H. R. 1495—47 
requests a peer review by an independent panel of 
experts. 
(ii) DEADLINE
FOR
DECISION.—A decision of the 
Chief of Engineers under this subparagraph whether 
to conduct a peer review shall be made within 21 
days of the date of receipt of the request by the head 
of the Federal or State agency under clause (i). 
(iii) REASONS FOR NOT CONDUCTING PEER REVIEW.— 
If the Chief of Engineers decides not to conduct a 
peer review following a request under clause (i), the 
Chief shall make publicly available, including on the 
Internet, the reasons for not conducting the peer 
review. 
(iv) APPEAL TO CHAIRMAN OF COUNCIL ON ENVIRON-
MENTAL QUALITY.—A decision by the Chief of Engineers 
not to conduct a peer review following a request under 
clause (i) shall be subject to appeal by a person referred 
to in clause (i) to the Chairman of the Council on 
Environmental Quality if such appeal is made within 
the 30-day period following the date of the decision 
being made available under clause (iii). A decision 
of the Chairman on an appeal under this clause shall 
be made within 30 days of the date of the appeal. 
(4) FACTORS
TO
CONSIDER.—In determining whether a 
project study is controversial under paragraph (3)(A)(iii), 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 eco-
nomic or environmental costs or benefits of the project. 
(5) PROJECT STUDIES EXCLUDED FROM PEER REVIEW.—The 
Chief of Engineers may exclude a project study from peer 
review under paragraph (1)— 
(A) if the project study does not include an environ-
mental impact statement and is a project study subject 
to peer review under paragraph (3)(A)(i) that the Chief 
of Engineers determines— 
(i) is not controversial; 
(ii) has no more than negligible adverse impacts 
on scarce or unique cultural, historic, or tribal 
resources; 
(iii) has no substantial adverse impacts on fish 
and wildlife species and their habitat prior to the 
implementation of mitigation measures; and 
(iv) has, before implementation of mitigation meas-
ures, no more than a negligible adverse impact on 
a species listed as endangered or threatened species 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) or the critical habitat of such species 
designated under such Act; 
(B) if the project study— 
(i) involves only the rehabilitation or replacement 
of existing hydropower turbines, lock structures, or 
flood control gates within the same footprint and for 
the same purpose as an existing water resources 
project;
H. R. 1495—48 
(ii) is for an activity for which there is ample 
experience within the Corps of Engineers and industry 
to treat the activity as being routine; and 
(iii) has minimal life safety risk; or 
(C) if the project study does not include an environ-
mental impact statement and is a project study pursued 
under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the Flood Control 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 Federal participation 
in the cost of protecting the shores of publicly owned prop-
erty’’, 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), or section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330). 
(6) DETERMINATION OF TOTAL COST.—For purposes of deter-
mining the estimated total cost of a project under paragraph 
(3)(A), the total cost shall be based upon the reasonable esti-
mates of the Chief of Engineers at the completion of the recon-
naissance study for the project. If the reasonable estimate 
of total 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 is required to 
be reviewed under this section. 
(b) TIMING OF PEER REVIEW.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Chief of Engineers 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 signing of the feasibility cost- 
sharing agreement for the study and ending on the date estab-
lished under subsection (e)(1)(A) for the peer review and shall 
be accomplished concurrent with the conducting of the project 
study. 
(2) FACTORS TO CONSIDER.—In any case in which the Chief 
of Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a project study, 
the Chief of Engineers shall consider, at a minimum, whether 
to initiate a peer review at the time that— 
(A) the without-project conditions are identified; 
(B) the array of alternatives to be considered are identi-
fied; and 
(C) the preferred alternative is identified. 
(3) LIMITATION
ON
MULTIPLE
PEER
REVIEW.—Nothing in 
this subsection shall be construed to require the Chief of Engi-
neers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a project study. 
(c) ESTABLISHMENT OF PANELS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—For each project study subject 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 National Academy of Sciences or a similar independent
H. R. 1495—49 
scientific and technical advisory organization or an eligible 
organization to establish a panel of experts to conduct a peer 
review for the project study. 
(2) MEMBERSHIP.—A panel of experts established for a 
project study under this section shall be composed of inde-
pendent experts who represent a balance of areas of expertise 
suitable for the review being conducted. 
(3) LIMITATION ON APPOINTMENTS.—The National Academy 
of Sciences or any other organization the Chief of Engineers 
contracts with under paragraph (1) to establish a panel of 
experts shall apply the National Academy of Science’s policy 
for selecting committee members to ensure that members 
selected for the panel of experts have no conflict with the 
project being reviewed. 
(4) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.—Upon identification of 
a project study for peer review under this section, but prior 
to initiation of the review, the Chief of Engineers shall notify 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
the House of Representatives of the review. 
(d) DUTIES
OF PANELS.—A panel of experts established for 
a peer review for a project study under this section shall— 
(1) conduct the peer review for the project study; 
(2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic, 
engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses 
used by the Chief of Engineers; 
(3) receive from the Chief of Engineers the public written 
and oral comments provided to the Chief of Engineers; 
(4) provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief 
of Engineers throughout the development of the project study, 
as requested; and 
(5) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report con-
taining the panel’s economic, engineering, and environmental 
analysis of the project study, including the panel’s assessment 
of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic, engineering, 
and environmental methods, models, and analyses used by 
the Chief of Engineers, to accompany the publication of the 
report of the Chief of Engineers for the project. 
(e) DURATION OF PROJECT STUDY PEER REVIEWS.— 
(1) DEADLINE.—A panel of experts established under this 
section shall— 
(A) complete its peer review under this section for 
a project study and submit a report to the Chief of Engi-
neers under subsection (d)(5) not more than 60 days after 
the last day of the public comment period for the draft 
project study, or, if the Chief of Engineers determines 
that a longer period of time is necessary, such period of 
time determined necessary by the Chief of Engineers; and 
(B) terminate on the date of initiation of the State 
and agency review required by the first section of the 
Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887). 
(2) FAILURE
TO
MEET
DEADLINE.—If a panel of experts 
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)(5) on or before the deadline established 
by paragraph (1) for the peer review, the Chief of Engineers 
shall complete the project study without delay.
H. R. 1495—50 
(f) RECOMMENDATIONS OF PANEL.— 
(1) CONSIDERATION
BY
THE
CHIEF
OF
ENGINEERS.—After 
receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 
under this section and before entering a final record of decision 
for the project, the Chief of Engineers shall consider any rec-
ommendations contained in the report and prepare 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— 
(A) make a copy of the report and any written response 
of the Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained 
in the report available to the public by electronic means, 
including the Internet; and 
(B) transmit to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-
resentatives a copy of the report, together with any such 
written response, on the date of a final report of the Chief 
of Engineers or other final decision document for the project 
study. 
(g) COSTS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The costs of a panel of experts established 
for a peer review under this section— 
(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 paragraph (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 pre-
ceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the 
array of alternatives to be considered has not been identified; 
and 
(2) project studies initiated during the period beginning 
on such date of enactment and ending 7 years after such 
date of enactment. 
(i) REPORTS.— 
(1) INITIAL REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 
of enactment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture of the House of Representatives a report on the 
implementation of this section. 
(2) ADDITIONAL REPORT.—Not later than 6 years after the 
date of enactment of this section, the Chief of Engineers shall 
update the report under paragraph (1) taking into account 
any further information on implementation of this section and 
submit such updated report to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representa-
tives. 
(j) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The Federal Advisory Com-
mittee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to a 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 Engineers to cause or conduct
H. R. 1495—51 
a peer review of a water resources project existing on the date 
of enactment of this section. 
(l) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply: 
(1) PROJECT
STUDY.—The term ‘‘project study’’ means— 
(A) a feasibility study or reevaluation study for a water 
resources project, including the environmental impact 
statement prepared for the study; and 
(B) any other study associated with a modification 
of a water resources project that includes an environmental 
impact statement, including the environmental impact 
statement prepared for the study. 
(2) AFFECTED STATE.—The term ‘‘affected State’’, as used 
with respect to a water resources project, means a State all 
or a portion of which is within the drainage 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 ‘‘eligible organiza-
tion’’ 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 Fed-
eral water resources projects; and 
(E) has experience in establishing and administering 
peer review panels. 
(4) TOTAL COST.—The term ‘‘total cost’’, as used with respect 
to a water resources project, means the cost of construction 
(including planning and designing) of the project. In the case 
of a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction or flood 
damage reduction that includes periodic nourishment over the 
life of the project, the term includes the total cost of the 
nourishment. 
SEC. 2035. SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW. 
(a) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.—The 
Chief of Engineers shall ensure that the design and construction 
activities for hurricane and storm damage reduction and flood dam-
age reduction projects are reviewed by independent experts under 
this section if the Chief of Engineers determines that a review 
by independent experts is necessary to assure public health, safety, 
and welfare. 
(b) FACTORS.—In determining whether a review of design and 
construction of a project is necessary under this section, the Chief 
of Engineers shall consider whether— 
(1) the failure of the project would pose a significant threat 
to human life; 
(2) the project involves the use of innovative materials 
or techniques; 
(3) the project design lacks redundancy; or 
(4) the project has a unique construction sequencing or 
a reduced or overlapping design construction schedule. 
(c) SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW.— 
(1) INITIATION
OF
REVIEW.—At the appropriate point in 
the development of detailed engineering and design specifica-
tions for each water resources project subject to review under
H. R. 1495—52 
this section, the Chief of Engineers shall initiate a safety assur-
ance review by independent experts on the design and construc-
tion activities for the project. 
(2) SELECTION OF REVIEWERS.—A safety assurance review 
under this section shall include participation by experts selected 
by the Chief of Engineers from among individuals who are 
distinguished experts in engineering, hydrology, or other appro-
priate disciplines. The Chief of Engineers shall apply the 
National Academy of Science’s policy for selecting reviewers 
to ensure that reviewers have no conflict of interest with the 
project being reviewed. 
(3) COMPENSATION.—An individual serving as an inde-
pendent reviewer under this section shall be compensated at 
a rate of pay to be determined by the Secretary and shall 
be allowed travel expenses. 
(d) SCOPE OF SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEWS.—A safety assurance 
review under this section shall include a review of the design 
and construction activities prior to the initiation of physical 
construction and periodically thereafter until construction activities 
are completed on a regular schedule sufficient to inform the Chief 
of Engineers on the adequacy, appropriateness, and acceptability 
of the design and construction activities for the purpose of assuring 
public health, safety, and welfare. The Chief of Engineers shall 
ensure that reviews under this section do not create any unneces-
sary delays in design and construction activities. 
(e) SAFETY ASSURANCE REVIEW RECORD.—The written rec-
ommendations of a reviewer or panel of reviewers under this section 
and the responses of the Chief of Engineers shall be available 
to the public, including through electronic means on the Internet. 
(f) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to any project in 
design or under construction on the date of enactment of this 
Act and to any project with respect to which design or construction 
is initiated during the period beginning on the date of enactment 
of this Act and ending 7 years after such date of enactment. 
SEC. 2036. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND WETLANDS 
LOSSES. 
(a) MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.—Section 906(d) 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) 
is amended— 
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘to 
the Congress’’ and inserting ‘‘to Congress in any report, and 
shall not select a project alternative in any report,’’; 
(2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) by inserting 
‘‘, and other habitat types are mitigated to not less than in- 
kind conditions’’ after ‘‘mitigated in-kind’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(3) MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—To mitigate losses to flood damage 
reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from 
a water resources project, the Secretary shall ensure that 
the mitigation plan for each water resources project com-
plies with the mitigation standards and policies established 
pursuant to the regulatory programs administered by the 
Secretary.
H. R. 1495—53 
‘‘(B) INCLUSIONS.—A specific mitigation plan for a 
water resources project under paragraph (1) shall include, 
at a minimum— 
‘‘(i) a plan for monitoring the implementation and 
ecological success of each mitigation measure, including 
the cost and duration of any monitoring, and, to the 
extent practicable, a designation of the entities that 
will be responsible for the monitoring; 
‘‘(ii) the criteria for ecological success by which 
the mitigation will be evaluated and determined to 
be successful based on replacement of lost functions 
and values of the habitat, including hydrologic and 
vegetative characteristics; 
‘‘(iii) a description of the land and interests in 
land to be acquired for the mitigation plan and the 
basis for a determination that the land and interests 
are available for acquisition; 
‘‘(iv) a description of— 
‘‘(I) the types and amount of restoration activi-
ties to be conducted; 
‘‘(II) the physical action to be undertaken to 
achieve the mitigation objectives within the water-
shed in which such losses occur and, in any case 
in which the mitigation will occur outside the 
watershed, a detailed explanation for undertaking 
the mitigation outside the watershed; and 
‘‘(III) the functions and values that will result 
from the mitigation plan; and 
‘‘(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions 
in cases in which monitoring demonstrates that mitiga-
tion measures are not achieving ecological success in 
accordance with criteria under clause (ii). 
‘‘(C) RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING.—In any case in 
which it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan 
for a water resources project the entity responsible for 
monitoring at the time of a final report of the Chief of 
Engineers or other final decision document for the project, 
such entity shall be identified in the partnership agreement 
entered into with the non-Federal interest under section 
221 of Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d–5b). 
‘‘(4) DETERMINATION OF SUCCESS.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A mitigation plan under this sub-
section shall be considered to be successful at the time 
at which the criteria under paragraph (3)(B)(ii) are 
achieved under the plan, as determined by monitoring 
under paragraph (3)(B)(i). 
‘‘(B) CONSULTATION.—In determining whether a mitiga-
tion plan is successful under subparagraph (A), the Sec-
retary shall consult annually with appropriate Federal 
agencies and each State in which the applicable project 
is located on at least the following: 
‘‘(i) The ecological success of the mitigation as of 
the date on which the report is submitted. 
‘‘(ii) The likelihood that the mitigation will achieve 
ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan. 
‘‘(iii) The projected timeline for achieving that suc-
cess.
H. R. 1495—54 
‘‘(iv) Any recommendations for improving the like-
lihood of success. 
‘‘(5) MONITORING.—Mitigation monitoring shall continue 
until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation has met 
the ecological success criteria.’’. 
(b) STATUS REPORT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Concurrent with the President’s submis-
sion to Congress of the President’s request for appropriations 
for the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary 
shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infra-
structure of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on 
the status of construction of projects that require mitigation 
under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283), the status of such mitigation, and 
the results of the consultation under subsection (d)(4)(B) of 
such section. 
(2) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—The status report shall include 
the status of— 
(A) all projects that are under construction as of the 
date of the report; 
(B) all projects for which the President requests 
funding for the next fiscal year; and 
(C) all projects that have undergone or completed 
construction, but have not completed the mitigation 
required under section 906 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1986. 
(3) AVAILABILITY
OF
INFORMATION.—The Secretary shall 
make information contained in the status report available to 
the public, including on the Internet. 
(c) WETLANDS MITIGATION.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out a water resources project 
that involves wetlands mitigation and that has impacts that 
occur within the service area of a mitigation bank, the Sec-
retary, where appropriate, shall first consider the use of the 
mitigation bank if the bank contains sufficient available credits 
to offset the impact and the bank is approved in accordance 
with the Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and 
Operation of Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605) or other 
applicable Federal law (including regulations). 
(2) SERVICE AREA.—To the maximum extent practicable, 
the service area of the mitigation bank under paragraph (1) 
shall be in the same watershed as the affected habitat. 
(3) RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—Purchase of credits from a mitigation 
bank for a water resources project relieves the Secretary 
and the non-Federal interest from responsibility for moni-
toring or demonstrating mitigation success. 
(B) APPLICABILITY.—The relief of responsibility under 
subparagraph (A) applies only in any case in which the 
Secretary determines that monitoring of mitigation success 
is being conducted by the Secretary or by the owner or 
operator of the mitigation bank. 
SEC. 2037. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 204 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended to read as follows:
H. R. 1495—55 
‘‘SEC. 204. REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT. 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.— 
‘‘(1) SEDIMENT USE.—For sediment obtained through the 
construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized Fed-
eral water resources project, the Secretary shall develop, at 
Federal expense, regional sediment management plans and 
carry out projects at locations identified in plans developed 
under this section, or identified jointly by the non-Federal 
interest and the Secretary, for use in the construction, repair, 
modification, or rehabilitation of projects associated with Fed-
eral water resources projects for purposes listed in paragraph 
(3). 
‘‘(2) COOPERATION.—The Secretary shall develop plans 
under this subsection in cooperation with the appropriate Fed-
eral, State, regional, and local agencies. 
‘‘(3) PURPOSES FOR SEDIMENT USE IN PROJECTS.—The pur-
poses of using sediment for the construction, repair, modifica-
tion, or rehabilitation of Federal water resources projects are— 
‘‘(A) to reduce storm damage to property; 
‘‘(B) to protect, restore, and create aquatic and eco-
logically related habitats, including wetlands; and 
‘‘(C) to transport and place suitable sediment. 
‘‘(b) SECRETARIAL FINDINGS.—Subject to subsection (c), projects 
carried out under subsection (a) may be carried out in any case 
in which the Secretary finds that— 
‘‘(1) the environmental, economic, and social benefits of 
the project, both monetary and nonmonetary, justify the cost 
of the project; and 
‘‘(2) the project will not result in environmental degrada-
tion. 
‘‘(c) DETERMINATION OF PROJECT COSTS.— 
‘‘(1) COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION.— 
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Costs associated with construction 
of a project under this section or identified in a regional 
sediment management plan shall be limited solely to 
construction costs that are in excess of the costs necessary 
to carry out the dredging for construction, operation, or 
maintenance of an authorized Federal water resources 
project in the most cost-effective way, consistent with eco-
nomic, engineering, and environmental criteria. 
‘‘(B) COST SHARING.— 
‘‘(i) IN
GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause 
(ii), the non-Federal share of the construction cost of 
a project under this section shall be determined as 
provided in subsections (a) through (d) of section 103 
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2213). 
‘‘(ii) SPECIAL
RULE.—Construction of a project 
under this section for one or more of the purposes 
of protection, restoration, or creation of aquatic and 
ecologically related habitat, the cost of which does not 
exceed $750,000 and which is located in a disadvan-
taged community as determined by the Secretary, may 
be carried out at Federal expense. 
‘‘(C) TOTAL COST.—The total Federal costs associated 
with construction of a project under this section may not 
exceed $5,000,000.