(3) ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION
PROJECTS.—
With respect to a water resources project the pri-
mary purpose of which is ecosystem restoration, an 
overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the 
plan that maximizes net national ecosystem restora-
tion benefits may be if the Secretary determines, 
and the non-Federal interest concurs, that an alter-
native plan is feasible and achieves the project pur-
poses while providing greater economic development 
benefits. 
(b) IDENTIFYING
ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS
AND 
PROJECTS.—
(1) PRIMARILY ECONOMIC BENEFITS.—In con-
ducting a study of the feasibility of a project where 
the primary benefits are expected to be economic, 
the Secretary may identify ecosystem restoration 
benefits that may be achieved in the study area and, 
after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal in-
terest, may study and recommend construction of 
additional measures, a separate project, or separable 
project element to achieve those benefits. 
(2) PRIMARILY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION BEN-
EFITS.—In conducting a study of the feasibility of a 
project where the primary benefits are expected to 
be associated with ecosystem restoration, the Sec-
retary may identify economic benefits that may be 
achieved in the study area and, after obtaining the 
participation of a non-Federal interest, may study 
and recommend construction of additional measures, 
a separate project, or separable project element to 
achieve those benefits. 
(3) RULES
APPLICABLE
TO
CERTAIN
MEAS-
URES, PROJECTS, AND ELEMENTS.—Any additional 
measures, separate project, or separable element 
identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and rec-
ommended for construction shall not be considered 
integral to the underlying project and, if authorized, 
shall be subject to a separate partnership agreement, 
unless a non-Federal interest agrees to share in the 
cost of the additional measures, project, or separable 
element. 
(c) CALCULATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR 
FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.—A feasibility 
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. 2030. 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. 
(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