Sec. 5028. Alaska. 
Sec. 5029. Barrow, Alaska. 
Sec. 5030. Coffman Cove, Alaska. 
Sec. 5031. Fire Island, Alaska. 
Sec. 5032. Fort Yukon, Alaska. 
Sec. 5033. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska. 
Sec. 5034. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska. 
Sec. 5035. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska. 
Sec. 5036. Tanana River, Alaska. 
Sec. 5037. Valdez, Alaska. 
Sec. 5038. Whittier, Alaska. 
Sec. 5039. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska. 
Sec. 5040. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5041. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5042. Loomis Landing, Arkansas. 
Sec. 5043. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri. 
Sec. 5044. Cambria, California. 
Sec. 5045. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; Mallard 
Slough, Pittsburg, California. 
Sec. 5046. Dana Point Harbor, California. 
Sec. 5047. East San Joaquin County, California. 
Sec. 5048. Eastern Santa Clara basin, California. 
Sec. 5049. Lancaster, California. 
Sec. 5050. Los Osos, California. 
Sec. 5051. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California. 
Sec. 5052. Raymond Basin, Six Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, 
California. 
Sec. 5053. San Francisco, California. 
Sec. 5054. San Francisco, California, waterfront area. 
Sec. 5055. San Pablo Bay, California, watershed and Suisun Marsh ecosystem 
restoration. 
Sec. 5056. Stockton, California. 
Sec. 5057. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, Con-
necticut. 
Sec. 5058. Florida Keys water quality improvements. 
Sec. 5059. Lake Worth, Florida. 
Sec. 5060. East Central and Northeast Florida. 
Sec. 5061. Lake Lanier, Georgia. 
Sec. 5062. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho. 
Sec. 5063. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects. 
Sec. 5064. Illinois River Basin restoration. 
Sec. 5065. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration. 
Sec. 5066. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois. 
Sec. 5067. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois. 
Sec. 5068. Southwest Illinois. 
Sec. 5069. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana. 
Sec. 5070. Calumet region, Indiana. 
Sec. 5071. Floodplain mapping, Missouri River, Iowa. 
Sec. 5072. Paducah, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5073. Southern and eastern Kentucky. 
Sec. 5074. Winchester, Kentucky. 
Sec. 5075. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 
Sec. 5076. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana. 
Sec. 5077. East Atchafalaya Basin and Amite River Basin Region, Louisiana. 
Sec. 5078. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 5079. Charlestown, Maryland. 
Sec. 5080. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland. 
Sec. 5081. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Delaware and Maryland. 
Sec. 5082. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites. 
Sec. 5083. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan. 
Sec. 5084. Crookston, Minnesota. 
Sec. 5085. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota. 
Sec. 5086. Itasca County, Minnesota. 
Sec. 5087. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
Sec. 5088. Northeastern Minnesota. 
Sec. 5089. Wild Rice River, Minnesota. 
Sec. 5090. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. 
Sec. 5091. Mississippi River, Missouri and Illinois. 
Sec. 5092. St. Louis, Missouri. 
Sec. 5093. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey. 
Sec. 5094. Atlantic Coast of New York. 
Sec. 5095. College Point, New York City, New York. 
Sec. 5096. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York. 
Sec. 5097. Hudson River, New York. 
Sec. 5098. Mount Morris Dam, New York. 
Sec. 5099. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina. 
Sec. 5100. Stanly County, North Carolina. 
Sec. 5101. Cincinnati, Ohio. 
Sec. 5102. Toussaint River, Ohio. 
Sec. 5103. Eugene, Oregon. 
Sec. 5104. Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon. 
Sec. 5105. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 5106. Clinton county, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 5107. Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 5108. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 5109. Northeast Pennsylvania. 
Sec. 5110. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York. 
Sec. 5111. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 
Sec. 5112. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and terres-
trial wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota. 
Sec. 5113. East Tennessee. 
Sec. 5114. Fritz Landing, Tennessee. 
Sec. 5115. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee. 
Sec. 5116. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee. 
Sec. 5117. Tennessee River partnership. 
Sec. 5118. Upper Mississippi embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mis-
sissippi. 
Sec. 5119. Bosque River Watershed, Texas. 
Sec. 5120. Dallas County region, Texas. 
Sec. 5121. Dallas Floodway, Dallas Texas. 
Sec. 5122. Harris County, Texas. 
Sec. 5123. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas. 
Sec. 5124. Onion Creek, Texas. 
Sec. 5125. Eastern Shore and southwest Virginia. 
Sec. 5126. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia. 
Sec. 5127. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington. 
Sec. 5128. Hamilton Island campground, Washington. 
Sec. 5129. Puget Island, Washington. 
Sec. 5130. Willapa Bay, Washington. 
Sec. 5131. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 5132. Central West Virginia. 
Sec. 5133. Southern West Virginia. 
Sec. 5134. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests. 
Sec. 5135. Wage surveys. 
Sec. 5136. Additional assistance for critical projects. 
TITLE VI—FLORIDA EVERGLADES 
Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida. 
Sec. 6002. Pilot projects. 
Sec. 6003. Initial projects. 
Sec. 6004. Maximum costs. 
Sec. 6005. Project authorization. 
Sec. 6006. Credit. 
Sec. 6007. Outreach and assistance. 
Sec. 6008. Critical restoration projects. 
Sec. 6009. Modified water deliveries. 
Sec. 6010. Deauthorizations. 
Sec. 6011. Regional engineering model for environmental restoration. 
TITLE VII—LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA 
Sec. 7001. Definitions. 
Sec. 7002. Comprehensive plan. 
Sec. 7003. Louisiana coastal area. 
Sec. 7004. Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task 
Force. 
Sec. 7005. Project modifications. 
Sec. 7006. Construction. 
Sec. 7007. Non-Federal cost share. 
Sec. 7008. Project justification. 
Sec. 7009. Independent review. 
Sec. 7010. Expedited reports. 
Sec. 7011. Reporting. 
Sec. 7012. New Orleans and vicinity. 
Sec. 7013. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. 
TITLE VIII—UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATER-
WAY SYSTEM 
Sec. 8001. Definitions. 
Sec. 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration. 
Sec. 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements. 
Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization. 
Sec. 8005. Comparable progress.
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. 
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the fol-
lowing projects for water resources development and con-
servation and other purposes are authorized to be carried 
out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the 
plans, and subject to the conditions, described in the re-
spective reports designated in this section: 
(1) HAINES, ALASKA.—The project for naviga-
tion, Haines, Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of 
$14,040,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$11,232,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$2,808,000. 
(2) PORT
LIONS, ALASKA.—The project for 
navigation, Port Lions, Alaska: Report of the Chief 
of Engineers dated June 14, 2006, at a total cost 
of $9,530,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$7,624,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$1,906,000. 
(3) RIO SALADO OESTE, ARIZONA.—The project 
for environmental restoration, Rio Salado Oeste, Ari-
zona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated De-
cember 19, 2006, at a total cost of $166,650,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $106,629,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $60,021,000. 
(4) SANTA
CRUZ
RIVER, 
PASEO
DE
LAS 
IGLESIAS, ARIZONA.—The project for environmental 
restoration, Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Ari-
zona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March 
28, 2006, at a total cost of $97,700,000, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $63,300,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $34,400,000. 
(5) TANQUE VERDE CREEK, PIMA COUNTY, ARI-
ZONA.—The project for environmental restoration, 
Tanque Verde Creek, Pima County, Arizona: Report 
of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at 
a total cost of $5,906,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $3,836,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $2,070,000. 
(6) SALT RIVER (VA SHLYAY’ AKIMEL), MARI-
COPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.—The project for environ-
mental restoration, Salt River (Va Shlyay’ Akimel), 
Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $162,100,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $105,200,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,900,000. 
(7) MAY BRANCH, FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS.—
The project for flood damage reduction, May
Branch, Fort Smith, Arkansas, Report of the Chief 
of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total 
cost of $30,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
of $15,010,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
of $15,840,000. 
(8) HAMILTON CITY, CALIFORNIA.—The project 
for flood damage reduction and environmental res-
toration, Hamilton City, California: Report of the 
Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a 
total cost of $52,400,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $34,100,000 and estimated non-Federal cost 
of $18,300,000. 
(9) 
IMPERIAL
BEACH, 
CALIFORNIA.—The 
project for storm damage reduction, Imperial Beach, 
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $13,700,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $8,521,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,179,000, and at 
an estimated total cost of $42,500,000 for periodic 
beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the 
project, 
with 
an 
estimated 
Federal 
cost 
of 
$21,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$21,250,000. 
(10) MATILIJA DAM, VENTURA COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—The project for environmental restoration,
Matilija Dam, Ventura County, California: Report of 
the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at 
a total cost of $144,500,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $89,700,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $54,800,000. 
(11) MIDDLE
CREEK, LAKE
COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—The project for flood damage reduction 
and environmental restoration, Middle Creek, Lake 
County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of 
$45,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$29,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$15,700,000. 
(12) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION, 
CALIFORNIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for envi-
ronmental restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh 
Restoration, Napa, California: Report of the 
Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, 
at a total cost of $134,500,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $87,500,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $47,000,000. 
(B) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out 
the project authorized by this paragraph, the 
Secretary shall—
(i) construct a recycled water pipeline 
extending from the Sonoma Valley County 
Sanitation District Waste Water Treat-
ment Plant and the Napa Sanitation Dis-
trict Waste Water Treatment Plant to the 
project; and 
(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1, 
1A, 2, and 3. 
(13) DENVER COUNTY REACH, SOUTH PLATTE 
RIVER, DENVER, COLORADO.—The project for envi-
ronmental restoration, Denver County Reach, South 
Platte River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief 
of Engineers dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of 
$21,050,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$13,680,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$7,370,000. 
(14) MIAMI
HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion, Miami Harbor, Miami-Dade County, Flor-
ida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
April 25, 2005, at a total cost of $125,270,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $75,140,000 
and 
an 
estimated 
non-Federal 
cost 
of 
$50,130,000.
(B) GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT.—
The non-Federal share of the cost of the gen-
eral reevaluation report that resulted in the re-
port of the Chief of Engineers referred to in 
subparagraph (A) shall be the same percentage 
as the non-Federal share of cost of construction 
of the project. 
(C) AGREEMENT.—The Secretary shall 
enter into a new partnership with the non-Fed-
eral interest to reflect the cost sharing required 
by subparagraph (B). 
(15) EAST
ST. LOUIS
AND
VICINITY, ILLI-
NOIS.—The project for environmental restoration 
and recreation, East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois: 
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 
22, 2004, at a total cost of $208,260,000, with an 
estimated Federal cost of $134,910,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $73,350,000. 
(16) PEORIA RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, ILLI-
NOIS.—The project for environmental restoration, 
Peoria Riverfront Development, Illinois: Report of 
the Chief of Engineers dated July 28, 2003, at a 
total cost of $18,220,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $11,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $6,380,000.
(17) WOOD
RIVER
LEVEE
SYSTEM
RECON-
STRUCTION, 
MADISON
COUNTY, 
ILLINOIS.—The 
project for flood damage reduction, Wood River 
Levee System Reconstruction, Madison County, Illi-
nois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July 
18, 2006, at a total cost of $17,220,000, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $11,193,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $6,027,000. 
(18) DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, DES 
MOINES, IOWA.—The project for flood damage re-
duction, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des 
Moines, Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
dated March 28, 2006, at a total cost of 
$10,780,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$6,967,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$3,813,000. 
(19) LICKING RIVER BASIN, CYNTHIANA, KEN-
TUCKY.—The project for flood damage reduction, 
Licking River Basin, Cynthiana, Kentucky: Report 
of the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, 
at a total cost of $18,200,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $11,830,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $6,370,000. 
(20) BAYOU SORREL LOCK, LOUISIANA.—The 
project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Lou-
isiana: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Janu-
ary 3, 2005, at a total cost of $9,680,000. 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. 
(21) MORGANZA
TO
THE
GULF
OF
MEXICO, 
LOUISIANA.—
(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 $886,700,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $576,355,000 
and 
an 
estimated 
non-Federal 
cost 
of 
$310,345,000. 
(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 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. 
(C) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.—The 
operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation,
and replacement of the Houma Navigation 
Canal lock complex and the Gulf Intracoastal 
Waterway floodgate features that provide for 
inland waterway transportation shall be a Fed-
eral responsibility in accordance with section 
102 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212). 
(22) PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.—The project 
for navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana, Report of 
the Chief of Engineers dated December 31, 2006, at 
a total cost of $131,250,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $105,315,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $25,935,000. 
(23) SMITH ISLAND, SOMERSET COUNTY, MARY-
LAND.—The project for environmental restoration, 
Smith Island, Somerset County, Maryland: Report 
of the Chief of Engineers dated October 29, 2001, 
at a total cost of $15,580,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $10,127,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $5,453,000. 
(24) ROSEAU
RIVER, ROSEAU, MINNESOTA.—
The project for flood damage reduction, Roseau 
River, Roseau, Minnesota, Report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a total cost 
of $25,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$13,820,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$11,280,000. 
(25) MISSISSIPPI COASTAL, MISSISSIPPI.—The 
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction 
and environmental restoration, Mississippi Coastal, 
Mississippi, Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
December 31, 2006, at a total cost of $107,690,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $70,000,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $37,690,000. 
(26) KANSAS
CITYS
LEVEES, MISSOURI
AND 
KANSAS.—The project for flood damage reduction, 
Kansas Citys levees, Missouri and Kansas, Report of 
the Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at 
a total cost of $65,430,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $42,530,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $22,900,000. 
(27) SWOPE
PARK
INDUSTRIAL
AREA, BLUE 
RIVER, KANSAS
CITY, MISSOURI.—The project for 
flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial 
Area, Blue River, Kansas City, Missouri: Report of 
the Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at 
a total cost of $16,980,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $11,037,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $5,943,000.
(28) GREAT
EGG
HARBOR
INLET
TO
TOWN-
SENDS INLET, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurri-
cane and storm damage reduction, Great Egg Har-
bor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey: Report of 
the Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 2006, at 
a total cost of $54,360,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $35,069,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $19,291,000, and at an estimated total 
cost of $202,500,000 for periodic nourishment over 
the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $101,250,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $101,250,000. 
(29) HUDSON
RARITAN
ESTUARY, LIBERTY 
STATE PARK, NEW JERSEY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for envi-
ronmental restoration, Hudson Raritan Estu-
ary, Liberty State Park, New Jersey: Report of 
the Chief of Engineers dated August 25, 2006, 
at a total cost of $34,100,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $22,200,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $11,900,000. 
(B) RESTORATION
TEAMS.—In carrying 
out the project, the Secretary shall establish 
and utilize watershed restoration teams com-
posed of estuary restoration experts from the
Corps of Engineers, the New Jersey department 
of environmental protection, and the Port Au-
thority of New York and New Jersey and other 
experts designated by the Secretary for the pur-
pose of developing habitat restoration and water 
quality enhancement. 
(30) MANASQUAN INLET TO BARNEGAT INLET, 
NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm 
damage reduction, Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat 
Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of 
$71,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$46,735,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$25,165,000, and at an estimated total cost of 
$119,680,000 for periodic beach nourishment over 
the 50-year life of the project, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $59,840,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $59,840,000. 
(31) RARITAN
BAY
AND
SANDY
HOOK
BAY, 
UNION BEACH, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurri-
cane and storm damage reduction, Raritan Bay and 
Sandy Hook Bay, Union Beach, New Jersey: Report 
of the Chief of Engineers dated January 4, 2006, at 
a total cost of $115,000,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $74,800,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $40,200,000, and at an estimated total 
cost of $6,500,000 for periodic nourishment over the 
50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $3,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $3,250,000. 
(32) SOUTH
RIVER, RARITAN
RIVER
BASIN, 
NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm 
damage reduction and environmental restoration, 
South River, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, 
at a total cost of $122,300,000, with an estimated 
Federal cost of $79,500,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $42,800,000. 
(33) SOUTHWEST VALLEY, BERNALILLO COUN-
TY, NEW MEXICO.—The project for flood damage re-
duction, Southwest Valley, Bernalillo County, New 
Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated No-
vember 29, 2004, at a total cost of $24,840,000, 
with an estimated Federal cost of $16,150,000 and 
an estimated non-Federal cost of $8,690,000. 
(34) 
MONTAUK
POINT, 
NEW
YORK.—The 
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
Montauk Point, New York: Report of the Chief of 
Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a total cost of 
$14,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$7,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$7,300,000. 
(35) HOCKING
RIVER, MONDAY
CREEK
SUB-
BASIN, OHIO.—The project for environmental res-
toration, Hocking River, Monday Creek Sub-basin, 
Ohio: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 
24, 2006, at a total cost of $20,980,000, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $13,440,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $7,540,000. 
(36) TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUN-
TY, PENNSYLVANIA.—The project for flood damage 
reduction, town of Bloomsburg, Columbia County, 
Pennsylvania: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
dated January 25, 2006, at a total cost of 
$44,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$28,925,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$15,575,000. 
(37) PAWLEY’S
ISLAND, SOUTH
CAROLINA.—
The project for hurricane and storm damage reduc-
tion, Pawley’s Island, South Carolina, Report of the 
Chief of Engineers dated December 19, 2006, at a 
total cost of $8,980,000, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $5,840,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $3,140,000, and at an estimated total cost 
of $21,200,000 for periodic nourishment over the
50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal 
cost of $10,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
cost of $10,600,000. 
(38) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS 
CHRISTI, TEXAS.—The project for navigation and 
ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, 
Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 
2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $87,810,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $100,300,000. 
(39) 
GULF
INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY, 
MATAGORDA
BAY
RE-ROUTE, TEXAS.—The project 
for 
navigation, 
Gulf 
Intracoastal 
Waterway, 
Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the 
Chief of Engineers dated December 24, 2002, at a 
total cost of $17,280,000. The costs of construction 
of the project are to be paid 1⁄2 from amounts appro-
priated from the general fund of the Treasury and 
1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the Inland Wa-
terways Trust Fund. 
(40) GULF
INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY, HIGH 
ISLAND TO BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS.—The project for 
navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, High Island 
to Brazos River, Texas: Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost of
$14,450,000. 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. 
(41) LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN PHASE I, 
TEXAS.—The project for flood damage reduction and 
environmental restoration, Lower Colorado River 
Basin Phase I, Texas, Report of the Chief of Engi-
neers dated December 31, 2006, at a total cost of 
$110,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
$69,640,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
$41,090,000. 
(42) RIVERSIDE OXBOW, TEXAS.—The project 
for environmental restoration, Riverside Oxbow, 
Texas: Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated May 
29, 2003, at a total cost of $27,110,000, with an es-
timated Federal cost of $11,210,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $15,900,000. 
(43) 
ATLANTIC
INTRACOASTAL
WATERWAY 
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, 
VIRGINIA.—The project for Atlantic Intracoastal 
Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep Creek, Chesa-
peake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
dated March 3, 2003, at a total cost of $37,200,000.
(44) CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, 
NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNELS, VIRGINIA.—The 
project for navigation, Craney Island Eastward Ex-
pansion, Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia: 
Report of Chief of Engineers dated October 24, 
2006, at a total cost of $712,103,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $31,229,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $680,874,000. 
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): 
(1) HALEYVILLE, ALABAMA.—Project for flood 
damage reduction, Haleyville, Alabama. 
(2) WEISS LAKE, ALABAMA.—Project for flood 
damage reduction, Weiss Lake, Alabama. 
(3) LITTLE
COLORADO
RIVER
LEVEE, ARI-
ZONA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Little 
Colorado River Levee, Arizona. 
(4) CACHE RIVER BASIN, GRUBBS, ARKANSAS.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Cache River 
Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
(5) BARREL SPRINGS WASH, PALMDALE, CALI-
FORNIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Barrel 
Springs Wash, Palmdale, California. 
(6) BORREGO SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA.—Project 
for flood damage reduction, Borrego Springs, Cali-
fornia. 
(7) COLTON, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood 
damage reduction, Colton, California. 
(8) DUNLAP STREAM, YUCAIPA, CALIFORNIA.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, 
Yucaipa, California. 
(9) HUNTS CANYON WASH, PALMDALE, CALI-
FORNIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Hunts 
Canyon Wash, Palmdale, California. 
(10) ONTARIO
AND
CHINO, 
CALIFORNIA.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Ontario and 
Chino, California. 
(11) SANTA
VENETIA, CALIFORNIA.—Project 
for flood damage reduction, Santa Venetia, Cali-
fornia. 
(12) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—Project for flood 
damage reduction, Whittier, California. 
(13) 
WILDWOOD
CREEK, 
YUCAIPA, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—Project for flood damage reduction, Wild-
wood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
(14) ST. FRANCISVILLE, LOUSIANA.—Project 
for flood damage reduction, St. Francisville, Lou-
isiana. 
(15) SALEM, 
MASSACHUSETTS.—Project for 
flood damage reduction, Salem, Massachusetts. 
(16) CASS RIVER, MICHIGAN.—Project for flood 
damage reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, 
Michigan. 
(17) CROW RIVER, ROCKFORD, MINNESOTA.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Crow River, 
Rockford, Minnesota. 
(18) MARSH CREEK, MINNESOTA.—Project for 
flood damage reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota. 
(19) SOUTH BRANCH OF THE WILD RICE RIVER, 
BORUP, MINNESOTA.—Project for flood damage re-
duction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, 
Borup, Minnesota. 
(20) BLACKSNAKE
CREEK, ST. JOSEPH, MIS-
SOURI.—Project for flood damage reduction, Black-
snake Creek, St. Joseph, Missouri. 
(21) ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JER-
SEY.—Project for flood damage reduction, Acid 
Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.
(22) 
CANNISTEO
RIVER, 
ADDISON, 
NEW 
YORK.—Project 
for 
flood 
damage 
reduction, 
Cannisteo River, Addison, New York. 
(23) 
COHOCTON
RIVER, 
CAMPBELL, 
NEW 
YORK.—Project 
for 
flood 
damage 
reduction, 
Cohocton River, Campbell, New York. 
(24) DRY AND OTTER CREEKS, CORTLAND, NEW 
YORK.—Project for flood damage reduction, Dry and 
Otter Creeks, Cortland, New York. 
(25) EAST RIVER, SILVER BEACH, NEW YORK 
CITY, NEW YORK.—Project for flood damage reduc-
tion, East River, Silver Beach, New York City, New 
York. 
(26) EAST
VALLEY
CREEK, ANDOVER, NEW 
YORK.—Project for flood damage reduction, East 
Valley Creek, Andover, New York. 
(27) SUNNYSIDE BROOK, WESTCHESTER COUN-
TY, NEW YORK.—Project for flood damage reduction, 
Sunnyside Brook, Westchester County, New York. 
(28) LITTLE YANKEE RUN, OHIO.—Project for 
flood damage reduction, Little Yankee Run, Ohio. 
(29) LITTLE NESHAMINY CREEK, WARRENTON, 
PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage reduc-
tion, Little Neshaminy Creek, Warrenton, Pennsyl-
vania.
(30) 
SOUTHAMPTON
CREEK
WATERSHED, 
SOUTHAMPTON, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood 
damage reduction, Southampton Creek watershed, 
Southampton, Pennsylvania. 
(31) SPRING CREEK, LOWER MACUNGIE TOWN-
SHIP, PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for flood damage re-
duction, Spring Creek, Lower Macungie Township, 
Pennsylvania. 
(32) YARDLEY AQUEDUCT, SILVER AND BROCK 
CREEKS, 
YARDLEY, 
PENNSYLVANIA.—Project for 
flood damage reduction, Yardley Aqueduct, Silver 
and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania. 
(33) SURFSIDE
BEACH, SOUTH
CAROLINA.—
Project for flood damage reduction, Surfside Beach 
and vicinity, South Carolina. 
(34) 
CONGELOSI
DITCH, 
MISSOURI
CITY, 
TEXAS.—Project 
for 
flood 
damage 
reduction, 
Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, Texas. 
(35) 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), 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) ONTARIO
AND
CHINO, CALIFORNIA.—The 
Secretary shall carry out the project for flood dam-
age reduction, Ontario and Chino, California, re-
ferred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary deter-
mines that the project is feasible. 
(3) SANTA
VENETIA, CALIFORNIA.—The Sec-
retary shall carry out the project for flood damage 
reduction, Santa Venetia, California, referred to in 
subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the 
project is feasible and shall allow the non-Federal in-
terest 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 indi-
cates that applying such section is necessary to im-
plement the project. 
(4) WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.—The Secretary 
shall carry out the project for flood damage reduc-
tion, Whittier, California, referred to in subsection
(a) if the Secretary determines that the project is 
feasible. 
(5) 
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) 
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 Sec-
retary may use the plan to carry out the project and 
shall provide credit toward the non-Federal 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 Sec-
retary determines that the work is integral to the 
project. 
(6) SOUTH BRANCH OF THE WILD RICE RIVER, 
BORUP, MINNESOTA.—In carrying out the project for 
flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild 
Rice River, Borup, Minnesota, referred to in sub-
section (a) the Secretary may consider national eco-
system restoration benefits in determining the Fed-
eral 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 eval-
uation indicates that applying such section is nec-
essary to implement the project. 
(7) ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JER-
SEY.—The Secretary shall carry out the project for 
flood damage reduction, Acid Brook, Pompton 
Lakes, New Jersey, referred to in subsection (a) if 
the Secretary determines that the project is feasible. 
(8) DILLEY, TEXAS.—The Secretary shall carry 
out the project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, 
Texas, referred to in subsection (a) if the Secretary 
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) ALISO
CREEK, CALIFORNIA.—Projects for 
emergency streambank protection, Aliso Creek, Cali-
fornia. 
(2) ST. JOHNS BLUFF TRAINING WALL, DUVAL 
COUNTY, 
FLORIDA.—Project 
for 
emergency