103
(ii) the Governor of an affected State 
requests a peer review by an independent 
panel of experts. 
(B) DISCRETIONARY.—A project study 
may be subject to peer review if—
(i) 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 
(ii) 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—
104
(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
105
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).
106
(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
107
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. 
(2) MEMBERSHIP.—A panel of experts estab-
lished for a project study under this section shall be 
composed of independent experts who represent a
108
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 
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;
109
(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-
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
110
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 
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—
111
(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 
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
112
(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 41⁄2 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. 
(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
113
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—
(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. 2038. STUDIES AND REPORTS FOR WATER RESOURCES 
PROJECTS. 
(a) STUDIES.—
(1) COST-SHARING
REQUIREMENTS.—Section 
105(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)) is amended by adding at 
the end the following: 
‘‘(3) DETAILED
PROJECT
REPORTS.—The re-
quirements of this subsection that apply to a feasi-
bility study also shall apply to a study that results 
in a detailed project report, except that—
114
‘‘(A) the first $100,000 of the costs of a 
study that results in a detailed project report 
shall be a Federal expense; and 
‘‘(B) paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply 
to such a study.’’. 
(2) PLANNING
AND
ENGINEERING.—Section 
105(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2215(b)) is amended 
by striking ‘‘authorized by this Act’’. 
(3) DEFINITIONS.—Section 105 of such Act (33 
U.S.C. 2215) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: 
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following 
definitions apply: 
‘‘(1) DETAILED PROJECT REPORT.—The term 
‘detailed project report’ means a report for a project 
not specifically authorized by Congress in law or 
otherwise that determines the feasibility of the 
project with a level of detail appropriate to the scope 
and complexity of the recommended solution and 
sufficient to proceed directly to the preparation of 
contract plans and specifications. The term includes 
any associated environmental impact statement and 
mitigation plan. For a project for which the Federal 
cost does not exceed $1,000,000, the term includes 
a planning and design analysis document.
115
‘‘(2) FEASIBILITY
STUDY.—The term ‘feasi-
bility study’ means a study that results in a feasi-
bility report under section 905, and any associated 
environmental impact statement and mitigation 
plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a 
water resources project. The term includes a study 
that results in a project implementation report pre-
pared under title VI of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680–2694), a gen-
eral reevaluation report, and a limited reevaluation 
report.’’. 
(b) REPORTS.—
(1) PREPARATION.—Section 905(a) of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2282(a)) is amended—
(A) by striking ‘‘(a) In the case of any’’ 
and inserting the following: 
‘‘(a) PREPARATION OF REPORTS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any’’; 
(B) by striking ‘‘the Secretary, the Sec-
retary shall’’ and inserting ‘‘the Secretary that 
results 
in 
recommendations 
concerning 
a 
project or the operation of a project and that 
requires specific authorization by Congress in