In the Senate of the United States,
July 19, 2006.
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representa-
tives (H.R. 2864) entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the con-
servation and development of water and related resources, to
authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various
projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United
States, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following
AMENDMENT:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the
‘‘Water Resources Development Act of 2006’’.
†
HR 2864 EAS
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of this
Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition of Secretary.
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Enhanced navigation capacity improvements and ecosystem restora-
tion plan for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Water-
way System.
Sec. 1003. Louisiana Coastal Area ecosystem restoration, Louisiana.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
TITLE II—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—Provisions
Sec. 2001. Credit for in-kind contributions.
Sec. 2002. Interagency and international support authority.
Sec. 2003. Training funds.
Sec. 2004. Fiscal transparency report.
Sec. 2005. Planning.
Sec. 2006. Water Resources Planning Coordinating Committee.
Sec. 2007. Independent peer review.
Sec. 2008. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2009. State technical assistance.
Sec. 2010. Access to water resource data.
Sec. 2011. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal interests.
Sec. 2012. Regional sediment management.
Sec. 2013. National shoreline erosion control development program.
Sec. 2014. Shore protection projects.
Sec. 2015. Cost sharing for monitoring.
Sec. 2016. Ecosystem restoration benefits.
Sec. 2017. Funding to expedite the evaluation and processing of permits.
Sec. 2018. Electronic submission of permit applications.
Sec. 2019. Improvement of water management at Corps of Engineers reservoirs.
Sec. 2020. Federal hopper dredges.
Sec. 2021. Extraordinary rainfall events.
Sec. 2022. Wildfire firefighting.
Sec. 2023. Nonprofit organizations as sponsors.
Sec. 2024. Project administration.
Sec. 2025. Program administration.
Sec. 2026. National Dam Safety Program reauthorization.
Sec. 2027. Extension of shore protection projects.
Subtitle B—Continuing Authorities Projects
Sec. 2031. Navigation enhancements for waterbourne transportation.
Sec. 2032. Protection and restoration due to emergencies at shores and
streambanks.
†
HR 2864 EAS
Sec. 2033. Restoration of the environment for protection of aquatic and riparian
ecosystems program.
Sec. 2034. Environmental modification of projects for improvement and restora-
tion of ecosystems program.
Sec. 2035. Projects to enhance estuaries and coastal habitats.
Sec. 2036. Remediation of abandoned mine sites.
Sec. 2037. Small projects for the rehabilitation and removal of dams.
Sec. 2038. Remote, maritime-dependent communities.
Sec. 2039. Agreements for water resource projects.
Sec. 2040. Program names.
Subtitle C—National Levee Safety Program
Sec. 2051. Short title.
Sec. 2052. Definitions.
Sec. 2053. National Levee Safety Committee.
Sec. 2054. National Levee Safety Program.
Sec. 2055. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III—PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS
Sec. 3001. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Black Warrior-Tombigbee Rivers, Alabama.
Sec. 3004. Rio de Flag, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Sec. 3005. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 3006. Red-Ouachita River Basin levees, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Sec. 3007. St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 3008. St. Francis Basin land transfer, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 3009. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System, Arkansas and
Oklahoma.
Sec. 3010. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. 3011. CALFED Levee stability program, California.
Sec. 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California.
Sec. 3013. LA–3 dredged material ocean disposal site designation, California.
Sec. 3014. Larkspur Ferry Channel, California.
Sec. 3015. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. 3016. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Pine Flat Dam fish and wildlife habitat, California.
Sec. 3018. Redwood City navigation project, California.
Sec. 3019. Sacramento and American Rivers flood control, California.
Sec. 3020. Conditional declaration of nonnavigability, Port of San Francisco,
California.
Sec. 3021. Salton Sea restoration, California.
Sec. 3022. Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission Creek, California.
Sec. 3023. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3024. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. 3025. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, Con-
necticut.
Sec. 3026. Anchorage area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 3027. Norwalk Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 3028. St. George’s Bridge, Delaware.
Sec. 3029. Christina River, Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. 3030. Designation of Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge, Delaware.
Sec. 3031. Additional program authority, comprehensive Everglades restoration,
Florida.
†
HR 2864 EAS
Sec. 3032. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3033. Critical restoration projects, Everglades and south Florida ecosystem
restoration, Florida.
Sec. 3034. Lake Okeechobee and Hillsboro Aquifer pilot projects, comprehensive
Everglades restoration, Florida.
Sec. 3035. Lido Key, Sarasota County, Florida.
Sec. 3036. Port Sutton Channel, Tampa Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3037. Tampa Harbor, Cut B, Tampa, Florida.
Sec. 3038. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. 3039. Dworshak Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. 3040. Little Wood River, Gooding, Idaho.
Sec. 3041. Port of Lewiston, Idaho.
Sec. 3042. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3043. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 3044. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3045. Illinois River Basin restoration.
Sec. 3046. Missouri and Illinois flood protection projects reconstruction pilot pro-
gram.
Sec. 3047. Spunky Bottom, Illinois.
Sec. 3048. Strawn Cemetery, John Redmond Lake, Kansas.
Sec. 3049. Milford Lake, Milford, Kansas.
Sec. 3050. Ohio River, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia.
Sec. 3051. McAlpine Lock and Dam, Kentucky and Indiana.
Sec. 3052. Public access, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3053. Regional visitor center, Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Lou-
isiana.
Sec. 3054. Calcasieu River and Pass, Louisiana.
Sec. 3055. East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 3056. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet relocation assistance, Louisiana.
Sec. 3057. Red River (J. Bennett Johnston) Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 3058. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3059. Union River, Maine.
Sec. 3060. Chesapeake Bay environmental restoration and protection program,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. 3061. Cumberland, Maryland.
Sec. 3062. Aunt Lydia’s Cove, Massachusetts.
Sec. 3063. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. 3064. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 3065. Duluth Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3066. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3067. Bonnet Carre Freshwater Diversion Project, Mississippi and Lou-
isiana.
Sec. 3068. Land exchange, Pike County, Missouri.
Sec. 3069. L–15 levee, Missouri.
Sec. 3070. Union Lake, Missouri.
Sec. 3071. Fort Peck Fish Hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 3072. Lower Yellowstone project, Montana.
Sec. 3073. Yellowstone River and tributaries, Montana and North Dakota.
Sec. 3074. Lower Truckee River, McCarran Ranch, Nevada.
Sec. 3075. Middle Rio Grande restoration, New Mexico.
Sec. 3076. Long Island Sound oyster restoration, New York and Connecticut.
Sec. 3077. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3078. New York Harbor, New York, New York.
Sec. 3079. Missouri River restoration, North Dakota.
†
HR 2864 EAS
Sec. 3080. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Girard, Ohio.
Sec. 3081. Toussaint River Navigation Project, Carroll Township, Ohio.
Sec. 3082. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3083. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3084. Release of retained rights, interests, and reservations, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3085. Oklahoma lakes demonstration program, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3086. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3087. Lookout Point project, Lowell, Oregon.
Sec. 3088. Upper Willamette River Watershed ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 3089. Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3090. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 3091. Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.
Sec. 3092. South Carolina Department of Commerce development proposal at
Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.
Sec. 3093. Missouri River restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. 3094. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 3095. Anderson Creek, Jackson and Madison Counties, Tennessee.
Sec. 3096. Harris Fork Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Sec. 3097. Nonconnah Weir, Memphis, Tennessee.
Sec. 3098. Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee.
Sec. 3099. Sandy Creek, Jackson County, Tennessee.
Sec. 3100. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3101. Denison, Texas.
Sec. 3102. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. 3103. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 3104. Connecticut River restoration, Vermont.
Sec. 3105. Dam remediation, Vermont.
Sec. 3106. Lake Champlain Eurasian milfoil, water chestnut, and other non-
native plant control, Vermont.
Sec. 3107. Upper Connecticut River Basin wetland restoration, Vermont and New
Hampshire.
Sec. 3108. Upper Connecticut River Basin ecosystem restoration, Vermont and
New Hampshire.
Sec. 3109. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 3110. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration, Virginia and Maryland.
Sec. 3111. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. 3112. Erosion control, Puget Island, Wahkiakum County, Washington.
Sec. 3113. Lower Granite Pool, Washington.
Sec. 3114. McNary Lock and Dam, McNary National Wildlife Refuge, Wash-
ington and Idaho.
Sec. 3115. Snake River project, Washington and Idaho.
Sec. 3116. Whatcom Creek Waterway, Bellingham, Washington.
Sec. 3117. Lower Mud River, Milton, West Virginia.
Sec. 3118. McDowell County, West Virginia.
Sec. 3119. Green Bay Harbor project, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3120. Underwood Creek Diversion Facility Project, Milwaukee County, Wis-
consin.
Sec. 3121. Oconto Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3122. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. 3123. Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront Interpretive Site.
Sec. 3124. Pilot program, Middle Mississippi River.
Sec. 3125. Upper Mississippi River system environmental management program.
Sec. 3126. Upper basin of Missouri River.
Sec. 3127. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration program.
Sec. 3128. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
†
HR 2864 EAS
Sec. 3129. Great Lakes tributary models.
Sec. 3130. Upper Ohio River and Tributaries Navigation System new technology
pilot program.
TITLE IV—STUDIES
Sec. 4001. Eurasian milfoil.
Sec. 4002. National port study.
Sec. 4003. McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation Channel.
Sec. 4004. Los Angeles River revitalization study, California.
Sec. 4005. Nicholas Canyon, Los Angeles, California.
Sec. 4006. Oceanside, California, shoreline special study.
Sec. 4007. Comprehensive flood protection project, St. Helena, California.
Sec. 4008. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Sherman Island,
California.
Sec. 4009. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
Sec. 4010. San Pablo Bay Watershed restoration, California.
Sec. 4011. Fountain Creek, North of Pueblo, Colorado.
Sec. 4012. Selenium study, Colorado.
Sec. 4013. Promontory Point third-party review, Chicago Shoreline, Chicago, Illi-
nois.
Sec. 4014. Vidalia Port, Louisiana.
Sec. 4015. Lake Erie at Luna Pier, Michigan.
Sec. 4016. Middle Bass Island State Park, Middle Bass Island, Ohio.
Sec. 4017. Jasper County port facility study, South Carolina.
Sec. 4018. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
Sec. 4019. Lake Champlain Canal study, Vermont and New York.
TITLE V—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 5001. Lakes program.
Sec. 5002. Estuary restoration.
Sec. 5003. Delmarva conservation corridor, Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 5004. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, Mary-
land, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Sec. 5005. Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland.
Sec. 5006. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barriers project, Illinois.
Sec. 5007. Rio Grande environmental management program, Colorado, New Mex-
ico, and Texas.
Sec. 5008. Missouri River and tributaries, mitigation, recovery and restoration,
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wyoming.
Sec. 5009. Lower Platte River watershed restoration, Nebraska.
Sec. 5010. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and terrestrial
wildlife habitat restoration, South Dakota.
Sec. 5011. Connecticut River dams, Vermont.
TITLE VI—PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 6001. Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Alabama.
Sec. 6002. Goleta and vicinity, California.
Sec. 6003. Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut.
Sec. 6004. Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Sec. 6005. Hartford, Connecticut.
Sec. 6006. New Haven, Connecticut.
†
HR 2864 EAS
Sec. 6007. Inland waterway from Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, part II, in-
stallation of fender protection for bridges, Delaware and Mary-
land.
Sec. 6008. Shingle Creek Basin, Florida.
Sec. 6009. Brevoort, Indiana.
Sec. 6010. Middle Wabash, Greenfield Bayou, Indiana.
Sec. 6011. Lake George, Hobart, Indiana.
Sec. 6012. Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa.
Sec. 6013. Muscatine Harbor, Iowa.
Sec. 6014. Big South Fork National River and recreational area, Kentucky and
Tennessee.
Sec. 6015. Eagle Creek Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 6016. Hazard, Kentucky.
Sec. 6017. West Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 6018. Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, Louisiana.
Sec. 6019. Bayou LaFourche and LaFourche Jump, Louisiana.
Sec. 6020. Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana.
Sec. 6021. Fort Livingston, Grand Terre Island, Louisiana.
Sec. 6022. Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, Lake Borgne and Chef Menteur, Lou-
isiana.
Sec. 6023. Red River Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas.
Sec. 6024. Casco Bay, Portland, Maine.
Sec. 6025. Northeast Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 6026. Penobscot River, Bangor, Maine.
Sec. 6027. Saint John River Basin, Maine.
Sec. 6028. Tenants Harbor, Maine.
Sec. 6029. Grand Haven Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 6030. Greenville Harbor, Mississippi.
Sec. 6031. Platte River flood and related streambank erosion control, Nebraska.
Sec. 6032. Epping, New Hampshire.
Sec. 6033. Manchester, New Hampshire.
Sec. 6034. New York Harbor and adjacent channels, Claremont Terminal, Jersey
City, New Jersey.
Sec. 6035. Eisenhower and Snell Locks, New York.
Sec. 6036. Olcott Harbor, Lake Ontario, New York.
Sec. 6037. Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 6038. Sugar Creek Basin, North Carolina and South Carolina.
Sec. 6039. Cleveland Harbor 1958 Act, Ohio.
Sec. 6040. Cleveland Harbor 1960 Act, Ohio.
Sec. 6041. Cleveland Harbor, uncompleted portion of Cut #4, Ohio.
Sec. 6042. Columbia River, Seafarers Memorial, Hammond, Oregon.
Sec. 6043. Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6044. Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6045. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 6046. Narragansett Town Beach, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
Sec. 6047. Quonset Point-Davisville, Rhode Island.
Sec. 6048. Arroyo Colorado, Texas.
Sec. 6049. Cypress Creek-Structural, Texas.
Sec. 6050. East Fork channel improvement, Increment 2, east fork of the Trinity
River, Texas.
Sec. 6051. Falfurrias, Texas.
Sec. 6052. Pecan Bayou Lake, Texas.
Sec. 6053. Lake of the Pines, Texas.
Sec. 6054. Tennessee Colony Lake, Texas.
†
HR 2864 EAS
Sec. 6055. City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington.
Sec. 6056. Kanawha River, Charleston, West Virginia.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary
of the Army.
TITLE I—WATER RESOURCES
PROJECTS
SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) PROJECTS WITH CHIEF’S REPORTS.—Except as
otherwise provided in this section, the following projects for
water resources development and conservation 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 respective reports designated
in this section:
(1) HAINES HARBOR, ALASKA.—The project for
navigation, Haines Harbor, Alaska: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a
total estimated cost of $13,700,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $10,960,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $2,740,000.
(2) RILLITO
RIVER
(EL
RIO
ANTIGUO), PIMA
COUNTY, ARIZONA.—The project for ecosystem restora-
tion, Rillito River (El Rio Antiguo), Pima County,
Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated De-
cember 22, 2004, at a total cost of $75,200,000, with
†
HR 2864 EAS
an estimated Federal cost of $48,400,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $26,800,000.
(3) SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS,
ARIZONA.—The project for ecosystem restoration,
Santa Cruz River, Pima County, Arizona: Report of
the Chief of Engineers dated March 28, 2006, at a
total cost of $94,400,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $61,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $33,200,000.
(4) TANQUE
VERDE
CREEK, 
ARIZONA.—The
project for ecosystem restoration, Tanque Verde Creek,
Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July
22, 2003, at a total cost of $5,706,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $3,706,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $2,000,000.
(5) SALT RIVER (VA SHLYAY AKIMEL), MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for ecosystem
restoration, Salt River (Va Shlyay Akimel), Ari-
zona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $156,700,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $101,600,000
and 
an 
estimated 
non-Federal 
cost 
of
$55,100,000.
†
HR 2864 EAS
(B) COORDINATION
WITH
FEDERAL
REC-
LAMATION
PROJECTS.—The Secretary, to the
maximum extent practicable, shall coordinate the
development and construction of the project de-
scribed in subparagraph (A) with each Federal
reclamation project located in the Salt River
Basin to address statutory requirements and the
operations of those projects.
(6) HAMILTON CITY, CALIFORNIA.—The project
for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration,
Hamilton City, California: Report of the Chief of En-
gineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost of
$50,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$33,000,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of
$17,600,000.
(7) IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA.—The project
for storm damage reduction, Imperial Beach, Cali-
fornia: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Decem-
ber 30, 2003, at a total cost of $13,300,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $8,500,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $4,800,000, and at an estimated
total cost of $41,100,000 for periodic beach nourish-
ment over the 50-year life of the project, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $20,550,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $20,550,000.
†
HR 2864 EAS
(8) MATILIJA
DAM, VENTURA
COUNTY, CALI-
FORNIA.—The 
project 
for 
ecosystem 
restoration,
Matilija Dam and Ventura River Watershed, Ventura
County, California: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of
$139,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$86,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$52,900,000.
(9) MIDDLE
CREEK, 
LAKE
COUNTY, 
CALI-
FORNIA.—The project for flood damage reduction and
ecosystem restoration, Middle Creek, Lake County,
California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated No-
vember 29, 2004, at a total cost of $43,630,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $28,460,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $15,170,000.
(10) NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH, CALIFORNIA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for ecosystem
restoration, Napa River Salt Marsh, California,
at a total cost of $103,012,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $65,600,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $37,412,000, to be car-
ried out by the Secretary substantially in ac-
cordance with the plans and subject to the condi-
tions recommended in the final report signed by
the Chief of Engineers on December 22, 2004.
†
HR 2864 EAS
(B) ADMINISTRATION.—In carrying out the
project authorized by this paragraph, the Sec-
retary shall—
(i) construct a recycled water pipeline
extending from the Sonoma Valley County
Sanitation District Waste Water Treatment
Plant and the Napa Sanitation District
Waste Water Treatment Plant to the
project; and
(ii) restore or enhance Salt Ponds 1,
1A, 2, and 3.
(C) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.—On com-
pletion of salinity reduction in the project area,
the Secretary shall transfer ownership of the
pipeline to the non-Federal interest at the fully
depreciated value of the pipeline, less—
(i) the non-Federal cost-share contrib-
uted under subparagraph (A); and
(ii) the estimated value of the water to
be provided as needed for maintenance of
habitat values in the project area through-
out the life of the project.
(11) SOUTH
PLATTE
RIVER, DENVER, COLO-
RADO.—The project for ecosystem restoration, Denver
County Reach, South Platte River, Denver, Colorado:
†
HR 2864 EAS
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated May 16, 2003,
at a total cost of $21,050,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $13,680,000 and an estimated non-Fed-
eral cost of $7,370,000.
(12) INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, SOUTH FLORIDA.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary may
carry out the project for ecosystem restoration,
water supply, flood control, and protection of
water quality, Indian River Lagoon, south Flor-
ida, at a total cost of $1,365,000,000, with an es-
timated first Federal cost of $682,500,000 and
an 
estimated 
first 
non-Federal 
cost 
of
$682,500,000, in accordance with section 601 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(114 Stat. 2680) and the recommendations of the
report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 6,
2004.
(B) DEAUTHORIZATIONS.—As of the date of
enactment of this Act, the following projects are
not authorized:
(i) The uncompleted portions of the
project authorized by section 601(b)(2)(C)(i)
of the Water Resources Development Act of
2000 (114 Stat. 2682), C–44 Basin Storage
Reservoir of the Comprehensive Everglades
†
HR 2864 EAS
Restoration Plan, at a total cost of
$147,800,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $73,900,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $73,900,000.
(ii) The uncompleted portions of the
project authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90–
483; 82 Stat. 740), Martin County, Florida,
modifications to Central and South Florida
Project, as contained in Senate Document
101, 90th Congress, 2d Session, at a total
cost of $15,471,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $8,073,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $7,398,000.
(iii) The uncompleted portions of the
project authorized by section 203 of the
Flood Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90–
483; 
Stat. 
740), 
East 
Coast
Backpumping, St. Lucie–Martin County,
Spillway Structure S–311 of the Central
and South Florida Project, as contained in
House Document 369, 90th Congress, 2d
Session, at a total cost of $77,118,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $55,124,000
†
HR 2864 EAS
and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$21,994,000.
(13) MIAMI
HARBOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA.—The
project for navigation, Miami Harbor, Miami, Flor-
ida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated April 25,
2005, at a total cost of $125,270,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $75,140,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $50,130,000.
(14) PICAYUNE STRAND, FLORIDA.—The project
for ecosystem restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated September 15,
2005, at a total cost of $362,260,000 with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $181,130,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $181,130,000.
(15) EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS.—
The project for ecosystem restoration and recreation,
East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a
total cost of $201,600,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $130,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $71,000,000.
(16) 
PEORIA
RIVERFRONT, 
ILLINOIS.—The
project for ecosystem restoration, Peoria Riverfront,
Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated July
28, 2003, at a total cost of $17,760,000, with an esti-
†
HR 2864 EAS
mated Federal cost of $11,540,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $6,220,000.
(17) DES MOINES AND RACCOON RIVERS, DES
MOINES, IOWA.—The project for flood damage reduc-
tion, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Des Moines,
Iowa: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated March
28, 2006, at a total cost of $10,500,000, with an esti-
mated Federal cost of $6,800,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $3,700,000.
(18) BAYOU
SORREL
LOCK, LOUISIANA.—The
project for navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana:
Report of the Chief of Engineers dated January 3,
2005, at a total cost of $9,500,000. The costs of con-
struction 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.
(19) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOU-
ISIANA.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane
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 $841,100,000 with an
†
HR 2864 EAS
estimated Federal cost of $546,300,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $294,800,000.
(B) 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 in-
land waterway transportation shall be a Federal
responsibility, in accordance with section 102 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(33 U.S.C. 2212; Public Law 99–662).
(20) POPLAR ISLAND EXPANSION, MARYLAND.—
The project for the beneficial use of dredged material
at Poplar Island, Maryland, authorized by section
537 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
(110 Stat. 3776), and modified by section 318 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat.
2678), is further modified to authorize the Secretary
to construct the project in accordance with the Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated March 31, 2006, at a
total cost of $256,100,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $192,100,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $64,000,000.
(21) SMITH ISLAND, MARYLAND.—The project for
ecosystem restoration, Smith Island, Maryland: Re-
†
HR 2864 EAS
port of the Chief of Engineers dated October 29, 2001,
at a total cost of $14,500,000, with an estimated Fed-
eral cost of $9,425,000 and an estimated non-Federal
cost of $5,075,000.
(22) SWOPE
PARK
INDUSTRIAL
AREA, 
MIS-
SOURI.—The project for flood damage reduction,
Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated December 30, 2003, at a
total cost of $16,900,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $10,990,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $5,910,000.
(23) MANASQUAN
TO
BARNEGAT
INLETS, NEW
JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and storm dam-
age reduction, Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets, New
Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Decem-
ber 30, 2003, at a total cost of $70,340,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $45,720,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $24,620,000, and at an es-
timated total cost of $117,100,000 for periodic beach
nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with
an estimated Federal cost of $58,550,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $58,550,000.
(24) RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, UNION
BEACH, NEW JERSEY.—The project for hurricane and
storm damage reduction, Raritan Bay and Sandy
†
HR 2864 EAS
Hook Bay, Union Beach, New Jersey: Report of the
Chief of Engineers dated January 4, 2006, at a total
cost of $112,640,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $73,220,600 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$39,420,000, and at an estimated total cost of
$6,400,000 for periodic nourishment over the 50-year
life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost of
$2,300,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,100,000.
(25) SOUTH RIVER, NEW JERSEY.—The project
for hurricane and storm damage reduction and eco-
system restoration, South River, New Jersey: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated July 22, 2003, at a
total cost of $120,810,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $78,530,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $42,280,000.
(26) SOUTHWEST VALLEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW
MEXICO.—The project for flood damage reduction,
Southwest Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico: Report
of the Chief of Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at
a total cost of $24,000,000, with an estimated Federal
cost of $15,600,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $8,400,000.
(27) MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK.—The project
for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Montauk
†
HR 2864 EAS
Point, New York: Report of the Chief of Engineers
dated March 31, 2006, at a total cost of $14,070,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $7,035,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $7,035,000.
(28) BLOOMSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA.—The project
for flood damage reduction, Bloomsburg, Pennsyl-
vania: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Janu-
ary 25, 2006, at a total cost of $43,300,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $28,150,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $15,150,000.
(29) CORPUS CHRISTI SHIP CHANNEL, CORPUS
CHRISTI, TEXAS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for naviga-
tion and ecosystem restoration, Corpus Christi
Ship Channel, Texas, Channel Improvement
Project: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated
June 2, 2003, at a total cost of $188,110,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $87,810,000
and 
an 
estimated 
non-Federal 
cost 
of
$100,300,000.
(B) NAVIGATIONAL
SERVITUDE.—In car-
rying out the project under subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall enforce navigational servitude
in the Corpus Christi Ship Channel, including,
at the sole expense of the owner of the facility,
†
HR 2864 EAS
the removal or relocation of any facility obstruct-
ing the project.
(30) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, BRAZOS
RIVER
TO
PORT
O’CONNOR, MATAGORDA
BAY
RE-
ROUTE, TEXAS.—The project for navigation, Gulf In-
tracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O’Connor,
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 appropriated from
the general fund of the Treasury and 
1⁄2 from
amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund.
(31) GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, HIGH IS-
LAND
TO
BRAZOS
RIVER, TEXAS.—The project for
navigation, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Sabine
River to Corpus Christi, Texas: Report of the Chief of
Engineers 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.
(32) RIVERSIDE OXBOW, FORT WORTH, TEXAS.—
The project for ecosystem restoration, Riverside
†
HR 2864 EAS
Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas: Report of the Chief of En-
gineers dated May 29, 2003, at a total cost of
$27,330,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,320,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$16,010,000.
(33) DEEP CREEK, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA.—The
project for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge
Replacement, Deep Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Re-
port of the Chief of Engineers dated March 3, 2003,
at a total cost of $37,200,000.
(34) 
CHEHALIS
RIVER, 
CENTRALIA, 
WASH-
INGTON.—The project for flood damage reduction,
Centralia, Washington, authorized by section 401(a)
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986
(Public Law 99–662; 100 Stat. 4126)—
(A) is modified to be carried out at a total
cost of $121,100,000, with a Federal cost of
$73,220,000, 
and 
a 
non-Federal 
cost 
of
$47,880,000; and
(B) shall be carried out by the Secretary
substantially in accordance with the plans, and
subject to the conditions, recommended in the
final report of the Chief of Engineers dated Sep-
tember 27, 2004.
†
HR 2864 EAS
(b) PROJECTS SUBJECT TO FINAL REPORT.—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, recommended in a final
report of the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the
Chief is completed not later than December 31, 2006:
(1) WOOD RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM, ILLINOIS.—The
project for flood damage reduction, Wood River, Illi-
nois, authorized by the Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat.
1215, chapter 795), is modified to authorize construc-
tion of the project at a total cost of $16,730,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $10,900,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $5,830,000.
(2) LICKING
RIVER, CYNTHIANA, KENTUCKY.—
The project for flood damage reduction, Licking
River, Cynthiana, Kentucky, at a total cost of
$17,800,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$11,570,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,230,000.
(3) PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.—The project
for navigation, Port of Iberia, Louisiana, at a total
cost of $204,600,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $129,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$74,900,000, except that the Secretary, in consulta-
†
HR 2864 EAS
tion with Vermillion and Iberia Parishes, Louisiana,
is directed to use available dredged material and rock
placement on the south bank of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway and the west bank of the Freshwater Bayou
Channel to provide incidental storm surge protection.
(4) HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LIBERTY STATE
PARK, NEW JERSEY.—The project for ecosystem res-
toration, Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Liberty State
Park, New Jersey, at a total cost of $33,050,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $21,480,000 and an esti-
mated non-Federal cost of $11,570,000.
(5) JAMAICA
BAY, MARINE
PARK
AND
PLUMB
BEACH, QUEENS
AND
BROOKLYN, NEW
YORK.—The
project for ecosystem restoration, Jamaica Bay,
Queens and Brooklyn, New York, at a total estimated
cost of $204,159,000, with an estimated Federal cost
of $132,703,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$71,456,000.
(6) HOCKING
RIVER
BASIN, MONDAY
CREEK,
OHIO.—The project for ecosystem restoration, Hocking
River Basin, Monday Creek, Ohio, at a total cost of
$18,730,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$12,170,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$6,560,000.
†
HR 2864 EAS
(7) PAWLEY’S ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA.—The
project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
Pawley’s Island, South Carolina, at a total cost of
$8,980,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$4,040,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$4,940,000, 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
$7,632,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$13,568,000.
(8) CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, VIR-
GINIA.—The project for navigation, Craney Island
Eastward Expansion, Virginia, at a total cost of
$671,340,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$26,220,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of
$645,120,000.
SEC. 1002. ENHANCED NAVIGATION CAPACITY IMPROVE-
MENTS AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN
FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND IL-
LINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM.
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) PLAN.—The term ‘‘Plan’’ means the project
for navigation and ecosystem improvements for the
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Sys-
†
HR 2864 EAS
tem: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December
15, 2004.
(2) UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WA-
TERWAY
SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois Waterway System’’ means the
projects for navigation and ecosystem restoration au-
thorized by Congress for—
(A) the segment of the Mississippi River
from the confluence with the Ohio River, River
Mile 0.0, to Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock in
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River Mile
854.0; and
(B) the Illinois Waterway from its con-
fluence with the Mississippi River at Grafton, Il-
linois, River Mile 0.0, to T.J. O’Brien Lock in
Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAVIGA-
TION IMPROVEMENTS.—
(1) SMALL SCALE AND NONSTRUCTURAL MEAS-
URES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, in
general conformance with the Plan—
(i) construct mooring facilities at
Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24, and LaGrange
Lock;
†
HR 2864 EAS
(ii) provide switchboats at Locks 20
through 25; and
(iii) conduct development and testing
of an appointment scheduling system.
(B) 
AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIA-
TIONS.—The total cost of the projects authorized
under this paragraph shall be $246,000,000. The
costs of construction of the projects shall be paid
1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the general
fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from amounts ap-
propriated from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund. Such sums shall remain available until
expended.
(2) NEW LOCKS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, in
general conformance with the Plan, construct
new 1,200-foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and
25 on the Upper Mississippi River and at La-
Grange Lock and Peoria Lock on the Illinois
Waterway.
(B) MITIGATION.—The Secretary shall con-
duct mitigation for the new locks and small scale
and nonstructural measures authorized under
paragraphs (1) and (2).
†
HR 2864 EAS
(C) CONCURRENCE.—The mitigation re-
quired under subparagraph (B) for the projects
authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2), in-
cluding any acquisition of lands or interests in
lands, shall be undertaken or acquired concur-
rently with lands and interests for the projects
authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2), and
physical construction required for the purposes of
mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with
the physical construction of such projects.
(D) 
AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIA-
TIONS.—The total cost of the projects authorized
under this paragraph shall be $1,870,000,000.
The costs of construction on the projects shall be
paid 1⁄2 from amounts appropriated from the
general fund of the Treasury and 1⁄2 from
amounts appropriated from the Inland Water-
ways Trust Fund. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
(c) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZATION.—
(1) OPERATION.—To ensure the environmental
sustainability of the existing Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois Waterway System, the Secretary shall
modify, consistent with requirements to avoid adverse
effects on navigation, the operation of the Upper Mis-
†
HR 2864 EAS
sissippi River and Illinois Waterway System to ad-
dress the cumulative environmental impacts of oper-
ation of the system and improve the ecological integ-
rity of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois
River.
(2) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—The Secretary shall
carry out, consistent with requirements to avoid
adverse effects on navigation, ecosystem restora-
tion projects to attain and maintain the sustain-
ability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi
River and Illinois River in accordance with the
general framework outlined in the Plan.
(B) PROJECTS INCLUDED.—Ecosystem res-
toration projects may include, but are not lim-
ited to—
(i) island building;
(ii) construction of fish passages;
(iii) floodplain restoration;
(iv) water level management (includ-
ing water drawdown);
(v) backwater restoration;
(vi) side channel restoration;
(vii) wing dam and dike restoration
and modification;
†
HR 2864 EAS
(viii) island and shoreline protection;
(ix) topographical diversity;
(x) dam point control;
(xi) use of dredged material for envi-
ronmental purposes;
(xii) tributary confluence restoration;
(xiii) spillway, dam, and levee modi-
fication to benefit the environment;
(xiv) land easement authority; and
(xv) land acquisition.
(C) COST SHARING.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided
in clauses (ii) and (iii), the Federal share
of the cost of carrying out an ecosystem res-
toration project under this paragraph shall
be 65 percent.
(ii) EXCEPTION
FOR
CERTAIN
RES-
TORATION
PROJECTS.—In the case of a
project under this subparagraph for eco-
system restoration, the Federal share of the
cost of carrying out the project shall be 100
percent if the project—
(I) is located below the ordinary
high water mark or in a connected
backwater;
†
HR 2864 EAS
(II) modifies the operation or
structures for navigation; or
(III) is located on federally owned
land.
(iii) SAVINGS
CLAUSE.—Nothing in
this paragraph affects the applicability of
section 906(e) of the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283).
(iv) 
NONGOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZA-
TIONS.—Notwithstanding section 221(b) of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962d–5(b)), for any project carried out
under this section, a non-Federal sponsor
may include a nonprofit entity, with the
consent of the affected local government.
(D) LAND
ACQUISITION.—The Secretary
may acquire land or an interest in land for an
ecosystem restoration project from a willing
owner through conveyance of—
(i) fee title to the land; or
(ii) a flood plain conservation ease-
ment.
(3) 
ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION
PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN.—
†
HR 2864 EAS
(A) RESTORATION
DESIGN.—Before initi-
ating the construction of any individual eco-
system restoration project, the Secretary shall—
(i) establish ecosystem restoration goals
and identify specific performance measures
designed to demonstrate ecosystem restora-
tion;
(ii) establish the without-project condi-
tion or baseline for each performance indi-
cator; and
(iii) for each separable element of the
ecosystem restoration, identify specific tar-
get goals for each performance indicator.
(B) 
OUTCOMES.—Performance 
measures
identified under subparagraph (A)(i) should
comprise specific measurable environmental out-
comes, such as changes in water quality, hydrol-
ogy, or the well-being of indicator species the
population and distribution of which are rep-
resentative of the abundance and diversity of eco-
system-dependent aquatic and terrestrial species.
(C) RESTORATION DESIGN.—Restoration de-
sign carried out as part of ecosystem restoration
shall include a monitoring plan for the perform-
†
HR 2864 EAS
ance measures identified under subparagraph
(A)(i), including—
(i) a timeline to achieve the identified
target goals; and
(ii) a timeline for the demonstration of
project completion.
(4) SPECIFIC PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection
$1,650,000,000, 
of 
which 
not 
more 
than
$226,000,000 shall be available for projects de-
scribed in paragraph (2)(B)(ii) and not more
than $43,000,000 shall be available for projects
described in paragraph (2)(B)(x). Such sums
shall remain available until expended.
(B) LIMITATION ON AVAILABLE FUNDS.—Of
the amounts made available under subparagraph
(A), not more than $35,000,000 for each fiscal
year shall be available for land acquisition
under paragraph (2)(D).
(C) INDIVIDUAL
PROJECT
LIMIT.—Other
than for projects described in clauses (ii) and (x)
of paragraph (2)(B), the total cost of any single
project carried out under this subsection shall
not exceed $25,000,000.
†
HR 2864 EAS
(5) IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than June 30,
2008, and every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives an implementation
report that—
(i) includes baselines, milestones, goals,
and priorities for ecosystem restoration
projects; and
(ii) measures the progress in meeting
the goals.
(B) ADVISORY PANEL.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall
appoint and convene an advisory panel to
provide independent guidance in the devel-
opment of each implementation report
under subparagraph (A).
(ii) PANEL MEMBERS.—Panel members
shall include—
(I) 1 representative of each of the
State resource agencies (or a designee
of the Governor of the State) from each
†
HR 2864 EAS
of the States of Illinois, Iowa, Min-
nesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin;
(II) 1 representative of the De-
partment of Agriculture;
(III) 1 representative of the De-
partment of Transportation;
(IV) 
representative 
of 
the
United States Geological Survey;
(V) 1 representative of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service;
(VI) 1 representative of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency;
(VII) 1 representative of affected
landowners;
(VIII) 2 representatives of con-
servation and environmental advocacy
groups; and
(IX) 2 representatives of agri-
culture and industry advocacy groups.
(iii) CHAIRPERSON.—The Secretary
shall serve as chairperson of the advisory
panel.
(iv) NONAPPLICABILITY OF FACA.—The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.) shall not apply to the Advisory Panel
†
HR 2864 EAS
or any working group established by the
Advisory Panel.
(6) RANKING SYSTEM.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in con-
sultation with the Advisory Panel, shall develop
a system to rank proposed projects.
(B) PRIORITY.—The ranking system shall
give greater weight to projects that restore nat-
ural river processes, including those projects list-
ed in paragraph (2)(B).
(d) COMPARABLE PROGRESS.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—As the Secretary conducts
pre-engineering, design, and construction for projects
authorized under this section, the Secretary shall—
(A) select appropriate milestones; and
(B) determine, at the time of such selection,
whether the projects are being carried out at
comparable rates.
(2) NO COMPARABLE RATE.—If the Secretary de-
termines under paragraph (1)(B) that projects au-
thorized under this subsection are not moving toward
completion at a comparable rate, annual funding re-
quests for the projects will be adjusted to ensure that
the projects move toward completion at a comparable
rate in the future.
†
HR 2864 EAS
SEC. 1003. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RES-
TORATION, LOUISIANA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may carry out a
program for ecosystem restoration, Louisiana Coastal Area,
Louisiana, substantially in accordance with the report of
the Chief of Engineers, dated January 31, 2005.
(b) PRIORITIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority
to—
(A) any portion of the program identified
in the report described in subsection (a) as a
critical restoration feature;
(B) any Mississippi River diversion project
that—
(i) protects a major population area of
the Pontchartain, Pearl, Breton Sound,
Barataria, or Terrebonne Basin; and
(ii) produces an environmental benefit
to the coastal area of the State of Lou-
isiana; and
(C) any barrier island, or barrier shoreline,
project that—
(i) is carried out in conjunction with
a Mississippi River diversion project; and
(ii) protects a major population area.
†
HR 2864 EAS
(c) MODIFICATIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program
under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to
make modifications as necessary to the 5 near-term
critical ecosystem restoration features identified in
the report referred to in subsection (a), due to the im-
pact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the project
areas.
(2) INTEGRATION.—The Secretary shall ensure
that the modifications under paragraph (1) are fully
integrated with the analysis and design of comprehen-
sive hurricane protection authorized by title I of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act,
2006 (Public Law 109–103; 119 Stat. 2247).
(3) CONSTRUCTION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is author-
ized to construct the projects modified under this
subsection.
(B) REPORTS.—
(i) IN
GENERAL.—Before beginning
construction of the projects, the Secretary
shall submit a report documenting any
modifications to the 5 near-term projects,
including cost changes, to the Louisiana
Water Resources Council established by sub-
†
HR 2864 EAS
section (n)(1) (referred to in this section as
the ‘‘Council’’) for approval.
(ii) SUBMISSION
TO
CONGRESS.—On
approval of a report under clause (i), the
Council shall submit the report to the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.
(4) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER PROVISIONS.—Sec-
tion 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall not apply to the 5 near-
term projects authorized by this section.
(d) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program
under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to
conduct a demonstration program within the applica-
ble project area to evaluate new technologies and the
applicability of the technologies to the program.
(2) COST
LIMITATION.—The cost of an indi-
vidual project under this subsection shall be not more
than $25,000,000.
(e) BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the program
under subsection (a), the Secretary is authorized to
†
HR 2864 EAS
use such sums as are necessary to conduct a program
for the beneficial use of dredged material.
(2) CONSIDERATION.—In carrying out the pro-
gram under subsection (a), the Secretary shall con-
sider the beneficial use of sediment from the Illinois
River System for wetlands restoration in wetlands-de-
pleted watersheds.
(f) REPORTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than December 31,
2008, the Secretary shall submit to Congress feasi-
bility reports on the features included in table 3 of the
report referred to in subsection (a).
(2) PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN REPORTS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall sub-
mit the reports described in paragraph (1) to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure of the House of Representa-
tives.
(B) CONSTRUCTION.—The Secretary shall
be authorized to construct the projects identified
in the reports at the time the Committees re-
ferred to in subparagraph (A) each adopt a reso-
lution approving the project.
†
HR 2864 EAS
(g) NONGOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS.—A non-
governmental organization shall be eligible to contribute all
or a portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of a project
under this section.
(h) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in coordina-
tion with the Governor of the State of Louisiana,
shall—
(A) develop a plan for protecting, pre-
serving, and restoring the coastal Louisiana eco-
system;
(B) not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years there-
after, submit to Congress the plan, or an update
of the plan; and
(C) ensure that the plan is fully integrated
with the analysis and design of comprehensive
hurricane protection authorized by title I of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–103; 119 Stat.
2247).
(2) INCLUSIONS.—The comprehensive plan shall
include a description of—
(A) the framework of a long-term program
that provides for the comprehensive protection,
†
HR 2864 EAS
conservation, and restoration of the wetlands, es-
tuaries (including the Barataria-Terrebonne es-
tuary), barrier islands, shorelines, and related
land and features of the coastal Louisiana eco-
system, including protection of a critical re-
source, habitat, or infrastructure from the effects
of a coastal storm, a hurricane, erosion, or sub-
sidence;
(B) the means by which a new technology,
or an improved technique, can be integrated into
the program under subsection (a);
(C) the role of other Federal agencies and
programs in carrying out the program under
subsection (a); and
(D) specific, measurable ecological success
criteria by which success of the comprehensive
plan shall be measured.
(3) CONSIDERATION.—In developing the com-
prehensive plan, the Secretary shall consider the ad-
visability of integrating into the program under sub-
section (a)—
(A) a related Federal or State project car-
ried out on the date on which the plan is devel-
oped;