(28) LITTLE NESHAMINY CREEK, WARRENTON, 
PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduc-
tion, Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrenton, Pennsyl-
vania. 
(29) 
SOUTHAMPTON
CREEK
WATERSHED, 
SOUTHAMPTON, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood 
damage reduction, Southampton Creek watershed, 
Southampton, Pennsylvania. 
(30) SPRING CREEK, LOWER MACUNGIE TOWN-
SHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage re-
duction, Spring Creek, Lower Macungie Township, 
Pennsylvania. 
(31) YARDLEY AQUEDUCT, SILVER AND BROCK 
CREEKS, 
YARDLEY, 
PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for 
flood damage reduction, Yardley Aqueduct, Silver 
and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania. 
(32) SURFSIDE
BEACH, SOUTH
CAROLINA.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Surfside Beach 
and vicinity, South Carolina. 
(33) 
CONGELOSI
DITCH, 
MISSOURI
CITY, 
TEXAS.—Project 
for 
flood 
damage 
reduction, 
Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas. 
(34) DILLEY, TEXAS.—Project for flood dam-
age reduction, Dilley, Texas. 
(b) SPECIAL RULES.—
(1) CACHE RIVER BASIN, GRUBBS, ARKANSAS.—
The Secretary may proceed with the project for the 
Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas, referred to in 
subsection (a)(5), notwithstanding that the project is 
located within the boundaries of the flood control 
project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, 
authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act 
of 1950, (64 Stat. 172) and modified by section 99 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 
(88 Stat. 41). 
(2) 
WILDWOOD
CREEK, 
YUCAIPA, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—The Secretary shall review the locally pre-
pared plan for the project for flood damage, Wild-
wood Creek, California, referred to in subsection 
(a)(11) 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, 
the Secretary may use the plan to carry out the 
project and shall provide credit toward the non-Fed-
eral share of the cost of the project for 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.
(3) BORUP, MINNESOTA.—In carrying out the 
project for flood damage reduction, South Branch of 
the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota, referred to 
in subsection (a)(19) the Secretary may consider na-
tional ecosystem restoration benefits in determining 
the Federal interest in the project and shall allow 
the non-Federal interest to participate in the financ-
ing 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 
evaluation indicates that applying such section is 
necessary to implement the project. 
(4) ITASCA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.—In carrying 
out the project for flood damage reduction, Itasca 
County, Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a)(16) 
the Secretary may consider national ecosystem res-
toration benefits in determining the Federal interest 
in the project. 
(5) DILLEY, TEXAS.—The Secretary shall carry 
out the project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, 
Texas, referred to in subsection (a)(34) if the Sec-
retary determines that the project is feasible.
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 
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, ARKANSAS 
AND
LOUISIANA.—Projects 
for 
emergency 
streambank protection, Ouachita and Black Rivers, 
Arkansas and Louisiana. 
(2) FRANKLIN
POINT
PARK, ANNE
ARUNDEL 
COUNTY, 
MARYLAND.—Project 
for 
emergency 
streambank protection, Franklin Point Park, Anne 
Arundel County, Maryland. 
(3) MAYO BEACH PARK, ANNE ARUNDEL COUN-
TY, MARYLAND.—Project for emergency streambank 
protection, Mayo Beach Park, Anne Arundel County, 
Maryland. 
(4) PINEY
POINT
LIGHTHOUSE, ST. MARY’S 
COUNTY, 
MARYLAND.—Project 
for 
emergency 
streambank protection, Piney Point Lighthouse, St. 
Mary’s County, Maryland. 
(5) ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN.—Project 
for emergency streambank protection, St. Joseph 
Harbor, Michigan.