoir, San Diego 
County, California, including efforts to address 
invasive aquatic plant species. 
(7) BISCAYNE
BAY, 
FLORIDA.—Project for 
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key 
Biscayne, Florida. 
(8) DESTIN
HARBOR, FLORIDA.—Project for 
aquatic ecosystem restoration, Destin Harbor, Flor-
ida.
HR 2557 RFS 
(9) CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER, COLUMBUS, GEOR-
GIA, AND
PHENIX
CITY, ALABAMA.—Project for 
aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Mills Dam and 
Eagle and Phenix Dam, Chattahoochee River, Co-
lumbus, Georgia, and Phenix City, Alabama. 
(10) CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER AND OCMULGEE 
RIVER BASINS, GEORGIA.—Project for aquatic eco-
system 
restoration, 
Chattahoochee 
River 
and 
Ocmulgee River basins, Gwinnett County, Georgia. 
(11) SNAKE RIVER, JEROME, IDAHO.—Project 
for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Snake River, Je-
rome, Idaho. 
SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTEC-
TION. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following 
project and, if the Secretary determines that the project 
is feasible, may carry out the project under section 3 of 
the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation 
in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned prop-
erty’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g): 
Project for shoreline protection, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.
SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDI-
MENT REMOVAL. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following 
project and, if the Secretary determines that the project
HR 2557 RFS 
is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project under 
section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 
(33 U.S.C. 701g): Project for removal of snags and clear-
ing and straightening of channels for flood control, 
Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, 
New York. 
TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS 
SEC. 2001. ANNUAL PASSES FOR RECREATION. 
Section 208(c)(4) of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 460d–3 note; 110 Stat. 
3681; 113 Stat. 294) is amended by striking ‘‘the Decem-
ber 31, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2004’’.
SEC. 2002. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS. 
Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213) is amended by adding at the 
end the following: 
‘‘(n) NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.—
‘‘(1) PROHIBITION
ON
SOLICITATION
OF
EX-
CESS CONTRIBUTIONS.—The Secretary may not so-
licit contributions from non-Federal interests for 
costs of constructing authorized water resources de-
velopment projects or measures in excess of the non-
Federal share assigned to the appropriate project 
purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), and (c) or
HR 2557 RFS 
condition Federal participation in such projects or 
measures on the receipt of such contributions. 
‘‘(2) LIMITATION
ON
STATUTORY
CONSTRUC-
TION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed 
to affect the Secretary’s authority under section 
903(c) of this Act.’’. 
SEC. 2003. HARBOR COST SHARING. 
(a) PAYMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION.—Section 
101(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211(a)(1); 100 Stat. 4082) is amended 
in each of subparagraphs (B) and (C) by striking ‘‘45 
feet’’ and inserting ‘‘53 feet’’. 
(b) 
OPERATION
AND
MAINTENANCE.—Section 
101(b)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)) is amended 
by striking ‘‘45 feet’’ and inserting ‘‘53 feet’’. 
(c) DEFINITIONS.—Section 214 of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 2241; 100 Stat. 4108) is amended in each of para-
graphs (1) and (3) by striking ‘‘45 feet’’ and inserting 
‘‘53 feet’’. 
(d) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub-
sections (a), (b), and (c) shall apply only to a project, or 
separable element of a project, on which a contract for 
physical construction has not been awarded before the 
date of enactment of this Act.
HR 2557 RFS 
SEC. 2004. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS. 
Section 214(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594) is 
amended by striking ‘‘2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2005’’.
SEC. 2005. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DE-
VELOPMENT 
AND 
DEMONSTRATION 
PRO-
GRAM. 
(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.—Section 5(a) of the 
Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Federal participation in 
the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned prop-
erty’’, approved August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h(a)), is 
amended by striking ‘‘6 years’’ and inserting ‘‘10 years’’. 
(b) EXTENSION OF PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CON-
STRUCTION PHASE.—Section 5(b)(1)(A) of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 426h(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘3 years’’ 
and inserting ‘‘6 years’’. 
(c) COST-SHARING; REMOVAL OF PROJECTS.—Sec-
tion 5(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)) is amended—
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as 
paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and 
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(3) COST SHARING.—The Secretary may enter 
into a cost-sharing agreement with a non-Federal in-
terest to carry out a project, or a phase of a project,
HR 2557 RFS 
under the erosion control program in cooperation 
with the non-Federal interest. 
‘‘(4) REMOVAL OF PROJECTS.—The Secretary 
may pay all or a portion of the costs of removing a 
project, or an element of a project, constructed 
under the erosion control program if the Secretary 
determines during the term of the program that the 
project or element is detrimental to the environment, 
private property, or public safety.’’. 
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 
5(e)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(e)(2)) is amended 
by striking ‘‘$21,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$31,000,000’’.
SEC. 2006. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES 
PROJECTS. 
(a) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS.—Section 221 of 
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b) is 
amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) by striking ‘‘under the provisions’’ and 
all that follows through ‘‘under any other’’ and 
inserting ‘‘under any’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘to furnish its required co-
operation for’’ and inserting ‘‘under which each 
party agrees to carry out its responsibilities and
HR 2557 RFS 
requirements for implementation or construc-
tion of’’; and 
(C) by inserting after ‘‘$25,000.’’ the fol-
lowing: ‘‘Such agreement may include a provi-
sion for damages in the event of a failure of one 
or more parties to perform.’’; 
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub-
section (f); and 
(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(e) LIMITATION.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall be 
construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary to en-
sure that a agreement under this section meets all require-
ments of law and policies of the Secretary in effect on the 
date of entry into the agreement.’’. 
(b) LOCAL COOPERATION.—Section 912(b) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 
4190) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (2)—
(A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ the first place it 
appears and inserting ‘‘may’’; and 
(B) by striking the last sentence; and 
(2) in paragraph (4)—
(A) by inserting after ‘‘injunction, for’’ the 
following: ‘‘payment of damages or, for’’;
HR 2557 RFS 
(B) by striking ‘‘to collect a civil penalty 
imposed under this section,’’; and 
(C) by striking ‘‘any civil penalty imposed 
under this section,’’ and inserting ‘‘any liq-
uidated damages,’’. 
(c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub-
sections (a) and (b) only apply to partnership agreements 
entered into after the date of enactment of this Act; except 
that at the request of a non-Federal interest for a project 
the district engineer for the district in which the project 
is located may amend a project partnership agreement en-
tered into on or before such date and under which con-
struction on the project has not been initiated as of such 
date of enactment for the purpose of incorporating such 
amendments. 
(d) PARTNERSHIP
AND COOPERATIVE ARRANGE-
MENTS.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Agreements entered into 
under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
(42 U.S.C. 1962d–5(b)) shall further partnership 
and cooperative arrangements with non-Federal in-
terests and shall be referred to as ‘‘partnership 
agreements’’. 
(2) REFERENCES
TO
COOPERATION
AGREE-
MENTS.—Any reference in a law, regulation, docu-
HR 2557 RFS 
ment, or other paper of the United States to a co-
operation agreement or project cooperation agree-
ment shall be treated to be a reference to a partner-
ship agreement or a project partnership agreement, 
respectively. 
(3) REFERENCES
TO
PARTNERSHIP
AGREE-
MENTS.—Any reference to a partnership agreement 
or project partnership agreement in this Act (other 
than this section) shall be treated as a reference to 
a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation 
agreement, respectively. 
(e) ENTRY OF AGREEMENT WITH DISTRICT ENGI-
NEER.—After January 1, 2005, the agreement required 
to be entered into under section 221(a) of the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b(a)) shall be entered 
into with the district engineer for the district in which the 
project will be carried out, unless, before that date, the 
Secretary issues policies and guidelines for partnership 
agreements and delegates to the district engineers, at a 
minimum—
(1) the authority to approve any policy in a 
partnership agreement that has appeared in an 
agreement previously approved by the Secretary; 
(2) the authority to approve any policy in a 
partnership agreement the specific terms of which
HR 2557 RFS 
are dictated by law, or by a final feasibility study, 
final environmental impact statement, or other final 
decision document for a water resources development 
project; 
(3) the authority to approve any partnership 
agreement that complies with the policies and guide-
lines issued by the Secretary; and 
(4) the authority to sign any partnership agree-
ment for any water resources development project 
unless, within 30 days of the date of authorization 
of the project, the Secretary notifies the district en-
gineer in which the project will be carried out that 
the Secretary wishes to retain the prerogative to 
sign the partnership agreement for that project. 
(f) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.—Not later than the 120th 
day following the date of enactment of this Act, the Chief 
of Engineers shall ensure that each district engineer has 
made available on the Internet all partnership agreements 
entered into under section 221 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5(b)) within the preceding 10 
years and all partnership agreements for water resources 
development projects currently being carried out in that 
district and shall make any partnership agreements en-
tered into after such date of enactment available on the
HR 2557 RFS 
Internet within 7 days of the date on which such agree-
ment is entered into.
SEC. 2007. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION, 
AND REUSE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide to 
State and local governments assessment, planning, and 
design assistance for remediation, environmental restora-
tion, or reuse of areas located within the boundaries of 
such State or local governments where such remediation, 
environmental restoration, or reuse will contribute to the 
improvement of water quality or the conservation of water 
and related resources of drainage basins and watersheds 
within the United States. 
(b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share 
of the cost of assistance provided under subsection (a) 
shall be 50 percent. 
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
SEC. 2008. COMPILATION OF LAWS. 
Within one year after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the laws of the United States relating to the improve-
ment of rivers and harbors, flood control, beach erosion, 
and other water resources development enacted after No-
vember 8, 1966, and before January 1, 2004, shall be
HR 2557 RFS 
compiled under the direction of the Secretary and the 
Chief of Engineers and printed for the use of the Depart-
ment of the Army, Congress, and the general public. The 
Secretary shall reprint the volumes containing such laws 
enacted before November 8, 1966. In addition, the Sec-
retary shall include an index in each volume so compiled 
or reprinted. Not later than December 1, 2004, the Sec-
retary shall transmit at least 25 copies of each such vol-
ume to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
SEC. 2009. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL. 
Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326a; 110 Stat. 3694–3696) is 
amended—
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub-
section (d); 
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(c) GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter 
into cost-sharing agreements with 1 or more non-
Federal public interests with respect to a project, or 
group of projects within a geographic region if ap-
propriate, for the acquisition, design, construction,
HR 2557 RFS 
management, or operation of a dredged material 
processing, treatment, contaminant reduction, or 
disposal facility (including any facility used to dem-
onstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged mate-
rial, which may include effective sediment contami-
nant reduction technologies) using funds provided in 
whole or in part by the Federal Government. One or 
more of the parties of the agreement may perform 
the acquisition, design, construction, management, 
or operation of a dredged material processing, treat-
ment, or disposal facility. If appropriate, the Sec-
retary may combine portions of separate construc-
tion or maintenance appropriations from separate 
Federal projects with the appropriate combined cost-
sharing between the various projects when the facil-
ity serves to manage dredged material from multiple 
Federal projects located in the geographic region of 
the facility. 
‘‘(2) PUBLIC FINANCING.—
‘‘(A) AGREEMENTS.—
‘‘(i) SPECIFIED
FEDERAL
FUNDING 
SOURCES AND COST SHARING.—The cost-
sharing agreement used shall clearly speci-
fy the Federal funding sources and com-
bined cost-sharing when applicable to mul-
HR 2557 RFS 
tiple Federal navigation projects and the 
responsibilities and risks of each of the 
parties related to present and future 
dredged material managed by the facility.
‘‘(ii) MANAGEMENT OF SEDIMENTS.—
The cost-sharing agreement may include 
the management of sediments from the 
maintenance dredging of Federal naviga-
tion projects that do not have partnership 
agreements. The cost-sharing agreement 
may allow the non-Federal sponsor to re-
ceive reimbursable payments from the Fed-
eral Government for commitments made by 
the sponsor for disposal or placement ca-
pacity at dredged material treatment, proc-
essing, contaminant reduction, or disposal 
facilities. 
‘‘(iii) 
CREDIT.—The 
cost-sharing 
agreement may allow costs incurred prior 
to execution of a partnership agreement 
for construction or the purchase of equip-
ment or capacity for the project to be cred-
ited according to existing cost-sharing 
rules.
HR 2557 RFS 
‘‘(B) CREDIT.—Nothing in this subsection 
supersedes or modifies existing agreements be-
tween the Federal Government and any non-
Federal sponsors for the cost-sharing, construc-
tion, and operation and maintenance of Federal 
navigation projects. Subject to the approval of 
the Secretary and in accordance with existing 
laws, regulations, and policies, a non-Federal 
public sponsor of a Federal navigation project 
may seek credit for funds provided in the acqui-
sition, design, construction, management, or op-
eration of a dredged material processing, treat-
ment, or disposal facility to the extent the facil-
ity is used to manage dredged material from 
the Federal navigation project. The non-Federal 
sponsor shall be responsible for providing all 
necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, or 
relocations associated with the facility and shall 
receive credit for these items.’’; and 
(3) in each of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A), 
as so redesignated—
(A) by inserting ‘‘and maintenance’’ after 
‘‘operation’’; and
HR 2557 RFS 
(B) by inserting ‘‘processing, treatment, 
or’’ after ‘‘dredged material’’ the first place it 
appears. 
SEC. 2010. WETLANDS MITIGATION. 
In carrying out a water resources project that in-
volves wetlands mitigation and that has impacts that occur 
within the service area of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, 
to the maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, 
shall give preference to the use of the mitigation bank if 
the bank contains sufficient available credits to offset the 
impact and the bank is approved in accordance with the 
Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Oper-
ation of Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605) or other 
applicable Federal law (including regulations).
SEC. 2011. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—In conducting a study of harbor 
and navigation improvements, the Secretary may rec-
ommend a project without the need to demonstrate that 
the project is justified solely by national economic develop-
ment benefits if the Secretary determines that—
(1)(A) the community to be served by the 
project is at least 70 miles from the nearest surface 
accessible commercial port and has no direct rail or 
highway link to another community served by a sur-
face accessible port or harbor; or
HR 2557 RFS 
(B) the project would be located in the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Common-
wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or Amer-
ican Samoa; 
(2) the harbor is economically critical such that 
over 80 percent of the goods transported through 
the harbor would be consumed within the community 
served by the harbor and navigation improvement; 
and 
(3) the long-term viability of the community 
would be threatened without the harbor and naviga-
tion improvement. 
(b) JUSTIFICATION.—In considering whether to rec-
ommend a project under subsection (a), the Secretary 
shall consider the benefits of the project to—
(1) public health and safety of the local commu-
nity, including access to facilities designed to protect 
public health and safety; 
(2) access to natural resources for subsistence 
purposes; 
(3) local and regional economic opportunities; 
(4) welfare of the local population; and 
(5) social and cultural value to the community.
HR 2557 RFS 
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).
HR 2557 RFS 
‘‘(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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.’’.
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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.
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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.’’;
HR 2557 RFS 
(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’’.
HR 2557 RFS 
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-
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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-
HR 2557 RFS 
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-
HR 2557 RFS 
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-
HR 2557 RFS 
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-
HR 2557 RFS 
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.
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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-
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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.
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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);
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
‘‘(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.
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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).
HR 2557 RFS 
(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,
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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.
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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—
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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.
HR 2557 RFS 
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require 
the Chief of Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews 
for a project study. 
(c) ESTABLISHMENT OF PANELS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—For each project study sub-
ject to peer review under subsection (a), as soon as 
practicable after the Chief of Engineers determines 
that a project study will be subject to peer review, 
the Chief of Engineers shall contract with the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences (or a similar independent 
scientific and technical advisory organization), or an 
eligible organization, to establish a panel of experts 
to peer review the project study for technical and 
scientific sufficiency. 
(2) MEMBERSHIP.—A panel of experts estab-
lished for a project study under this section shall be 
composed of independent experts who represent a 
balance of areas of expertise suitable for the review 
being conducted. 
(3) LIMITATION ON APPOINTMENTS.—An indi-
vidual may not be selected to serve on a panel of ex-
perts established for a project study under this sec-
tion if the individual has a financial or close profes-
sional association with any organization or group
HR 2557 RFS 
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 re-
view—
(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-
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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 sec-
tion—
(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.
HR 2557 RFS 
(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—
HR 2557 RFS 
(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-
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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-
HR 2557 RFS 
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.
HR 2557 RFS 
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.
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
as part of the project, and the cost of such work shall 
be recommended in the final report for credit toward the 
non-Federal share of the cost of the project. Work carried 
out after submission of the final report and before the date 
of the partnership agreement for the project that is deter-
mined to be integral to the project shall be considered as 
part of the project, and the cost of such work shall be 
credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
project. 
SEC. 3015. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALI-
FORNIA. 
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific 
Flyway Center, Sacramento, California, being carried out 
under section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to authorize 
the Secretary to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public ac-
cess to the project. 
SEC. 3016. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA. 
The project for improvement of the quality of the en-
vironment, Pinole Creek Phase I, California, being carried 
out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment 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
HR 2557 RFS 
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.
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
$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
HR 2557 RFS 
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.
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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-
106
HR 2557 RFS 
ture, at a total cost of $28,545,000 and to direct the Sec-
retary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
of the project the cost of planning, design, and construc-
tion 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. 3043. WOLF LAKE, INDIANA. 
The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wolf 
Lake, Indiana, 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 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. 3044. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY. 
The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project 
for flood control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy 
and Cumberland Rivers, West Virginia, Virginia, and Ken-
tucky, authorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 
1339), is modified to direct the Secretary to take measures
107
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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 pro-
gram—
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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.
149
HR 2557 RFS 
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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
HR 2557 RFS 
(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
152
HR 2557 RFS 
and use restrictions relating to industrial use pur-
poses are extinguished. 
(2) AFFECTED DEEDS.—The deeds with the fol-
lowing county auditor’s file numbers are referred to 
in paragraph (1): 
(A) Auditor’s Instrument No. 399218 of 
Nez Perce County, Idaho—2.07 acres. 
(B) Auditor’s Instrument No. 487437 of 
Nez Perce County, Idaho—7.32 acres.
(b) OLD HICKORY LOCK AND DAM, CUMBERLAND 
RIVER, TENNESSEE.—
(1) RELEASE
OF
RETAINED
RIGHTS, INTER-
ESTS, RESERVATIONS.—With respect to land con-
veyed by the Secretary to the Tennessee Society of 
Crippled Children and Adults, Incorporated (now 
known as ‘‘Easter Seals Tennessee’’), at Old Hick-
ory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, 
under section 211 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 
(79 Stat. 1087), the reversionary interests and the 
use restrictions relating to recreation and camping 
purposes are extinguished. 
(2) INSTRUMENT
OF
RELEASE.—As soon as 
possible after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall execute and file in the appropriate 
office a deed of release, amended deed, or other ap-
153
HR 2557 RFS 
propriate instrument effectuating the release of in-
terests required by paragraph (1). 
(c) NO EFFECT OF OTHER RIGHTS.—Nothing in this 
section affects the remaining rights and interests of the 
Corps of Engineers for authorized project purposes. 
SEC. 3103. LAND EXCHANGE, DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION 
OF LANDS, ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA. 
(a) LAND EXCHANGE.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may exchange 
lands above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, 
Georgia, identified in the Real Estate Design Memo-
randum prepared by the Mobile district engineer, 
April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 1996, for 
lands on the north side of Allatoona Lake that are 
needed for wildlife management and for protection 
of the water quality and overall environment of 
Allatoona Lake. 
(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The basis for all 
land exchanges under this subsection shall be a fair 
market appraisal so that lands exchanged are of 
equal value. 
(b) 
DISPOSAL
AND
ACQUISITION
OF
LANDS, 
ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may also sell 
lands above 863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake,
154
HR 2557 RFS 
Georgia, identified in the memorandum referred to 
in subsection (a)(1) and may use the proceeds to 
pay costs associated with the purchase of lands 
needed for wildlife management and for protection 
of the water quality and overall environment of 
Allatoona Lake.
(2) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Land sales and 
purchases to be conducted under this subsection 
shall be subject to the following terms and condi-
tions: 
(A) Lands acquired under this subsection 
shall be by negotiated purchase from willing 
sellers only. 
(B) The basis for all transactions under 
the program shall be a fair market appraisal 
acceptable to the Secretary. 
(C) The purchasers shall share in the asso-
ciated environmental and real estate costs, to 
include surveys and associated fees in accord-
ance with the memorandum referred to in sub-
section (a)(1). 
(D) Any other conditions that the Sec-
retary may impose. 
(c) REPEAL.—Section 325 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.
155
HR 2557 RFS 
TITLE IV—STUDIES 
SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM. 
Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1999 (113 Stat. 330–332) is amended by adding at 
the end the following: 
‘‘(g) IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS
FOR STUDY.—The 
non-Federal interest may provide up to 100 percent of the 
non-Federal share required under subsection (f) in the 
form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind con-
tributions.’’. 
SEC. 4002. CHOCTAWHATCHEE, PEA, AND YELLOW RIVERS 
WATERSHED, ALABAMA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage re-
duction, environmental restoration, recreation, and water 
supply in the Choctawhatchee, Pea, and Yellow Rivers wa-
tershed, Alabama. 
SEC. 4003. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA. 
The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a 
study to determine the feasibility of providing navigation 
improvements at St. George, Alaska. 
SEC. 4004. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for hydropower, recre-
ation, and related purposes on the Susitna River, Alaska.
156
HR 2557 RFS 
SEC. 4005. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply 
source for Searcy County, Arkansas. 
SEC. 4006. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WA-
TERWAY, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MINNESOTA, MIS-
SOURI, AND WISCONSIN. 
The Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on 
the results of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Wa-
terway Restructured System Navigation Feasibility Study, 
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin, no 
later than July 1, 2004.
SEC. 4007. HAMILTON, CALIFORNIA. 
The Secretary is directed to continue planning, 
preconstruction, engineering, and design efforts on the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive 
Study-Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and Eco-
system Restoration Initial Project and shall include in the 
study an area 2 miles north and 4 miles south of State 
Highway 32.
SEC. 4008. NAPA RIVER, ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study 
of the Napa River in the vicinity of St. Helena, California, 
for the purposes of improving flood management through 
reconnecting the river to its floodplain; restoring habitat, 
including riparian and aquatic habitat; improving fish pas-
157
HR 2557 RFS 
sage and water quality; and restoring native plant commu-
nities. In conducting the study, the Secretary shall review 
plans and designs developed by non-Federal interests and 
shall incorporate such plans and designs into the Federal 
study where the Secretary determines that such plans and 
designs are consistent with the Federal interest. 
SEC. 4009. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA. 
Section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000 (114 Stat. 2636) is amended by striking ‘‘32 
months’’ and inserting ‘‘44 months’’. 
SEC. 4010. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study 
to determine the feasibility of, and alternatives for, meas-
ures to protect water diversion facilities and fish protective 
screen facilities in the vicinity of river mile 178 on the 
Sacramento River, California.
SEC. 4011. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOA-
QUIN DELTA, CALIFORNIA. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a 
study to determine the feasibility of the beneficial use of 
dredged material from the San Francisco Bay in the Sac-
ramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, including the ben-
efits and impacts of salinity in the Delta and the benefits 
to navigation, flood damage reduction, ecosystem restora-
158
HR 2557 RFS 
tion, water quality, salinity control, water supply reli-
ability, and recreation. 
(b) COOPERATION.—In conducting the study, the 
Secretary shall cooperate with the California Department 
of Water Resources and appropriate Federal and State en-
tities in developing options for the beneficial use of 
dredged material from San Francisco Bay for the Sac-
ramento-San Joaquin Delta area. 
(c) REVIEW.—The study shall include a review of the 
feasibility of using Sherman Island as a rehandling site 
for levee maintenance material, as well as for ecosystem 
restoration. The review may include monitoring a pilot 
project using up to 150,000 cubic yards of dredged mate-
rial and being carried out at the Sherman Island site, ex-
amining larger scale use of dredged materials from the 
San Francisco Bay and Suisun Bay Channel, and ana-
lyzing the feasibility of the potential use of saline mate-
rials from the San Francisco Bay for both rehandling and 
ecosystem restoration purposes.
SEC. 4012. TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of including the northern end of Tybee Island 
extending from the north terminal groin to the mouth of 
Lazaretto Creek as a part of the project for beach erosion 
control, Tybee Island, Georgia, carried out under section
159
HR 2557 RFS 
201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–
5).
SEC. 4013. CALUMET HARBOR, ILLINOIS. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at Cal-
umet Harbor, Illinois. 
SEC. 4014. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. 
Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2638) is amended by inserting 
‘‘Lake Michigan and’’ before ‘‘the Chicago River’’. 
SEC. 4015. SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, IL-
LINOIS. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem restora-
tion at the South Fork of the South Branch of the Chicago 
River, Chicago, Illinois. 
SEC. 4016. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY. 
The Secretary is authorized to complete a rehabilita-
tion evaluation report for the project for flood damage re-
duction, Paducah, Kentucky, and, if the Secretary deter-
mines 
that 
the 
project 
is 
feasible, 
proceed 
to 
preconstruction engineering and design for rehabilitation 
of the project.
160
HR 2557 RFS 
SEC. 4017. BASTROP-MOREHOUSE PARISH, LOUISIANA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 4018. WEST FELICIANA PARISH, LOUISIANA. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for riverfront develop-
ment, including enhanced public access, recreation, and 
environmental restoration, on the Mississippi River in 
West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
SEC. 4019. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of deepening that portion of the navigation 
channel of the navigation project for Fall River Harbor, 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by section 
101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), 
seaward of the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, 
Fall River and Somerset, Massachusetts.
SEC. 4020. CITY OF MACKINAC ISLAND, MICHIGAN. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation at the 
city of Mackinac Island, Michigan. 
SEC. 4021. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, Ten-
161
HR 2557 RFS 
nessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi, to 
provide water supply for northeast Mississippi.
SEC. 4022. PUEBLO OF ZUNI, NEW MEXICO. 
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
feasibility of carrying out projects for water resources de-
velopment, environmental restoration, and natural re-
sources protection for the Pueblo of Zuni, New Mexico, 
under section 203 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269). 
SEC. 4023. HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NEW YORK AND 
NEW JERSEY. 
In carrying out the study for environmental restora-
tion, Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jer-
sey, the Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed res-
toration teams composed of estuary restoration experts 
from the Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey Department 
of Environmental Protection, and the Port Authority of 
New York and New Jersey and other experts designated 
by the Secretary for the purpose of developing habitat res-
toration and water quality enhancement. 
SEC. 4024. SAC AND FOX NATION, OKLAHOMA. 
The Secretary shall complete a water and related 
land resource conservation and management plan for the 
Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma, under section 203 of the
162
HR 2557 RFS 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 
2269). 
SEC. 4025. SUTHERLIN, OREGON. 
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of 
water resources along Sutherlin Creek in the vicinity of 
Sutherlin, Oregon, to determine the feasibility of carrying 
out a project to restore and enhance aquatic resources 
using a combination of structural and bioengineering tech-
niques and, if the Secretary determines that the project 
is feasible, may carry out the project.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
$2,500,000. 
SEC. 4026. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OREGON. 
The Secretary shall conduct under section 216 of the 
Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1830) a study of the 
project for navigation, Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon, 
authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 
Appropriations Act of July 25, 1912 (37 Stat. 220), to 
investigate measures to address dangerous and hazardous 
wave and ocean conditions. 
SEC. 4027. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE 
IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON. 
(a) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem restora-
163
HR 2557 RFS 
tion and fish passage improvements on rivers throughout 
the State of Oregon. 
(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the study, the 
Secretary shall—
(1) work in coordination with the State of Or-
egon, local governments, and other Federal agencies; 
and 
(2) place emphasis on—
(A) fish passage and conservation and res-
toration strategies to benefit species that are 
listed or proposed for listing as threatened or 
endangered species under the Endangered Spe-
cies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and 
(B) other watershed restoration objectives. 
(c) PILOT PROGRAM.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—In conjunction with con-
ducting the study under subsection (a), the Sec-
retary may carry out pilot projects to demonstrate 
the effectiveness of ecosystem restoration and fish 
passages. 
(2) AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS.—
There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 
to carry out this subsection.