Engineers to be exempt from peer review under 
paragraph (6). 
(B) DISCRETIONARY.—A project study 
may be subject to peer review if—
(i) the Governor of an affected State 
requests a peer review by an independent 
panel of experts; 
(ii) the head of a Federal or State 
agency charged with reviewing the project 
study determines that the project is likely 
to have a significant adverse impact on en-
vironmental, cultural, or other resources 
under the jurisdiction of the agency after 
implementation of proposed mitigation 
plans and requests a peer review by an 
independent panel of experts; or 
(iii) the Chief of Engineers determines 
that the project study is controversial. 
(4) CONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS.—Upon receipt 
of a written request under paragraph (3)(B) or on 
the initiative of the Chief of Engineers, the Chief of 
Engineers shall determine whether a project study is 
controversial.
(5) FACTORS
TO
CONSIDER.—In determining 
whether a project study is controversial, the Chief of 
Engineers shall consider if—
(A) there is a significant public dispute as 
to the size, nature, or effects of the project; or 
(B) there is a significant public dispute as 
to the economic or environmental costs or bene-
fits of the project. 
(6) PROJECT STUDIES EXCLUDED FROM PEER 
REVIEW.—Project studies that may be excluded from 
peer review under paragraph (1) are—
(A) a study for a project the Chief of En-
gineers determines—
(i) is not controversial; 
(ii) has no more than negligible ad-
verse impacts on scarce or unique cultural, 
historic, or tribal resources; 
(iii) has no substantial adverse im-
pacts on fish and wildlife species and their 
habitat prior to the implementation of 
mitigation measures; and 
(iv) has, before implementation of 
mitigation measures, no more than a neg-
ligible adverse impact on a species listed as 
endangered or threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
U.S.C. 1539 et seq.) or the critical habitat 
of such species designated under such Act; 
and 
(B) a study for a project pursued under 
section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
(33 U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the Flood Con-
trol Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g), 
section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 
U.S.C. 701r), section 107(a) of the River and 
Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577(a)), section 
3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing Fed-
eral participation in the cost of protecting the 
shores of publicly owned property’’, approved 
August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g), section 111 
of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 
U.S.C. 426i), section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An 
Act authorizing the construction, repair, and 
preservation of certain public works on rivers 
and harbors, and for other purposes’’, approved 
March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 1135 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), section 206 of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 
U.S.C. 2330), or section 204 of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 
2326). 
(7) APPEAL.—The decision of the Chief of En-
gineers whether to peer review a project study shall 
be published in the Federal Register and shall be 
subject to appeal by a person referred to in para-
graph (3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the Secretary of the 
Army if such appeal is made within the 30-day pe-
riod following the date of such publication. 
(8) DETERMINATION OF PROJECT COST.—For 
purposes of determining the estimated total cost of 
a project under paragraph (3)(A), the project cost 
shall be based upon the reasonable estimates of the 
Chief of Engineers at the completion of the recon-
naissance study for the project. If the reasonable es-
timate of project costs is subsequently determined to 
be in excess of the amount in paragraph (3)(A), the 
Chief of Engineers shall make a determination 
whether a project study should be reviewed under 
this section. 
(b) TIMING OF PEER REVIEW.—The Chief of Engi-
neers shall determine the timing of a peer review of a 
project study under subsection (a). In all cases, the peer 
review shall occur during the period beginning on the date 
of the completion of the reconnaissance study for the
project and ending on the date the draft report of the 
Chief of Engineers for the project is made available for 
public comment. Where the Chief of Engineers has not 
initiated a peer review of a project study, the Chief of En-
gineers shall consider, at a minimum, whether to initiate 
a peer review at the time that—
(1) the without-project conditions are identified; 
(2) the array of alternatives to be considered 
are identified; and 
(3) the preferred alternative is identified. 
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.