‘‘(3) CONTENTS.—A mitigation plan shall in-
clude—
‘‘(A) a description of the physical action to 
be undertaken to achieve the mitigation objec-
tives within the watershed in which such losses 
occur and, in any case in which mitigation must 
take place outside the watershed, a justification 
detailing the rationale for undertaking the miti-
gation outside of the watershed; 
‘‘(B) a description of the lands or interests 
in lands to be acquired for mitigation and the 
basis for a determination that such lands are 
available for acquisition; 
‘‘(C) the type, amount, and characteristics 
of the habitat being restored; 
‘‘(D) success criteria for mitigation based 
on replacement of lost functions and values of 
the habitat, including hydrologic and vegetative 
characteristics; and 
‘‘(E) a plan for any necessary monitoring 
to determine the success of the mitigation, in-
cluding the cost and duration of any monitoring 
and, to the extent practicable, the entities re-
sponsible for any monitoring.
‘‘(4) 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.’’. 
(b) STATUS REPORT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Concurrent with the Presi-
dent’s submission to Congress of the President’s re-
quest for appropriations for the Civil Works Pro-
gram for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
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; 100 Stat. 4186) and the status of such miti-
gation. 
(2) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—The status report 
shall include the status of all projects that are under 
construction, all projects for which the President re-
quests funding for the next fiscal year, and all
projects that have completed construction, but have 
not completed the mitigation required under section 
906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986. 
SEC. 2028. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of expediting the 
cost-effective design and construction of wetlands restora-
tion that is part of an authorized water resources project, 
the Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements 
under section 6305 of title 31, United States Code, with 
nonprofit organizations with expertise in wetlands restora-
tion to carry out such design and construction on behalf 
of the Secretary. 
(b) LIMITATIONS.—
(1) PER PROJECT LIMIT.—A cooperative agree-
ment under this section shall not obligate the Sec-
retary to pay the nonprofit organization more than 
$1,000,000 for any single wetlands restoration 
project. 
(2) ANNUAL LIMIT.—The total value of work 
carried out under cooperative agreements under this 
section may not exceed $5,000,000 in any fiscal 
year.
SEC. 2029. PROJECT PLANNING. 
(a) DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL BENE-
FITS.—
(1) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of 
Congress that, consistent with the Economic and 
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water 
and Related Land Resources Implementation Stud-
ies (1983), the Secretary may select a water re-
sources project alternative that does not maximize 
net national economic development benefits or net 
national ecosystem restoration benefits if there is an 
overriding reason based on other Federal, State, 
local, or international concerns. 
(2) FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION, NAVIGATION, 
AND
HURRICANE
STORM
DAMAGE
REDUCTION 
PROJECTS.—With respect to a water resources 
project the primary purpose of which is flood dam-
age reduction, navigation, or hurricane and storm 
damage reduction, an overriding reason for selecting 
a plan other than the plan that maximizes net na-
tional economic development benefits may be if the 
Secretary determines, and the non-Federal interest 
concurs, that an alternative plan is feasible and 
achieves the project purposes while providing greater 
ecosystem restoration benefits.